Enhancing in Lightroom

I have been asked to produce an image which will be used on a 3 x 1 metre poster so decided to try the new upscaling feature in Lightroom. Easy-peasy, when you have done your Lightroom processing right click on the image and select Enhance and then Super Resolution, it will then generate a new .dng file but beware, mine went from a 49.9 MB to a whopping 541.4 MB file! I should say though that you would normally only use this if the original had been heavily cropped whereas I have left the cropping to the client so it will fit their template.

To keep file size down, why not rezz it up in Photoshop?

It’s probably me but whenever I try Photoshop’s special effects like sharpening the results don’t look good when I zoom in on the details, I get better more natural looking results from Lightroom probably because in LR I can see the changes as they happen and not in a silly tiny preview screen. PS feels to me like an ancient piece of software which has only had features added since although it does have its uses sometimes.

The file size I mentioned is for the whole uncropped image whereas Enhance is normally used for heavy crops so the file size wouldn’t be abnormally large.

Surety the printing company will sort out any resizing issue? That's unless you're printing the posters yourself.

Suggest you Google Viewing Distance.

The little preview window in PS is defaulted to a 100% view of a segment of the image. This is the best view to check for artefacts such as halos that you want to avoid. Pressing and releasing the mouse in that little window will show you a before/after view. Toggling the "preview" tickbox enables you to check the whole image in a similar way.

You are probably right, anyhow I sent both the original and enhanced files so they can pick which they want. TBH it was just an excuse to try the new feature.

If you look at the advert posters on the London Underground out of a carriage window, the 'pixels' are truly enormous, Of course they're not meant to be viewed that close. So long as the image looks fine at a normal viewing distance it should be fine for the purpose.

Jak, there is a reason pros commissioned for poster-sized ads use 100mp+ Hasselblads or Phase One bodies but this lesser mortal must get by with what he has.

All the new bells and whistles I don't have with my ancient version! That is one that would actually be useful. I've often been sent images by authors who tell me their 600x800 pixel image looks fine on their screen, why am I being so fussy... They then get annoyed when I return the page proofs with an image 2" by 2 2/3". 'Why did you print my photo so small...?'