My slow but steady transition to a digital workflow continues. I was reading the Exceptional Work All Round thread that hinted at Alamy’s posting requirements about upsizing to a minimum file size. I’m curious about this process, not how it is done, but why.
I’d always assumed that upsizing involved interpolation and, no matter how good the process is, it involves compromises that will degrade the final result. I’d also assumed that it is not possible to add detail that was not there originally. Clearly though, the techniques the Alamy site suggests for upsizing produce a bigger file, and in turn I assume the only reason this is required is to allow a bigger image for publication, i.e. bigger actually is better.
So the first question is whether my assumed reason for Alamy’s requirement to upsize is actually correct. Following on then, how far can this be extended – if a 7D for example can produce good A3 prints, can those techniques be used to produce an equally good A2 print, even if the original file size suggests that would not be the case?
Although I have no interest in uploading any of my work to Alamy I do have a practical reason for asking. I am an occasional contributor to a local magazine and the editor’s normal requirement is for a 2000 by 3000 pixel image. The 7D can do this of course, but when I have provided a cropped image then I am not able to meet his request.
I had assumed the response to the problem of "not enough pixels" was to contemplate an upgrade but upsizing, if done properly, appears to offer an alternative. Is this the case?
Mind you, much as I enjoy the 7D there’s an A700 down the road that keeps calling out “feel me, touch me, BUY ME!” and I’m not sure whether I can resist. Still, some guidance on upsizing’s limitations would help me make a rational as opposed to impulsive decision.