Your Print Quality - Sale Issue? Help Is Here

Here, here!

There are tons of artists with wonderful work...but blurry shots that show outside edges of the painting, frames...lopsided.

If I were looking for art to bu...any one of those things would make me keep looking instead of stopping to buy.

To tell the truth, if I were looking for art to buy and saw problems like those, I'd definitely keep looking, but on a different site. By the same token, any buyer whose transaction is delayed or cancelled because the site discovered at the last minute that the image wasn't suitable for printing, isn't going to be a happy bunny at all.

I've argued before that all uploads should be checked by FAA for printability before being offered for sale (for the sake of the site's professional reputation, if nothing else), but the response has always been that they don't have the resources - maybe it's time for a rethink in that department?

I agree and fully support Beth's suggestions. I would consider it a slap in my face should I be contacted to upload a replacement. I am constantly fine tuning my gallery and deleting poor quality (and I have some) photos. Fortunately, I have yet to be asked to upload a better quality photograph for any of my sales. We all make mistakes, but best we catch and fix them before they sell. As artist's we have to remember we are editor's as well.

A La Bump

Thanks Beth i'll have to go look again at mine. Haven't been notified yet of needing a new upload but doesn't hurt to check.

I have some up that are AWFUL but they are not for sale :)

I'm currently in the process of removing options to print and fixing the images. This is my first time on a POD site and I didn't realize that some of my images were as blurry as they were until they were put up here. It would have been helpful for FAA to inform me at the uploading stage. I had lost my photoshop when my computer crashed a while back so I was limited on what I could do to my images. Installing the new photoshop today, in fact. A lot of work ahead for me, but I'll fix it. Some day, I'll be able to get back to painting. Sheesh! The learning curve is killing me! :-)

Hello Beth.........the image quality seems to drop quite a bit when I upload them to this site for some reason.......the same photos on my Deviantart site look so much clearer and cleaner.

Beth and Sean have said that images should be sharp, not blury , for FAA to print them.
While this is generaly true, it is presumtious.
Who decides?

I have developed a ( unique) soft focus technique, of printing , for some of my photographs,
and feel that is instrumental in the "appeal" of these images.

I have received many compliments on the technique, and would NOT be happy, or in agreement,
with being told they are not print worthy. I have sold some privately.

(see my "High Country","A lonely river","Rocks in Lake", and " Winter Forest"). ect.

This is how I wish to sell them, and (presumably) how customers wish to buy..

Rein that is a pretty obvious statement really. IF you r images are meant to have soft focus then that will show and is not what we are talking about.
For instance if someone puts up a photo of a canvas painting then you should see the paint and the canvas texture. Quite often the image is not sharp or clear enough to see that.

A photo that is meant to be of of focus or slightly blurred is not what we are talking about here

Beth,
Who decides? what are (their) criteria ( and qualifications)

Beth,
I notice that most of my pics can't be blown up to large sizes. Is that an indication that my pictures are blurry? Also, my file sizes tend to be over 2mg, and I've been assuming the larger the file, the better the print. Is that accurate?

Beth, you and Sean declared "blury prints will not be printed"

In the corporate world, such " blanket" statements are not subject to judgement.

we can only HOPE that FAA staff has the latitude.
.

No that is not always accurate. You can have a really bad quality large image.

If the full res doesnt work it normally means the image is small pixel-wise. Could be a good quality image though.

Rein the fact that they are the printers and have been in the business for years. Anyone can see normally by looking at a picture.

Ok here you are, let's try an example....



Take a look at this picture (which is amazingly good ;) LOL)

It is ok to look at normal size on the page and looks like it could be alright as a prints, sort of although you can tell the colouring is off... should be white, so that is a no-no for printing. It would not give an accurate print really but, colour is choice HOWEVER, if you click the full preview you can see clearly that it is not ok for printing, besides the bad colouring......

If your images look like that then they are not printable. This is completely different from this



Where the blurring and softness is meant.

Rein,

Don't worry - we definitely know the difference between an image that is intentionally blurry and one that is blurry due to a photography problem (i.e. out of focus, no tripod, etc.)

Sean

Rein,
I can also attest that FAA will work with you to get a decent print.
But the last thing you want is to have to pull things out and reshoot them in a rush, to get a good image over to them.
I would like to know that once something is in my gallery, I never have to worry about it again, ever. Alas, two years and I'm still working on it, lol.

I am more comfortable , hearing this from Sean.

Yes I knew you would be :)

Alas, two years and I'm still working on it, lol.

I hear you, Patricia. Same here.


Jani F. Some day, I'll be able to get back to painting.

Amen!

If only I could afford a 50 megapixal Camera!

The images I took that are print ready and have been sold with no fuss, were on a 5mp camera. I take mine outside in late afternoon

Just in case nobody has seen this I am bumping it up again.

Please check your full res previews, or even better, check your images at 100% on your computer. If any marks, bnlurriness, sharp spots, pixellation is there.. if you cannot see the canvas under a canvas painting, or the texture of the paint strokes, then it probably is not print ready.

It is the artists responsibility to make sure their own images are print ready.

I can only second what Beth says...bump!

Question; When you hit the full res preview button at what DPI or PPI are you previewing the image on the computer screen*

The reason I ask is that some images that might show some issues at 72 or 100 PPI on a high res view will print wonderfully at prints done at 150 or 200 DPI. I know a couple of my images will not print at 40"x30" but look absolutely spectacular at 20"x30". I have some others that may show artifacts from both the camera and editing at "full res" but will print wonderfully at half that.

I look at each image before I upload and do my own tests as to how large they will print well. Of course the problem is clients will base judgement on how clear the image is based on the green box when that may or may not be true at the sizes offered for sale. That's OK as most of my images are fine even high res but hand held macros and snake shots generally will not work at a full res printing.

Am I OK with that thought process......

JC

*Question mark key doesn't work.

Example uploaded today.

As far as I know, and I am sure Sean will put me right during the week, you see whatever you uploaded. You see your own image at whatever you uploaded it at.

However when I look at yours it looks awfully sharpened.

Thanks for the reminder Beth,
I looked at a bunch of mine and they look crappy at 100% here but look just fine on my PC and laptop. I usually check mine at a minimum of 200% before I upload them. A few may have gotten through but 8 out of 10 so far look like junk. Funny thing is a couple of them have sold with no issues.
Back to the drawing board I guess.

JC, the issues will only be visible with your own working space...when you look at your image with 33% or 66% it might look a bit pixellated. But if you look at it at 100% it should be absolutely clear and sharp. Please consider, that looking at a (for example) 6000 x 4500 pixel file shows you also only a small portion of the image on your own screen...but this portion should be absolutely sharp. There is no need for you to decide in which DPI or PPI you submit your images...what counts is the size in pixels.

Hello Beth! Is there a place here where we could post works for honest critiques and comments for improvement purposes? That would help artists like me who sometimes are not sure if they are ok to be published...

Hello Beth! Is there a place here where we could post works for honest critiques and comments for improvement purposes? That would help artists like me who sometimes are not sure if they are ok to be published...

There are a couple of groups but, I also run anonymous critique threads, here in the main discussions, where people have to be honest about work they do not know the artist of under guidelines.

Example Critique Thread 31 - Robert Matson Rob only came forward after his work had been critiqued, then could answer the critics himself.

It gives the artist a good critique and means people can be honest and not swayed by whose work they are viewing.

Thanks Beth And Karin...

And sort of Karin. I get what you are saying. When looking at a 6000x4500 pixel image at 100% it had better be tack sharp IF you are going print it at 60x45 inches. If however you are printing a greeting card then it doesn't matter how it looks at 100% Now there are a lot of sizes inbetween a greeting card and a 60x45. At some point in that range the image will lose its clarity if it is not tack sharp at 100% The bothrops image above being my example. As Beth mentioned it is a little over processed and it shows at 100%. It doesn't show at all on a 15x10 print. (not to the nakid eye anyway.) So while it will not print well at a 30x15 print size should we take down images that are not meant to be printed at the full res 100dpi size.

I am not sure it shows at whatever we uploaded it as because computers only know pixels. The green box will show a specific number of pixels per inch. My editing software's default "size" is based on 72 DPI or PPI but the green box would not know if I have it set at 72DPI-PPI or at 300DPI-PPI. Or maybe it does....... My guess is that it only knows pixels and if that is true is the green box showing me 72ppi or 100ppi. Since the minimum print is 100DPI the green box will show exactly what you will get if you print it that large but if it is 72 then it will be slightly less clear than a 100DPI printing.

Just curious and it really only effects some of my images but being a math major I have to know such things because it is in my nature.....

JC

JC, as I already mentioned in the other thread...there's a difference between what the system allows to price out and what FAA really prints. FAA refuses every print below 100 dpi. Please don't mistake this with ppi :-)

I gotcha on that one Karin but that is not what I am getting at here. Where as you cannot print below 100DPI you can certainly print above 100DPI up to whatever the printer is capable of. Thus a 3000x2000 picture will print at 30x20 but that does not mean it will print well. The example above will not print well at 30x20 which would be a 100 DPI print. It does print well at 15x10 as the "full res" issues are just not visible at that smaller size.

(DPI is generally a print term meaning dots per inch and PPI is usually a computer term meaning pixels per inch for others that may not know.)

DPI and PPI explained.
Here is a link that explains it well.

http://www.andrewdaceyphotography.com/articles/dpi/

:-)))

o.k. you got it. It's in your own responsibility to decide (within the pixel measurement) what sizes you price it out. Keep always the rule of "not under 100 dpi" in your head and all will be fine...under the condition your image is absolutely crisp and sharp in that pixel-size.

I think instead of completly deleting the ones that look bad a better idea might be to remove the 100% preview and prices for prints and only offer them as greeting cards. At least I am going to give it a try. :) I'll be offering a lot of greeting cards. lol

Can you remove the preview...... Its not like I see a big market for large Bothrops Asper prints but it might sell as a card.... I would love to see the green box show a preview of the image at the largest size for sale but I have an idea that would be a tech nightmare and hard to do.

JC, the hi-rez preview is showing your art at 100%. If you print at 100 ppi or more, it's an accurate indication. I love the hi-rez preview.

I do as well I really do. There are times when I would not allow the image to be printed at that size though. Where as a 40x30 print might show artifacts a greeting card would not....... On a greeting card sized image the actual image seen on the low res preview would actually be more along the lines of what you would get.

It is really not a complaint on my part at all. Just curious.....

You can remove the preview box by going into Edit on the image and then remove the tick in the High Res Preview box.

I'll be darned..... Not that I will as it really is one of my favorite features.....

Couldnt agree more Beth!

The pics have to be of the best possible quality . Thats the only way customers will get to really appreciate and then buy work

It is a lot of work to go through each image then when you find one that you want to delete it is not an easy thing to do. Wish there was a delete button on the page that we preview you know the one that has the green box.

Ok just finished deleting 99 of my works.

You make me feel guilty Ernie but it's really cool what you have done. I must do mine soon too *sigh*

Don't feel guilty Beth I have given this much thought this year and your post of this matter is what made me decide to do something about it.
In my discussion called Cleaned out my galleries I have clarified my reasoning behind my decision.
Thanks

Beth I hope you don't mind me posting here what I put in my discussion. I think this might help others understand. If not please go ahead and remove it.

What I am getting at is that if you have an image set to print up to the max size you know it will print well at and someone wants to see what it may look like and clicks the green box. It will show them the 100% preview/res of the image not the100% preview of the the max size you set it to print at.

In other words if your image looks bad at the 100% preview/res but you know it will print great at the sizes offered the buyer may pass up yours and move on until they find one that looks great at the 100% preview/res.

Almost every one of the images that I deleted would have looked great printed at a size 2-3 sizes below the max allowed for it. But if I was a buyer and checked the green box for quality and saw that the image wasn't clear I would move on to another image that met my needs.

Hope that makes sense.

Edit- It might have been easier to just put a disclaimer note on all my images stating that the largest size print offered by me is the size that will give you the best quality print that I will allow for this image.

Thanks Ernie :)

Your Welcome Beth. :) Great Discussion.

Beth, everyone has a different eye. What one person sees, another may not. As per comment on Sharpening Noise, not quite sure what that is.
As far as pixels, I dont have a DSLR, so not as crystal clear as they could be. And as far as printability. Several of my shots have been enlarged and framed and they look beautiful. Sharp, colorful and artistically composed.

I just went through this this past week, had a sale, thought my images were great, got notice that it was to blurry to print, and scrambled to resolve it by scanning. They did work with me, but i agree that blurry is relative. I did all the things i was told previous to the sale, 8 megapix (i thought), tripod, no frame, no background, so i felt good about it. i didn't care that there were messy black smudges creeping in from the edges where i had painted black to be hung without a frame. It's my style, i paint messy. They didn't complain about the black marks. They said it was blurry. i uploaded a new image that i had scanned and stitched 4 scans together. They again didn't have anything to say about the black, nor the lines from the stitch, but it was still blurry and that i shouldn't increase the pixels, which i did not do. I must have a lousy couple of scanners because i re-scanned 3 times and couldn't see a difference from what had been rejected for blurriness. i think it is just my painting style, not any texture to show because i don't use a lot of paint and i have a very soft touch.

thank you friends on FAA who helped me resolve it, especially Andee and Angel. I know Angelina Vick offers a service to get something print-ready for just $5. For someone like me who is only self-taught in photoshop or who can't afford that kind of software, that is a screamin deal, because it takes me almost as long to get an image ready as it does to paint it! and it was a headache even without demands of kids or a job (which i do not have)

is there a thread called something like "is your art print ready?" where people can post to solicit advice on whether or not their piece is ready? that would be a good one.

You can always start one Jamie :)

One way to get an idea might be to compare your existing pieces online here, using the Full Res green square, over some area in each painting that has a hard edge, like your signature.

I just compared that area of your beautiful Pothole piece, which exhibts (to my eye), a fairly clear, if not very clear white signature, using the green square.

On another beautiful piece, Dragon Skies, it's a little less clear but, might still be passable.

And then, on your Foggy Light above, the green square over your signature still, to me, looks even less clear than Dragon Skies. But when I put the green square on the central white search light, in the painting, that swatch of white seems fairly clear.

I would estimate you might get better idea by comparing these signature areas in a number of your works, to see if they vary and, if they do vary, then why that would be -- especially if all the paintings being compared were scanned in using the same scanner.

Apparently, if Pothole is a clear signature as it looks to me, or if others also bear a clear signature, then something was going right there?

Ultimately, in your case, if in the end it is just your style of painting, what I would be tempted to do is possibly guarantee the order to the customer, and ask FAA to over-ride the rejection, when this happens for your work, where differences as to what is "blurry" are this narrow. I might include as a proviso in my bio or in the description for the piece something to this effect. I've been tempted to do this for any of my own work, and am still thinking about it, justifying "irregularities" (Edit: ...when they are this small...) as merely part of the artist process -- or "artistic license".

(cont'd) In just studying your "Glow Rose", Jamie, the edges of the petals on the right-hand side of the painting, and lower right side, seem, to me, to be clear, if not very clear, under the green square.

But along the left side, the top, and the hard edge in the lower, dark low-central area, the edges seem blurry to me. But this piece made it through POD okay (as I recall). So maybe I'm seeing things.

Thanks for the info Beth, when I first started with FAA, I had filled my page full of images that were not
up to standards. I had to delete ALL of them and start over. Now I check them as soon as I upload, and when I make my art, I save the files at 300 dpi As they say a lesson earned is a lesson learned.

Hi all! I am new here and if anyone has a moment I would like an opinion on one of my photos. It is titled Double Sunrise. It has a softened look to it but when I look at it under the green box it almost looks to me as noise not the softness I thought. I keep thinking I should maybe delete it but then I just wonder if I am being my own worst critic. Thank you in advance. -Rhonda

I REALLY like the soft look Rhonda.... I do not see any artifacts but maybe a touch of grainyness..... Grainy can actually add to the effect of the image and I do it on purpose at times. I think it looks great here......

Thank you JC, I really appreciate your feedback very much. Viewed your work by the way, you have amazing talent. Have a great night.

Hi beth. Good advice given. I am sure mine are ok.. I have sold a print, (anonymously) which I was thrilled about, and didnt hear any complaints... Mind you I didnt receive anything positive either! LOL... So no news is good news I shall assume :)

Hi Beth, in your opinion should I maybe make this one a smaller size? It looks great zoomed in to 100% on my computer but not as good with the FAA loop. Thanks for any advice you can give me on this one. :)

Rhonda

Quality images in your gallery! I enjoyed viewing them! Only one comment, if I may? The few that I looked at are 1600 x 1200 in size. This would equate to a suitable printing size of 16 x 12, which is probably suitable for most purchases. I did not look at the available purchase sizes, but if someone wanted larger (and you offered a larger size), the quality might be degraded as the printer/computer software has to guess as to what information needs to be there to print.

Point being, since you already have lovely quality, and if you wanted to sell larger prints, I recommend taking a larger initial photograph from the camera. Are you shooting RAW format of JPEG? If JPEG, ensure you have the highest quality available selected, i.e. JPEG-Fine or better.

Well done!

Hi Rhonda,

My two rules for my own work are

Never enlarge (increase pixels)
Always offer 1 - 2 print sizes UNDER the ones they say I can.

As Jeffrey says, if people want to offer larger prints then they should take larger original photos :)

LOVE that bird ;)

Thanks Beth. Maybe since I'm on the fence with this I'll offer as a smaller size since it's cropped some. I have a large megapixel camera which does allow some cropping but I'm just worried i went too far so I'll offer at a smaller size. Thanks again :-)

Jeffrey & Beth thank you both so much for the feedback/critique, that's exactly what I was looking for. I was not aware that I could offer print sizes below what the site automatically tells me I can. That is exactly what I want to figure out how to do so I do not risk quality, I will check the tutorials. I have since started taking larger original photos also. When I took a lot of my photos I was only planning on offering greeting cards locally, who new I would become so enthralled in photography! Thank you also, Jeffrey, for the tip on JPEG settings, I am going to check that now. I really appreciate everyones input, thanks again!

Rhonda, just do not put prices in the larger ones. They then are not offered for prints.

beth: agreed offering them smaller than faa can do...my latest set of files from my graphic designer, recommended them at a 12" square max...and yet faa can go up to 3' squares.....

All the talk about sizable and quality has made me rethink what I'm doing. Would appreciate any feedback as to sizes offered and print quality.

I'm really new but understand most... My first attempt at creating an uploadable pic is of a 30"x16" oil. The suggested size, per FAA's site, is 9000x4800px. But that translates as 22.5"x12"! Will they automatically print at full size? DPI is 400. Photoshop lets me do a lot. Also, it appears that one pic is used for printing and viewing despite the probs of using a 6MB file vs., say, 70KBs. Or do I create & load one file for each use? A friend suggested making my uploaded pics full sized to avoid the DPI spread.

Steve, there is no suggested size unless you are adamant you want it at the same size as your work.

What most people do is take the best photo you can of your work and then offer whatever prints you can get from that photograph at its natural size (not the painting). You are not uploading the painting but just a photograph of that painting. So it is the photograph of the painting being sold.

So take the best possible photo of your work.
Upload one copy only
Choose the sizes you will offer for prints.

The site can accept uploads jpg, png, up to 24mb only and they can be as little as 90 dpi and still print well if a good upload

Beth,

I am learning about printable quality too because I am eagerly looking forward to my first sale. (Yes, I'm an optimist and persistent. We HAVE to be, guys!)

I have a lot of cleaning up AND out to do too in my gallery. I recently learned on another thread that if you view your image in actual pixels on Photoshop you'll know if you're ok. That was GREAT info, not sure if it was you or Sean who gave it. Unfortunately I had uploaded probably 80 before knowing how to do the final screen. When I go back and look at the different resolutions at smaller sizes in the square, and it still looks the same, that its unprintable, correct? Because otherwise it would look different at smaller sizes?

I'd rather not delete them entirely. Some I can fix if I really like them (and if not why on earth did I post them? someone started another GREAT thread called "Would YOU Buy Your Art?" - I think that question alone gives a good rule of thumb!). But the ones that I don't have time for right now should print ok as greeting cards, yes? I've bought many of mine from FAA without screening and they all looked great, I assume because of the size? Can you confirm this? Because then I can leave the fixer uppers on my website as cards until I get to them. Thank you. M.

Yes, many images that will not look good as prints will do well as greeting cards but each one has to be looked at individually as I cannot give a categorical yes for a batch I have not looked at yet. But yes, in the usual instance unless the work is really a bad upload, cards are okay

Sometimes I wonder if it is FAA and not just the artist. A friend of mine recently purchased this photograph from FAA, when she received it, the color was off (really muted), it looked fuzzy and just plain wasn't a good print (art print 11 x 16). She was really disappointed. I also sell my work on ImageKind. She returned the photo to FAA and bought the same photo from ImageKind and it was perfect. How do you explain that?

FYI here is the photo

@Donna- It is likely the other company does color correcting which may include sharpening, lightening, increasing saturation, increasing contrast, etc. I do not know for sure, but FAA likely prints an image as is. So we have to do the work to ensure the piece is print ready which usually requires that we do the sharpening, lightening, etc.

Ditto... I've been experimenting with scans vs. photos and with prints from various printer types. Wide range of diffs! Even a scan bebefits from a little contrast & brightening & photos even more since they tend to be color-warped. All this was why I recently looked into artist proofs, to be able to check before getting a complaint on a first customer. FAA doesn't go there though. If you want to see what you're selling you hafta buy a print. You'll only get 10% off.
If I'm wrong somewhere please feel welcome to educate me! I'm new & have been studying, asking Qs of every body. May have helped a few.

Donna,

Here's a fact that most print-on-demand companies probably won't admit:

We all use the exact same Epson printers to produce our prints. All of us... fineartamerica.com, redbubble.com, imagekind.com, art.com, cafepress.com, etc.

Even your local FedEx Office...

We all use top-of-the-line Epson printers.

If you upload the same image to FAA and ImageKind, then you should end up with the same print quality.

Sean

@Sean- what types of things do you recommend for artists to do to make their work print ready for FAA?

Donna. FAA prints image as is. Only photographer/artist vision can add something special meaningful to this.
The lizard almost invisible for regular viewers and it is your task to make it separated from wood and new born art happens.
Are you sure it is about lizard?
Maybe Someone with imagination more that yours saw a human face to right from lizard and get impression of connection between them.
Nobody knows. Did you see this face and interference?

One thing I haven't seen satisfactorily addressed is sharpening. Do FAA printers sharpen the image for the requested print size?

For best results output sharpening should be done on the finished file as the final step, after it has been cropped sized and re-sampled to the correct output resolution.

Image files here can be printed in a number of sizes and ideally each size requires a different sharpening setting - The smaller the printed image the greater the sharpening required.

This image

is 3888 x 1803 pixels and according to the pricing doover it can be printed up to 40" x 18.5" - that is a resolution of 97.2 ppi. Optimum image resolution is a function of viewing distance - the greater the distance the lower resolution required.

At 8" for a postcard the resolution is 486 ppi

The sharpening required for a 40" wide print is nowhere near that required for an 8" wide postcard.

This starts to get technical so rather than have your eyes glaze over I'll stop now and if anyone is interested in the whys and wherefores I'll write it up and post a link to it.

John

In the light of this discussion about quality of photographs, I wonder if I might get an opinion on my photo of a Snowy Owl, http://fineartamerica.com/featured/snowy-owl-charles-robinson.html I think it is a a good photograph of reasonable good quality, but there is a very prominent blurry clump of grass on the right side. I do not have a very good explanation as to why it is there, except that it is probably because my focal point was the owl.

Is this blurry artifact a problem? Would it be cause for the photograph to be rejected for printing if it were to sell? Should I delete the photograph from my portfolio?

Wow Charles! That is prominent. That may be a problem but not sure if it is. Not a quality problem really, more a focus one. Can you not clone in some new grass or remove it completely? (just an option as that is a great owl!)

I am not sure so am going to ask for you.

Hmmm. I looked also & see that the blur is also in the owl's head & the foreground at left. I suspect you'll hafta ditch that one, bud. Even Photoshop would be pressed to redo those areas cuz the're transparencies in areas, where the BG & FG fade into each other. Good luck.

Charles, that is a branch, not a clump of grass. Any skilled Photoshop user could remove it, but it might take a while. The more serious problems are that the owl suffers from focus and motion blur, and the highlights are blown out.

Oh what a shame.

I am a little confused about this issue, so I have chosen a photo at random from my collection. Is this photo okay or should it be ditch?

I am going to leave Steve and/or Warren to see. They are far better at spotting the little details than I am :)

Thank you all for your critique. I did not pick up on the focus and motion blur on the owl. I thought that I might be able to clone in some of the rocks to cover the blurred "grass," but I am not sure if that would work. I think that I will probably just have to delete it. It appears as if Warren and Steve are experienced in such problems.

Charles, Warren has always given great advice here, along with a few other photographers :) I am so grateful to them all. Looks like we have another one in Steve :)

I am so sorry to hear that about the owl. Such a gorgeous bird.

Donna, your photo seems to have been processed using some sort of tone-mapping or "pseudo-HDR" effect. It's hard to say what could be done without seeing the original. If you want a realistic effect, you might contact Angelina Vick (here on FAA) about reprocessing the original. If you want more of an abstract effect, I would say you need to carry it rather farther.

See this discussion regarding Angelina's services: http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=462070

Donna, I see sharpening halos around the cactii and posterisation on the sky as well as a light blue outline along the mountain top.
This could be a result of your processing, as it is, these would be quite noticeable in a small print.

John

Thank you John and Warren :) I see the same artifacts and they are a problem

I've noticed that the few prints I've seen from my greeting cards are uniformly darkened. This is not the case when the same file is printed with other companies. Anybody else notice this? I have not checked my larger prints.

If I could I would triple the max size of 25mgs to 75mgs. I have all my images much larger than requested. The quality of the print is directly related to the resolution of the image. One thing to keep in mind is, the size of image is also related to final size printed. My 21" x 21" images are approximately 120mgs. I have an epson 7600 printer like the big boys have and I usually adjust value of color by 10% lighter to compensate for the 7 color printer...Gary

Beth, My uploads are always high quality images with high resolution and no visible artifacts. FAA cannot display the quality of many of them.
Many of my larger images are near the 20MB limit. Take this image as a specific example:


Here is the FAA thumbnail:


Here is a thumbnail of the same region that I built:


Here is a reduced size, 500 px segment of the image, corresponding more or less to the area of your thumbnail:

At the resolution I uploaded, that segment would be about 1300 pixels tall, or something in range.

The image uploaded is 28660px by 2777px Ironically, these huge images are the ones MOST likely to have bad thumbnails!
I recently submitted a very large image in a contest where my image thumbnail is TERRIBLE. It has blocky pixels unwarranted as a thumbnail, as my sample images will show, and as you can tell just by clicking on the main image.

People browsing my art are going to be really turned off by these bad thumbnails. Some also look blurry, but at least are not obviously pixellated, like this example!

An additional complaint is that on this same large image, and my other large image, is that the "green box" is frankly, "wrong". It claims to show you a full resolution image of the green box image. It must be shrunk, or it wouldn't entirely fit on my screen, since the green box covers the full height of the image, which is 2777 pixels, and would not fit on my screen without scrolling. In essence, the green box is too big for high resolution images. It shrinks resolution to fit. It should NOT be labeled "full resolution", but rather "high resolution", and it would be nice if it would present a smaller sample box so they could, indeed, see the full resolution detail.

1/3 scale presentation of this image, from my website 8256x800px You can see the thumbnail area on the far right.

A final issue is that I'm not sure you can really print these very high aspect ratio images. For example, the sizes you list that one might order include, on the small scale, at 8.000" x 0.750", I doubt that the customer wants the image, or that your print vendor want to bother printing and shipping it. Likewise, I wonder if, at 108"x10.5", if your vendor has mat board, frames, or even print capability at this size. Could you confirm that larger size prints are actually salable, and printable? I'd love to sell some of these large prints, and would be very disappointed if they could not be sold here.
(I routinely disable sales of any large pano that's less than 5 inches wide. That seems like a reasonable minimum size for such a high aspect ration image. I also disable note cards too, since the customer would have a difficult time guessing what portion of the image he would be getting, or if he got the whole image, it wouldn't really be high enough resolution, ironically.

I understand that this is an exception, and that some programming assumptions are being bypassed. But as someone with very high resolution images, it is VERY important to me that those images be presented well or they will not be sold. I can watermark them, and present them on my own website, and create my thumbnails there, so I DO have alternatives, but if you can't print them, it's a waste of time.

I have let Support know about your post.

Gregory,

The square thumbnail images get created from the "medium" version of your image on FAA.

You upload a high-resolution image... we make a medium version which gets displayed on FAA... and then we make a square thumbnail from that medium version.

The problem that you're experiencing is due to the fact that your medium image is not a typical medium image due to the extreme width of your high-resolution files.

Here is the medium image for the image in question:

http://fineartamerica.com/images-medium/repainted-desert-gregory-scott.jpg

We take the square thumbnail from the middle of that image... and hopefully, you can see where the problem arises from.

I can't do anything about this right now, but I've added it to the list of "things to do" once the holidays are over. We'll have to rewrite our code to create the thumbnails using the high-resolution image if the medium image is too short or too narrow.

Sean

Thanks. Great to know it's on your to do list, sounds like just the kid of issue I thought it might be.
I have other images that have the same problem, I think, but they look "fuzzy" not pixellated.
If you want, I can document one of those (I already have, though).
However, I suspect it is the same problem, on a less massive scale.

How about the issue of can these images actually be printed?

I just received a print 21 x 30 of one of my images. The details are very clear but the colour is very muted. I read on one artist's blog that the printing on the default paper is not good. He recommends that we mention somewhere on our image's description that the Somerset paper provides better saturation and contrast. I personally would be very embarrassed if someone purchased the default paper. I hope the canvas prints are not like this. Has anyone had experience with the canvas prints?

Hi Everyone! Beth, I have just read your post above(I know, I a bit late!) and I wonder if you or anyone else that reads this can take a look at my work and tell me what you (they) think about photo quality/clarity. I try so hard to get the best images of my paintings, I have a 12 MP Nikon, so that shouldn't be the problem. If there's a problem, it's me! I would greatly appreciate any feedback that I get on this, as I am going on approx. 8 or 9 months and no sales, despite a ton of visitors and doing most of the marketing strategies suggested. I'm starting to wonder if my paintings/photos are not what people want.

I think mine look all right....

Hi,

I have uploaded my first image for sale. Is it possible if anyone can check out the quality and printability of it. I will remove it if not up to the standard and help me understand better for furute upload.

Thanks a lot
Surriya

Beth,

I haven't spent enough time on your site to actually run into an awful print of yours, but I too can relate and have some awful prints up. But recently, I took your ongoing advice and I tried my hardest to go through and do what you said to do (look at the quality of the full res previews), and I even downsized some of my good shots, just to be safe. Any really badly shot images that I have were uploaded so long ago, and sadly some are the only copies of paintings that I sold, so I want to hold on to them for keep sake. I put these ones in a "Not For Sale" gallery. There were some that I felt that the quality wasn't as bad, but might only look good enough as a greetings card, so I put those ones in their own gallery "Only Available as Greetings Cards." And in case people don't choose to view my work in my galleries, I also went through my Artwork section and tried to put the lesser quality images towards the last pages. I hope I did okay, because all of this sorting and re-sizing took me hours... and I still want to go back and double check my choices when I get a chance. I have been debating on completely deleting the not for sale ones, if it might strengthen my page, but I have a hard time letting go sometimes.

Anyway, I was wondering if you could answer one more question for when i go back to double check things and for anyone else who is trying to strengthen their pages. Do you know of an average screen brightness level that most people typically have their screens set at? If I am working on an image in Photoshop for example, I like to have my computer screen on high performance and as bright as possible, and I'm wondering if that's the best way to view my images or if in the middle somewhere is better for what we should expect an image to look like when printed out.

Hope that makes sense!

P.S. I don't know why my posts keep double submitting! I did it again and I'm not sure how I'm doing it! I'm using a laptop so maybe I'm bumping a wrong key.

If you are doing that with your monitor then your images when printed may come out much darker than you expect.

You need to calibrate your monitor and we had some really good suggestions here in another thread only a week or two ago. I will try and find the link for you.

Double posts are hitting the submit twice in quick succession or hitting again if it takes over a few seconds for the page to load.


Surriya, I took a look at the tulips. lovely photo but a lot of it is out of focus. However the quality is good. Keep the pricing to prints about 2 sizes under what it says you are allowed. It should be fine at that.

http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=210527 to read Poochies I mean, Murray's great thread on calibrating

Thank you for this post Beth. I am also surprised at how many photographs are blurry or pixelated or have fringing when you look at them full size. hope that your suggestions help!

I also agree that it is not the number of pixels a camera delivers that is important since i see blurry pictures taken with high quality equipment. It is the fact that no tripod was used, or the aperture was not right, or the focus is not at the right place... or something else that relates to tecnique and not equipment.

In a way , I also think it would be best if FAA would go through the submitted art before someone could post it for sale, but then where would be the freedom in that? On the other hand, if a customer browses through so much "not so good" quality art, he wil go somewhere else where he knows that there is only quality work.

Thanks a bundle for explaining, Beth. I'll keep an eye out here for that thread you mentioned. No hurry. I can't really grasp how you take care of everyone here so promplty. Are there like multiple Beths? lol

Just one that rarely sleeps ;)

Thanks so much Beth for your time and sugguestion.

What I was referring to in my previous post was not uploading poor quality files. I was referring to the SAME files printed by imagekind and FAA.. Specifically the cards. The cards printed by FAA were definitely inferior.

Ron

I have experienced the same problem. However, my first sale last week went smoothly and now problems. My husband ordered two prints, one frrom FAA and one from Imagekind and we had that problem (same print).

Hi everyone

I have enjoyed this discussion. I went through most of my photographs and deleted some that appeared to be of marginal quality. I do have a lingering question about what "full resolution" means. Perhaps I am just beating a dead horse, but anyway I have a few photographs which I have uploaded at a reduced size, because I did not feel as if they could be printed at a larger size. One of these is:



This photograph was created from an old 35mm slide. The subject barn is gone, but I thought preserving it in a photo was worthwhile and would be of interest to someone interested in such nostalgic places. The resolution is not perfect.

I uploaded a 2445 x 1475 pixel image, whch FAA shows could be printed as a 24" x 14.5." Does "full resolution" mean that is what the print would look like as a 24" x 14.5" print or does it mean what it would look like as perhaps a 40" x 24" which should have a minimum length of 4,114 pixels?

Full resolution is your image viewed at 100% whatever size it is.

Beth

I appreciate what you are doing. You are providing a great service, but you really did not answer my question. Does it mean that it is the resolution of the maximum size of the print that can be produced? in the case of my example of Dr. Pierce's Discovery Barn a 24"x14.5" print?

Charles

I did answer the question. It has nothing to do with whats produced. Full resolution is the image viewed at 100% of whatever it is.

If your image is on your dektop and you are viewing it at 50% it is showing the image at half size.

If you view it at 120% it will be pixellated as it is 20% larger than should be viewed

If you view it at 100% then you are seeing the image at its proper size and are seeing the pixels etc as they will show when printed.

Does that make more sense?


So, how many pixels etc has nothing to do with full res. Just how you view it.

In a roundabout way though, yes, it is the full size of the image that you uploaded.

Hey Charles, just to add what Beth is saying...

If you're having a hard time perceiving this, Photoshop is great for a visual to tell you that you have reached 100% on an image, so if you have it or know someone who does, try it out. I imagine that other image programs do the same though. Anyway, just open a photo in Photoshop, use the magnifying glass tool to enlarge the image, and you will notice at the top of your photo that it reads what percent you are at.

Further to what Angelique has suggested, I use Photoshop Elements (I presume other programs would be similar) and if you use the hand tool (a hand) you can click Actual Pixels in the menu bar and you will get 100% resolution and then you can scroll all over your image to check for any possible problems.

This may have been discussed. Google + had some photographs that were out of focus on purpose with a impressionistic/ artistic purpose.

Will FAA print these?

Yes normally. It should be in the description of the work really that it is meant to be that way. This will cover the artist from having the work returned by someone that 'didn't realise it would be blurry'

You may get stopped by quality control but, if it is in the description and an integral part of the image (not pixellation) they normally go ahead with the printing.

Thank you, Angelique and Margaret for clarifying the resolution question for me. I use GIMP, but I see that it states that I am viewing it at 100%. I see that I can "zoom in" to 150% or larger. I find that if I go to 150%, I can scroll over the image. I find that most of my images look acceptable at 150%, so 100% resolution should be no problem.

Thanks again, I think I finally understand.

Charles

Here's a related question about image quality. So far it seems we have been talking about photography or photos of original artwork. However, my paintings tend to be small, and I usually scan them. What resolution would work best? I would think that the higher the better but if I get too high the files are too large to upload. How particular do I need to be if I only plan on offering prints close to original size?

Anything over 100ppi is good for printing here. Up to 300

Saved as a jpg all mine stay under 24mb

I read the calibrating post you posted not too long ago in this discussion. Interesting, I've never heard of a calibrator till now. That thread is closed so I was just wondering if there is any other way to adjust screen brightness to standard. I'm going to google info on calibrating my laptop. It's relatively new, so maybe there's something on here (it's no Mac, but a Gateway). If I don't find anything, I may also look into this Adobe Gamma mentioned in that thread.

In the meantime, I'm trying to get used to Photoshop CS5. I was once told in a photoshop class about how to read the RGB numbers should read in your light and dark areas of a photo, but I can't remember. If there is a thread on this, let me know!

All the links are a great help towards providing printable images.

I would like to know if there's anyone, photographer.... who would 'pass', or, 'not', a photo that might seem questionable to the artist who isn't sure about printworthy-ness, before it's put up for sale???????????????????????? If so, please be kind enough to contact me here at faa, if you'd rather not do this for others, but are willing to review my portfolio....with sincere thanks, Vivian

Something in the spirit of the latest "my images are blurry/won't print" discussion, that attracted so much help and attention...http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=651255

I think that would be a great idea if we could have volunteer on board, a regular who knows what we are looking for (doesn't have to be a photographer), who would be willing to do it from this thread........ ie people ask in here.

So glad you agree, Beth. This came up just now because a good friend reviewed my uploads in the ArrangementsGallery and said they'd be better re-shot....such help is so little forthcoming here on the most important issue......sales are the object of our uploads....image quality is the key to sales.....many of us just don't realize the art needs a better photo..........it doesn't have to be such a long, drawn out process like the other thread.....even yes or no would help so much......well, a lot, really..........anyone????

"People ask in here"....thanks, Beth, for facilitating the idea of help on photos. I'll 'go' first, seeing as these are new images and have one thumbs down already, and should be right of course......this is the link, and if anyone could comment via faa/email here, I'd be grateful (rather than at the image comments)...

http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/vivian-anderson.html?tab=artworkgalleries&artworkgalleryid=149147

My "Arrangements" Gallery, fyi

Beth any chance we could get a thread that a title might show someone needed help. Not sure how many will check here unless they need help But ones that might be able to help might not check very often if at all... This is not a thread I check too much others might not either . But if we had one that was titled... Something like...."Print Issues Please Help". Or "Print Sale In Jeopardy Please Help". Then trading it out with a new version once it gets too slow to load. Just a thought....

I will change the name of this one and add a little to the post. Especially as this is already linked in the help tabs :) Well done

Good new title, Beth. Well, due to this post, someone did go through all the images in the Arrangements gallery of mine....but alas, not a word to me here....must have been a visitor, or disinterested...am thinking : is this thread private? Perhaps it should be if visitors are looking at work we're concerned about.........I"ll check now...nope, not private.....do ya think it should be? I do.

I just looked at one, Viv and can say yes, they are blurred and I cannot see the canvas or paint. See above screenshot of full res.

How was it taken?

It's an issue for me with the camra's sensors, I'm told, as well as my proficiency: nil ! Sooo.....I tried various settings.....auto white/thingy,no flash,cloudy day,lowered the size it'll print beccause if I shoot at the largest size, all is lost due to the sensor. Sony cybershot,14mpx....point/shoot
These ptgs are all on v.rough canvas by choice,and my 'style' these days is to not gesso, paint directly but lightly so the weave shows...how I like it, so it's almost generic...and therefore there are never sharp edges , then I tweak in Picasa for contrast and warmify...that's it...I don't resize.....thank you for looking/helping, xV

What does it look like before tweaking in Picasa?

I'd have to find the original jpeg ... thanks, will get back to you soon, V

edit. here's the link to the photo , Beth....am sorry it took so long....no hurry.....

It's also at my page, at Images rather than Gallery view

bump

You have the same issue with blurry spots and less blurry spots.

I am hoping one of the photographers will show up with some advice.

I will however have a read about your camera and see what I can come up with

Thanks, Beth.....I have heard and listened to all the kind advice re tripod,etc, so I don't want to waste people's time on the basics: understood. But, if this appears to be a camera problem, also !, then at least that I can rectify. $$$$, lol. Cheers....lunchtime here, you get some rest now.

Hey Vivian could use it as a good excuse to go shopping for a new camera! Fun fun!

Just find some good tips on what kind to buy. As that make a big difference in print-ability!

Vivan, I don't believe its a prob with your camera.
You might do something wrong.

beccause if I shoot at the largest size, all is lost due to the sensor.
Hm, what does that mean, all is lost...?

You always should use the largest size or even use RAW, but I guess your cam is not able to do that.
I guess you don't know much about the camera settings anymore, which were set when "605 Out Of The Camera" was done.

If you like you can send me this original and one image/file made at the largest size directly from the memorycard of the cam, regardless if you can read it or what ever the reason is, you can't used it.
Send it to jlingnau at gmx.net I will have a look to it and especially to the settings which hopefully are still there in the EXIF.
Just make sure the images are not altered by any other software before you send it.

Thank you Joerg!

Welcome.
It is hard to tell what might is wrong remotely, especially when you can't have a look at the original.

ps
@Vivian
What is the difference with "Homage to Gary Kendall"? The image is clearer and larger? Different cam?

Thank you so much, Joerg....it is 2 am now in Sydney, and after the sun rises, I will try to explain, and do a new image to see if you see a problem for printing...thanks very much..Vivian


About the image Homage To GK....same camera....do you think it unprintable? That would be good to know. It is a photo of a corner of the painting "Precipice", so can only sell as print...fyi...V

I have been following this discussion for awhile. I have always been a little concerned about my picture quality. I just become a contributing photographer on the stock photo site, Can Stock Photo. Every photograph that I submitted was being rejected, usually because it "had too much noise (aka graininess)" of it "was too soft." I started playing with my photographs using my Gimp software.

On every photograph, I reduced the noise and enhanced the sharpness. Using the Gimp scale, I usually enhance the photograph to a value of 40 to 60 depending upon the image. I am not quite sure what that number means, but it is certainly a good relative scale. It is absolutely amazing how much better the photos looked. The lines, mountains, buildings, etc. were all sharp and crisp. I had always been reluctant to do that. After that I could then adjust color brightness.

Now all of the most recent photos that I have submitted to Can Stock Photo have been accepted without question. I have even re-submitted some of the ones that had been rejected previously.

I am sure that this is not the solution for all, but Can Stock Photo, and other stock photo sites review and critique every photograph before it is accepted. Obviously FAA cannot do that, but it was a rell eye-opener for me. I am now starting the project to review all 400 of my FAA photographs to make them sharper and increase the printabilty. I have erased some of them, which could not be fixed.

So, rather than trying to adjust or calbrate the camera, many of the poor quality photographs can be improved, perhaps simply by reducing noise and increasing sharpness.

These were recently accepted by Can Stock Photo and have been re-submitted on FAA

Thank you very much for that input :) That is useful to know.

I look at the high res box and can sometimes tell but it wasn't until I had some high res images emailed to me for recovery purposes was I able to actually see a difference in what would not be a good print image. I think it's critical to have a large monitor and I currently do not but hopefully soon and then I will start the weeding through process.

What does 'bump' mean?

It is a word used when BUMPing up a thread to make sure people see it if it has slipped down a forum too far

Ah, so.

Thanks Beth - this post is very helpful!
Blessings, Joanna

Charles,
may I ask what you did first on those three images, denoising and than sharpen or vice versa?

Beth, I am starting to re-shoot as many of my paintings as I can. Is there any way someone can look at the new images, as I go along, and tell me if they would be acceptable to Sean and Dawn in the event of a sale?

Joerg

On the three images that I posted I reduced the noise first and then sharpened the image. How do they look?

Charles

Jamie, let us know here and we will take a look for you. You do have a template now though with the image that successfully passed the quality control :)

Beth, thanks for this thread, and thanks now to Joerg and Rich, who both offered wonderful advice, so that I could upload printable images ... Cheers, Vivian
(I still don't know how to de-noise, yet !! but all my work's noisy anyway,lol)....

Excellent. Ok, here's two:

Vivian

You said that you don't know how to de-noise. Are you using or have access to any photo software, such as Photoshop or Gimp? I use Gimp, but there are other good ones. If so, there is a "tool" in the software to adjust noise. There are three layers, red, green, and blue. Simply reduce all three down to Zero or near to zero. I usually don't go all the way down to zero.

Charles

@Jamie

The tiger looks like the original water one did the other day. Blurry and not good detail

I am not sure about the acrylics on paper one. Have you looked at it full res using the green box? Does it look exactly like your original?

Blue mixed has nasty glares all over it..no good.

Thats what I thought.

Oh, yipes. Back to the drawing board.

What about this?

That has so much noise in it...it looks like it was badly over sharpened.

I have no experience with uploading paintings to FAA and probably won't since I am not a painter, but, if I am following this discussion correctly, it appears as if Jamie and others are trying to take a photograph of her painting to upload to FAA. I would guess that would be almost impossible to do because the natural tendency for a photograph to have noise and other such problems would be compounded by the texture of the painting, as her tiger painting

Wouldn't the issue of print quality be resolved by scanning the painting to prodice an image in a photo format, such as JPEG or PNG? I am puzzled why the scanning option is not being discussed. There are many paintings being sold on FAA. Because of that, I can't understand why print quality is so difficult. Ask those who are selling paintings on FAA what technique that they use to upload their painting.

I mentioned that I learned that I could "sharpen" by photos to make them more printable and acceptable to Can Stock Photos. If I tried to sharpen them too much, however, they really looked awful and "noisy.'' There are very definite limits to the amount of image manipulation that can be done on any photo or artwork

Beth - I know that you have painitings at FAA. Do you scan your paintings or photograph them to upload to FAA?

Ok, so that's what 'noise' looks like. Angel, you're (and Charles) are right, I totally oversharpened it. I really thought I could do this (get good quality images) with my camera, but I'm starting to have doubts because it is so time consuming AND I'm not getting good results. I am going to rethink getting a scanner.

Thank you, Charles...can't use pse (I haveit, but can't hold steady on their small font with my hand tremor) ...but hope therefore my images are quiet, lol.
Your observation about the difference in outcomes for we artists who have to photograph differently textured Art, is a good insight, Charles.
It is and will be a learning curve for me, certainly, to provide printable images via my poor photography skills...but I keep trying....I do get noise, etc, etc., But have had lots of answers, and help, from photographers mostly. It's a quandry...we can't match the sharpness in detail of photographs, and sometimes this is not understood at time of fulfilling orders and is very upsetting. .... thanks for your empathy.

Charles. All my work has to be photographed as I do not own a scanner.

I have a scanner but it's not great quality. It's definitely an option if a person can afford a good quality scanner.
I agree...some of the art would look better scanned.

The problem with many paintings...that I see, is no underpainting. So, when it's photographed...every dot of bare canvas shows in the photography rather painfully.

Hi! Thank you for starting this discussion! I'm really new to the art world (started seriously painting in October/November) and am a baby FAA-er. The learning curve is a bit overwhelming, but I'm starting to get the hang of it.

However, I'm having some concerns about my image quality. I had a bit of glare and edited out some of that, but I'm afraid I lost that essential sharpness. I guess I didn't know that the actual texture of the canvas was critical. I feel like a dork, but I have to know. I'm getting comments, but no sales yet. I'm afraid there may be a good reason for that. I'd rather know now, while I only have 4 paintings up, than when I have a load of bad images to re-shoot.

Please take a look. Thank you for your time! :D



If the quality doesn't quite cut it for larger prints, do you think it's good enough for greeting cards and small prints until I can re-shoot?

Charles
On the three images that I posted I reduced the noise first and then sharpened the image. How do they look?
I fear the sharpening introduced lots of noise again in the sky and the darker parts (bridge house)

Please note that when saying so, I judge this by also having a look to the image dimensions.
It is better to have a certain amount of visible noise (in the full-resolution preview) on a 4.000x6.000px than having the same amount visible on a 2.000x.3.000px image.
If you understand what I am trying to say ;-)

Teresa, I believe Pink Daisy is fine.
At least regarding the lack of noise and its clarity. I can't judge if the colors are right etc pp. ;-)

A general hint for painters who are photographing their art: you might think about using a gray card to be sure you get the colors right. Even natural light changes from time to time.
http://www.digitalartsphotography.com/instructions.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_card

No need to buy a gray card. Everything coming close to 18% gray will do (eg. the cardboard back of a writing pad)
Some cams are able to correct the whitebalance via a gray card photo In-Cam, some don't and you have to go they way via a photo editor described in the first link.

@Angelina
every dot of bare canvas shows in the photography rather painfully.
So far I thought that was (often, but not always) made intentionally!?! No?

I love it when my bare canvas shows in the photograph as that is what I have aimed for in a painting. I believe in using the white of the canvas in the painting.

Completely intentional for me, anyway......although rather than the stark white canvas, which I don't gesso btw, a gentle hint of colour keeps it being too pronounced overall....I do gesso the reverse though...

Vivian

I was looking at your painting "SEPIA Study. I noticed that if I looked at the "Full Resolution Preview" that the canvas texture looked fuzzy. But that is actually a pretty good sized image, 2736 x 3648 pixels or approximately 22" x 30." What is the size of your original painting? Are you enlarging the print after you photograph it? If you are, that is creating a lot of your problem with image quality.

I would suggest that you reduce the size of your image on FAA.

Thank you for following up on my painting/image. The original is half the largest offered. I didn't enlarge it, and used my 14 mpx camera, and at upload, faa said it could print at the sizes offered by virtue of the pixel dimensions....not whether it would pass admin for pod though.
And I've searched everywhere and cannot find it to reshoot, but if I offer it at a smaller size it should print....though this is hoe soft -edged a lot of my work is, unfortunately. I dont sharpen any because they look strange at full res...I'd like to know if a ptg at full res means it won't print at the smaller sizes? Thanks so much Charles...if you've mor input, I'd be so grateful...Vivian

I, too, would love it if FAA would tell us what size the painting CAN be printed at from the image submitted. I am struggling and struggling with good image content from my 14mp camera. I have over 300 images posted......most I don't have anymore (sold, given away, etc.) so reshooting every single one is an impossible task. Is there a solution?

Joerg...yes, sometimes bare canvas is intentional....but intentional or not...it produces work that is harder to photograph and look good.
I have noticed in my own work...and others. When there is an under painting or even a very heavy layer of paint with no canvas showing...it looks better in photographs.

It's not the camera Jamie. 14 mp is plenty big enough. And you were able to get very clean shots for your last order.

It's up to us to ensure quality images...

Shoot, Angelina, I keep trying to blame the camera, and you keep calling me on it. LOL

Thank you, Joerg, for taking a look! I can't tell you how relieved I am (but I'm sure you have been familiar with the feeling in the past).

LOL...I'm so sorry...lol....ok, it's the camera...maybe if you spend a few thousand dollars on a better camera you will get clear photos. ;)

Vivian and all

Your painting(s) will print at smaller sizes than that which is shown in the Full Resolutin Preview and will look good. The easiest thing that I might suggest is to turn "off" the Full Resolution Preview" and only list prices for the smaller sizes, like up to maybe 12"x16". If you do not list a markup for any size, then FAA will not sell it at that size. But with the Full Resolution Preview as it stands now, if I were a potential buyer, I would hesitate to buy the art because it looks fuzzy in the preview.

Another option would be to reduce the size of your uploaded image, so that it is no bigger than say 12"x 16." A Full Resolution Preview of the smaller size image would look better. That is, of course, assuming that you are OK with selling it at the smaller sizes.

I found that I had to reduce the size of some of my photographs to make them look good.

Thanks so much, Charles, good advice indeed.
I'm finding it uncomfortable for all this exchange to be without the InPrivateDiscussion in use here, so, if I may, Charles, I will contact you again some time, off the forum and hope you understand....thanks again, Vivian

Vivian

You may certainly contact me privately outside of the forum, but I am certainly no expert. I am just learning about image quality myself. Based upon my recent discoveries, some of which I have shared in this discussion, I am now in the process of "improving" every photograph which I have uploaded to FAA and re-uploading the new image. I have completed my waterfalls, bridges, Mt Rainer galleries and am now working on my Ohio gallery.

Charles

Bump

GREAT IDEA BETH THANKS SO MUCH I WILL BE BACK HERE

I have a question on image quality and printability of an image that arose with the work of one of my group members in my Grand Canyon National Park Group.

The individual posted an image of a print/painting, I think it was a photograph which had been "painted over." The 16" x 12" art had been sold. The artist apparently photographed his art with his high resolution camera which "always takes a photo with a long side of 3872 pixels." The artist uploaded the image on FAA as a 3662 x 2451 pixel image, at least that is what the full resolution preview window says.

The high resolution preview is very distorted, fuzzy and unrecognizable and looks awful. The artist said that he "would never print a photo that was larger than it should be based on the image size and/or resolution. He said that he did not have prices listed for the larger sizes, so therefore FAA would sell the larger sizes, which is true.

My question is, assuming that the art would print OK as a 16" x 12" print, would FAA print it when the uploaded image obviously greatly exceeded that size, as evidenced by the full resolution preview?

Some of the artist's images in my group really good. Some of the others look good unless they are viewed at full size. I have not decided what to do yet, but I am considering removing some of the "bad" ones, which I had already approved. I will definitely screen future uploads and not approve those that cannot viewed at full size.

Hello All,
Thanks so much for the great information. I've just uploaded my very first image as a trial run and I'd like to do as you suggest but I don't see how to find the "full res previews" on my image page. Maybe what I *thought* was my image page is NOT. I've found options to Edit Image, Delete Image and Upload New Image. Am I getting warm?????

Thanks,
Judy

Judy Go to your image page http://fineartamerica.com/featured/venetian-mystique-judy-coffman.html Hover your cursor over the image. Click on the area you wish to look at and a box will appear with the full res view of that area.

Charles, send the artist to this page so they see for themselves. That way nobody has to be involved in worrying about another artists work :)

Sharpness is critcal for photography. If an photographic image is not sharp it should not even be uploaded. Even if someone does not notice that it's not sharp when the buy it, they will probably return it if it's not.

As far as art I think there is some wiggle room but not a whole lot. If the image looks fuzzy it will probabaly not sell.

Steve

I had a old picture of a painting I sold long ago. I put it up as a print for sale. I was worried about this older camera so I tried to buy one of the prints myself to make sure it would look ok. I was told it would not print even thoughthe picture looks very good. However now a big message comes up telling me to reload the picture take a new picture, which i can not because I no longer have it. I took the picture off of FFA but the message keeps commong up when I try to log in What should I do??????

Shirley, I will let Dawn (customer service) know for you. She will remove the message.

Ok, let me "finally" get wet in these discussions and "learn" the other side of photography............ I usually just GO and take pictures, but when it comes to understanding all this other stuff, i need to sit down and really understand IF indeed i need to do something............ Beth, would you critique this or even my whole gallery.............. thank you!

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/burned-to-a-crisp-nicole-ramirez.html

"The individual posted an image of a print/painting, I think it was a photograph which had been "painted over." The 16" x 12" art had been sold. The artist apparently photographed his art with his high resolution camera which "always takes a photo with a long side of 3872 pixels." The artist uploaded the image on FAA as a 3662 x 2451 pixel image, at least that is what the full resolution preview window says. "

There is a lot of misunderstanding about sizes in inches, pixels in files, and printing, which is in DOTS Per Inch....
First, my camera does not always take a photo with the long side of 3872. For I shoot with a Nikon in FINE RAW settting. LIGHTROOM, displays this with a long edge of 3872.
Many when talking about pixels are talking about apples and oranges, both are fruit, but taste quite differently.

...Resolution... is displayed in Lightroom as 300 Pixels Per INCH or PPI and display as 3872.... BUT, If you load the same file in Photoshop, it will load at ... 600... PPI ... resolution and the long edge in pixels will drastically increase or DOUBLE _yet_ the quality of the image will be _much_ greater... So the length of a file in Pixels, has NO bearing upon quality... In fact if you change files in Photoshop, it changes all dimensions in proportion, keeping _quality_ of the image. IE if I change resolution from 600 to 400, it will increase the size in pixels.

NOW. if you take a photo of a 18x24 canvas. and fill the frame with it, and a 12x16 and fill the frame DETAIL in the smaller painting will be LARGER.

When you upload the file, a __problem__ comes because it shows BOTH images, from two different sizes,
IN THE SAME SIZE/LEVEL HIGH RESOLUTION....
So it can make the 12x16 _look_worse_ and FAA will say that file of that size, can print as a MUCH larger painting. But, if they do that, from what Ive been reading they will bounce it back as a poor quality AND IT WOULD BE... BUT that is not the fault of the file or quality if it is a good one. It is because FAA says it can be printed at 48x or 60x which would be terrible.
to
SO, to prevent that, if you DO NOT FILL IN WITH A PRICE, sizes much more than one size larger than the painting you created, it could make a good reproduction at the original size.
IF the larger file is not _available_ no one can order it at that size

We have an EPSON top quality printer, and daily print copies of 12x16's in Limited Editions that look as good as the original, from the SAME files used on FAA
The file discussed is also a PAINTING, so brush strokes show. Paintings also will _never_ look as sharp as a photo, if we wanted that sharpness, we would take a Photo. :)
So a 12x16 will not look sharp in HIGH DEFINITION. It will show brush strokes, and detail of canvas thread and they _should_ show in a good quality camera...

NOTICE

IF buying a new camera to take photos, buy a top name brand like Nikon or Canon even if getting the less expensive models.

There are cheap ($100) point and shoot cameras that flaunt the fact they are 14 Megapixels....
But, if they have a cheap lens, the photo will not be as sharp or as good quality as a Nikon or Canon point and shoot, available on eBay brand new, for about the same prices.

A USED AUTO Nikon or Canon and similar quality camera's will have even better lens than cheaper cameras, you can get good photos on automatic, then when you learn, better ones on manual. A good place to learn more about photography, is on Photo.net ... They have info for all levels of enthusiasts, and of knowledgeable people to explain. You can also get the book Digital Photography for Dummies, it is well written, in plain language, explains everything clearly... Its handy to have with you when you need it, and have no access to a computer....

We have some lovely photography threads here

Let’s Talk Photography
How to Photograph Your Art
Photographing paintings
Tips & Tricks for advanced painting photography
How to photograph your Artwork at Home
How I Photograph Art...

well let me say the burned to a crisp image is 3456 C 2304 pixels and 1.73 MB. Most of my photography is by canon rebel XT. Sometimes i use the tamron 100-300mm lens. There are a few images from my old fugi camera, that now i dont even remember the model of. Then there is one image i sell that is from nearly 10 years ago Enhanced Lake Henshaw and that is my Canon AE-1 which is of course a film camera. So i hope this information helps.... will keep reading and learning.. I do sell ALOT here in San Diego, just not so online. My work is now stocked in over a dozen stores.
Nicole Ramirez

Thank you for clarifying the confusion, Nadine and Bob and all. I hope that your explanation helps to clarify some of the confusion so that we might all get some better results with our art. I have found that the image quality of all my photographs has been greatly improved by applying the tips gleaned from this discussion.

I just did some digital manipulation to this photo (photo filters in topaz labs 5) would this be acceptable for printing? The largest size I'm offering is 40 X 26. Thanks for your help. I've never had any problems so far with my photos but this topic always gets me to wondering if my photos are acceptable at a large size. Thanks for your help. :-)

It looks beautiful in the full res :) I cannot see a problem

Thanks Beth :-)

The main thing to watch for, are pixels which show up anywhere. Doubt any piece which would show them, would be acceptable to any buyer.

Contrast, color, etc is pretty much an artistic choice. If the buyer likes it it does not matter what the color might be. Nadine did an exercise once, painting a mountain scene, with a stream and Teepee's across the stream. Painting it all in shades of purple, to get a full tonal range of at least 8-10 step levels in the painting. Many seem to have problems with contrast, they use a lot of colors to create what looks like a full range of zones of tones or shades. But, if you look at them through a viewing disk or photography the painting it looks very flat. Practicing in this manner, is a good teaching exercise. Well, we had a client come in who wanted to see all her work. When she finished showing him everything but the purple exercise, he asked, "Are you sure this is all you have." Well, she brought out the purple 18x24 and he liked it better than all the other work... We never can tell what the personal taste a person will be... Paint or Photograph what YOU love, and someone, somewhere will like it. Painting and Photography is art, but it is also communication. If we communicate some feelings to one person, we are successful...

The groups that are Loving Red or Loving Orange and Yellow, etc, remind me of the purple painting whenever I see the name. It even got me interested lately, and I created some photos for them. My Favorites are Orange Slice Mountain and Chocolate Mountain

Hi. I have been reading about resolution, pixels,etc. Still a bit confused.

The photos straight from my camera are JPEG at:

RGB true color, 24 bit
4752x3168 -- 72 pixels/inch
7.78 MB

Is this a good enough quality to print? I have set the camera now to both RAW and JPEG, but can I still use the older photos with the above resolutions?

I am shooting with a Cannon T1i.

Thanks!

Vicki :)

Your images should really be at 100ppi minimum.

As for the rest it depends on the quality of the images. Make sure they are not blurred on the main areas and are clear at full resolution.

When uploading, Images should be under 25mb
jpg or png
sRGB or Adobe RGB
minimum 100ppi

Thank you Beth and all who've written with information. I'm an old time film girl, but I'm learning...pixels, dpi, ppi, res... I have to admit that it all makes my eyes glass over. :) I have an older Canon Rebel - 8mp. My photos are typically 3456 x 2304.

I hear everybody about checking the resolution box, and I think mine are "soft" or a bit fuzzy, so it has me a little freaked out about the quality of my prints! Therefor, I've offered up to a 20" x 13.38" or so, but I've noticed that others offer much bigger prints with the same pixel amount (or is that pixel dimension?). I'd love to offer bigger prints, but perhaps I need to purchase a better camera?

Would you mind Beth (or anyone) please having a look at any of my photos to see if they're okay?

Thank you so much!

Debbie

Debbie

I looked at your "Leopard", "Penquins in the Surf", and "Where the Wildhorses Live" photographs. The "Leopard" looks good. The other two have considerable noise when viewed at full resolution, but otherwise the images look sharp enough. However, since you are not offering any prints greater than 20' x 13.38 I don't think that the noise should be a problem.

Do you have any photo-editing software? I am using Gimp, which is free and can be downloaded online. If you do nothing else it is great for getting rid of the noise.

Beth, I really don't understand why you bother about the number of ppi, since that is merely an instruction for the screen display and has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the image.

It helps to shoot at the lowest available ISO. Having a tiny camera with lots of MP squeezed into is miniature sensor most certainly does not help, as small pixels are generally more prone to noise (they gather less light so they are working with a weaker signal).

Any DSLR should produce pictures that are good enough to print as long as it has a good lens and is used properly. If the user creates problems by under-exposing, using high ISOs. having the wrong white balance or introducing camera shake, then of course it will be an issue.

Thanks so much Charles, for taking the time to check out my photos. I'm going to check Gimp out for getting rid of noise.

Paul, thank you for the information. I appreciate it.

Beth I have a question I know I should know the answer to but I don't so I'm asking you......when I click on an image and it says "showing full resolution of 438 x 640 image" what do those numbers represent? Where did those number originate from? My scan?

That's one tiny upload! Where is that?

I didn't check them all but the first few I looked at (of mine) are all that small. Where does that number come from?

Edit.......Okay....I think the smaller numbers are the ones I scanned and the couple of pics I photographed with my old camera are bigger numbers but really fuzzy. So I think I have my answer. Thanks Beth.

edit edit: also, you look really pretty in that avatar

aw shucks! Thank you!

I filled out the detail form when uploading my pictures and the POD portion won't allow your image to be available for print in a size not compatible with there requirements. However when using the high resolution veiwing option over my image it does look blurry. So according to your information here I should not be selling these. I am confused because the POD requirements for the detail form are saying its suitable. I just signed on as a premium member. I have not made a sale yet. I am not going to invest in anymore equipment nor pay anyone to retake photos of my work. The info I am getting is conflicting. I am a paid member now. This isn't good news

LC it is not saying it is suitable, it is just saying your image is big enough to sell in those sizes.

Okay....so then its big enough yet not suitable. So I should just take all my work down. Do I get a refund for my memebership I just bought? Cuz if I cannot sell any then I would go back to just showing and not being an official member.

I did not say it was not suitable. I have not taken a look. I just said it would be available in those sizes.

If you are worried about your images you can contact Support and Dawn will take a look for you.

After reading the info here....I looked at them myself and I am saying that they are not suitable from what I understand of the discussion.

From my experience as a painter if the canvas shows too much you'll have a problem when the print is at large scale the canvas will show too large and look like a photo of a painting. Most reproduction you don't see the canvas for this reason. Anyway when printed on canvas then we should see only the physical canvas...

I was in dire straits yesterday due to sizing images.
I made my first 3 sales here on FAA and unfortunately I was told that I would have to re-photograph each Painting as they were not good enough to print..the problem was that 2 of the 3 images I had sold have already been sold as Originals ages ago.
So this was out of the question as far as I was concerned!
The prints I sold were only 6 x 8 and was led to believe that they were too pixelated even for that size.
I told Dawn to cancel the sales and my heart was heavy:(
People were trying to help me but I was also told that the the photography was of them was rubbish.."Get a scanner" was one suggestion,by a proper camera was another gem, but these people are photographers and not painters to be honest, I was pretty peeved by the insults that were thrown.
One VERY man tried to change an image for me but it was of a painterly effect and not what the client ordered so I had to decline,but I was grateful just the same.
I then made all artwork only available in 8 x 10 until I could get a friend to do a little tinkering for me.
So 56 images later I resigned myself to the fact that only small images could be printed but at least I made the sales which was an achievement in itself.
A learning curve that I wouldn't want to experience ever again.
Canvas Art and photography are totally seperate art forms and yesterday I was ready to give up!
I'm still undecided as to whether to carry on though!

Cynthia, a scanner is probably the very best answer. To photograph an artwork properly you need to ensure the camera is absolutely parallel with the canvas, the light is perfectly even and flat, without creating reflected highlights and, of course, the camera has to be firmly on a tripod and correctly focused. It sounds easy, but it isn't. I've been earning a living from photography for six years and I still learn something new every day (over on my "Making 60MB images for $1" thread you can see how I have struggled for 48 hours to get just one photo right - though admittedly I've made things hard for myself with the choice of equipment).

Cynthia, I know what you feel like as my painting photos scrape through...just... and I think a couple wouldn't. I cannot afford ta professional scan so trot outside with them at 4pm, slam them against a wall and spend the next hour swearing at the camera, tripod and anyone who dares talk to me :)

However that about not showing canvas in the photograph has not been my experience at all.

My most popular print is one of a painting done on bare canvas with most of the canvas unpainted and showing clearly in the photograph.

Thanks Paul, for the info...if your still learning what chance do I have..lol?? :))

lol...Beth I can relate to the entire conversation you made and hubby really suffered yesterday the air was blue..haha :)

I certainly cant afford a scanner as I have enough trouble with a 16mg camera (I wonder sometimes if I've got Parkinsons Disease:) (no disrespect to sufferers of course) :(
I must take a look at your work Beth because I've neglected so much lately that I am way beyond catching up now.

Thanks for the advise and am off to visit your work now.

Cynthia, you can get a reasonably priced scanner on the Internet from companies like Frys Electronics or TigerDirect and others like Amazon, who has what looks like a decent one for about $82.... Of course such scanners are limited in size, generally to about legal size etc.. If a scanner that size would fit your needs, it is actually much easier to use than many camera's. But, though I have an Epson Scanner/Printer that I bought on sale from Frys @ $19, they dont always have such deals, but if you sign up for their email notices we find them.

Usually use my Nikon for copies and have no problem with reflections, as I use a Polarizing filter.

Usually though 82 years old, seldom use a tripod, but hand hold the camera with the painting sitting on the Bumper of our RV.
Sun is very broad lighting, so requires no lights, and means a high shutter speed so even if unsteady it can be sharp. :)
I line a line in the viewfinder up with the edges of the painting so it is straight and square.

First I shoot a copy with a piece of pure white paper over it. Then one without. That gives me a base for correcting Light balance and color in processing.
Checking the balance on the white paper, then, processing the other with the same settings.
Most programs have a method of correcting the light. Late in the day, the sun can make them too yellow or if there are clouds, too blue, etc...

well folks I am sticking to cards as my start on FAA since the quality is best suited for that to start out. When my sales start taking off I can invest that into increasing the quality for larger prints. I have invested enough in the arts in general....I would like to start getting some back so I can build my confidence in the art BUSINESS side of it.

Hi Beth, another question about Resolution.

I mostly use a canon dslr... in photoshop the dimensions/info out of the camera are
4,272 x 2848 pixels.
document size= 59.333 x 39.556
and the rez is 72

obviously to change the rez to your minimum 100 ppi i have to resample, is that a problem. as of now, the one's i have up are uploaded at the 72 .
thanks for any help you can give me.
best wishes,
jessie

Jessie, resizing by changing the number of pixels per inch does absolutely nothing to the image, so if your image is good at 72ppi then it will be equally good at 1ppi or 1,000ppi, it will just be shown at a different size on the computer screen if you select "view print size". The ppi is a display instruction for the screen not an alteration to the image.

thanks Paul. Yes they seem to be fine at that ppi, but since Beth mentioned the minimum should be 100, I just wondered.
When I send mine off to labs to have them printed, they all require at least 240 dpi/ppi. so I just figured FAA might as well.

Jess. I actually have had a couple of 72 printed here and they were beautiful BUT FAA do prefer 100 or over

I have to say...I recently undertook photographing someone else's art. I took it a lot more seriously than what I have in the past for my own art.

It's very hard. Learning everything initially to make a great shot. A couple things I learned:

1. Without proper WB adjustment...the image just won't look right.
2. Tripod is really a requirement. The best shots I got were on a tripod, with the timer...so I wasn't touching it at all when the shot was taken.

When you upload a photo, doesn't the upload info tell you if the resolution is good enough? When an image is too small, it rejects it - would it do the same if the resolution is poor? I have no sales, but it never occurred to me it might the quality of the images. I simply assumed I'm new and need more exposure.

How do I determine which reason is the accurate one?

There is not quality assurance for your images. You have to be sure it's ready for print, if it's isn't....it definitely deters sales.

Helen, uploading only tells you the size of your image, not the quality.

You should be sorting out your own quality before uploading starts. You can do this by zooming in on your image at 100% in your graphics programme. Check it carefully for blurry areas where there shouldn't be any. Pixellation or marks. Then clean them before uploading

Bad images can lead to refused sales.

I have printed many of the images I have here and they have printed nicely. Is that an indication that they work here? I also sell at shows so I have my work printed (my own printer is not good enough). I just want to make sure that in the event something sells, everyone is happy - me, the buyer and FAA.

One piece looked great here. No pixels at all, clear. But when it printed it was horrible!! I deleted it right away. Now I've been much more aware, but unclear how to tell.

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/vintage-tractor-helen-fern.html

Here is one of my pieces - I would really like feedback from others on how to improve it or if it's ok the way it is. I'm here to learn as well as sell.

thanks.

Thanks Beth. so would you recommend that I resample them to 100ppi? all the ones I currently have on here are at 72. I will go ahead and change those and continue uploading at 100 if that's what you suggest.

best,
j

Helen

I just looked at your Vintage Tractor. I viewed with Full Resolution Preview. The tires were very crisp and sharp. The body of the tractor looked a little grainy, like rust should look. I would say that the photo was perfect and that you should have no problem selling on FAA.

I wish we could have the little green resolution box before we pressed the submit button. Then we wouldn't have to edit after.

That is what the 100% zoom is for on your graphics programme

Here are Dawn's own words on image quality. Dawn is our quality control lady and very good at her job :)

1. Use at least a 10-12 MP camera with a manual focus lens, not an auto focus. The higher the MP the camera, the larger the file we have to print from. If you want to offer large prints, you need to use a high MP camera.

2. Mount the camera to a tripod. If you don't have a tripod, use a stack of books, a table, anything. You just have to have the camera sitting on something, not hand held.

3. Shoot outdoors in natural light. Make sure you white balance your camera too, or the colors won't be right.

4. Preview the image to make sure there are no blurry areas, flash problems, etc.

5. Export at the highest possible file size while staying under our less than 25 MB limit.

To preview an image in photo editing software simply use the zoom icon to zoom in on the image until it's viewed at 100% print size. What you will find is that viewing it at 100% you will be able to see if there are any problem areas.

Look all around the image at 100%, the edges included. If the image has no problems, blurry areas, uncropped edges, or areas where there is flash reflecting off the image, then you're on your way to a great image.

Second, you have to determine how large you want your image printed to. Go to the image menu, and click "Resize Image". DO NOT RESIZE THE IMAGE TO BLOW IT UP LARGER IN THIS MENU. That will only result in a blurry, pixelated, problematic image.

Does any one know what color profile to use (sRGB or Adobe 1998 RGB) when uploading photo to FAA?

What does this mean: You have to determine how large you want your image printed to. Go to the image menu, and click "Resize Image". DO NOT RESIZE THE IMAGE TO BLOW IT UP LARGER IN THIS MENU. That will only result in a blurry, pixelated, problematic image.

When you go to "Resize Image" what do you do to change the image?

Either sRGB or Adobe RGB

You can see how many MB your image is and you may need to decrease the size

FIRST NEVER WORK ON THE ORIGINAL, MAKE A COPY FIRST, then work with it, _especially_ if the original is a JPG..
Personally will not even save a copy to the same folder, but use a separate folder to make sure it does not overwrite the original.

For EACH time we load a JPG into any editor, and Save it again, _we_lose_quality. Do that two or three times, and you lose so much you might as well go back and retake the photo. Like if you load it, crop it and save it. Another time you load it change contrast or color, etc and save it, quality is lost EACH time you save it....

Even if you edit a _copy_ once do all that needs to be done, THEN save it at the LOWEST compression and Highest Quality & Size setting....
Usually Quality 12, Large Size.... In Photoshop, you can Check a box, to save the Copy as another Copy....
IF you find you _need_ to make other changes, go back, make another copy of the original, and do everything to it...

One thing which we have not seen, is HOW to make an image larger and KEEP the quality.

It has been reported that an image of 100 pixels Per inch will be sufficient for good printing in FAA. So I use 150 Pixels.-
There has been confusion about Pixels in "resolution or sharpness" and Printing which is done in DOTS per inch....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, quality comes from a combination of Pixels per inch "resolution" and the "dimensions" of an image in Pixels.
If you have an image 3872 Pixels wide, and it is 400 PPI in _resolution_ you can change the resolution, and it will change the width, without damage.

Now, if you have a XX Megapixel camera, generally it will create an image that is 300 Pixels per inch, some will even have 400 Pixels per inch or PPI...
IF you use a camera which creates RAW files, these are the _best_ to work with. For you can make a copy from a RAW image, that is 1200 Pixels per inch wide...

IF you use a good program like Photoshop or Gimp, the latter is FREE for downloading on the Internet, you can manipulate images.
In the menu at the top, is View, click, and then click on actual Pixels, and you can view it at the Pixel level.
In a good image, you should see NO squares or Pixels, even if you have done any sharpening of the image or it is a JPG.

In the PS Image size menu at the bottom there is a menu, in it is Bicubic Smoother (Best for enlargement) Use that Setting...

Now, say you have an image which is 400 Pixels per inch (PPI), and it says the longest edge is 6"...
You change the 400 PPI to 200 PPI, and the longest dimension in inches to 12".... and you will see the width in Pixels grows...
(You will see the width in PIXELS change as you make this change)
Then, go back to View, Pixel Level, you should see NO pixels and it should still be sharp, but now the image is TWICE the size....

IF it is true that FAA can Print a sharp Image at 100 PPI and have it look good.
Try change the 200 Pixel per inch width to 100 PPI, and increase the longest width to 24"

DO THIS ONLY ON A COPY - NEVER on an Original... and always go to View,

Quality is not only related to how you take the photo, but HOW you handle it in an Editor.
It really pays to experiment with an editor on copies of images... Spending an hour or two each time you use it, to learn one feature you may want to use, is worth its weight in gold. Whatever editor you use, check on Amazon in the Used Books, for a book about that editor. The BEST ones generally or easiest to learn from will be like "Photoshop for Dummies" which put things into words you will understand, eliminating technical terms. Even with my experience in Photography since 1935, I use it for reference, as its much easier to locate and review things in PS that I might not have done for a few years.

Remember, only work on a copy... you may want to print this for referral when practicing.

Bob Johnston

Hi there, I just joined this evening and am still researching. Image resolution is an issue I don't fully get. After reading some of the discussion here, I think my photos might pass muster, but I'm still not sure. Here is sample:



Would you say this a sell-able image if you considered just resolution? I'm not yet worried about subject matter, composition, etc. I just want to know if I'm achieving the resolution required, and if not, I'll work on improving it.

Thanks!

Hello there,

I have just uploaded my first photo on the site, and wondered if anyone would be kind enough to let me know if it all looks okay from a technical perspective? I'm rather nervous about it because when I viewed it on high resolution it looks rather blurry and if it is no good I would rather remove it sooner than later.

Here is the link
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/english-strawberries-rachel-breen.html

Many thanks
Rachel

I have searched for several hours and have yet to find, exactly which color profile I should be uploading. Corel Photo Paint has several CYMK choices.
Historically I have been saving images in RGB, will FAA printers be able to read those? if so which RGB profile would work?
I have about 20 different Pantone color sets, plus TOYO, DIC, Roland, and HKS, I have been using Pantone Uncoated with Pantone Matching System, does this matter to your printers?
and saved as sRGB IEC61966-2.1
Is that the correct one? or a different sRGB profile?

I have read some about DPI on FAA, but need clarification. FAA wants images uploaded at 72 DPI and around 72 inches x 48 inches (5200x4800pixels)
versus 300 DPI and 10x12 inch (3200x4000pixel) ?

Last question for now, what are the popular standard frame sizes?

My apologies, I did create a similar post in General accidently thinking I was here.

Rooky...your questions were answered in the separate thread you made.

I just scanned my drawing and wanted to know should I photograph instead? The reason why I am asking is because the only size options it is giving me is ONLY 4 different sizes that allow prints. Confused for sure.

Rachel

I looked at your English Strawberries, and yes it is blurry at full resolution. Nadine and Bob might disagree, but I think that the easist fix might be to reduce the image size. The full resolution preview shows that it is 4288 x 3216 pixels. Did you increase the size before you uplosded? Increasing the size will almost always cause problems.

If you have photo editing software, I would suggest reducing the size of your photograph to 4000 pixels on the long side. You can see what your image will look like at "full resolution" if you view it at 100% percent using your photo editing software. If it looks good at 100%, not blurry or pixelated, there should be no problem. I very often view my photos at 150%.

Minnie

The reason that you are only get four print sizes available is because of the size of your scanned image. As has been said previously in this discussion, FAA uses pixels to determine the size of the prints available. If your scanned image is between 1200 and 1371 pixels on the long side then only the four smaller sizes would be available. FAA does not, however, gruarantee the quality of the print if printed at those sizes. If you view your photo at 100% and it looks good, then there should be no problem. I definitely would not advise increasing the size of your photo just so you can print sizes available.

Thanks Charles I was trying to avoid photographing my work because it is a bigger hassle.

Thanks for responding Charles. I didn't increase the size before the upload, I did add my signature which I have saved as a brush in photoshop 7.I just tried reducing the pixels to 4000 on the longest side, and at 100% it still looks a touch blurry. I'm a bit of a photoshop novice so perhaps I have failed to do something in the process of saving the image. I've also noticed that the original photo before I opened it in photoshop was 3.17MB, after I'd saved it with my signature it was suddenly over 4.59MB. I don't know why this has happened because I didn't make the file bigger knowingly. I definitely need to brush up my photoshop skills.

Confused
Rachel

Hi,
I am new to FAA and have recently uploaded a few photos.
One of my photos was shot with iphone 4S at 72dpi and 2161 x 2952pixels (30inch x 40inch). I have resized it to 300dpi (2161 x 2952 pixels) (7.2" x 9.8") in photoshop and uploaded this image. After reading some of the discussion here, I'm not sure whether the image is of sufficient quality.

here's the link:


Thanks!
Ivy

Does it not depend on the work size?

I have a photograph which the maximum size is 11x14in. If looked at 100% it seems to be not good. But to see the 100% of a 11x15in. print the viewer has to put his nose on the print. So for the size it is not a problem. It would be a problem if it were a big print.

Am I right?

It is this image:

Rachael Breen your straberries look fine..

See my Group at: http://fineartamerica.com/groups/grand-canyon-state--artist-news.html?tab=discussions

Grand Canyon State - Artist News

For more tips on improving the quality of paintings or photos.

Bob Johnston

I think FAA needs to commision someone who really knows the ropes to write a simple, concise guide to all this. There seems to be a lot of confusion in what people are saying; frankly, some of what I'm reading is confusing me and I'm an old hand at image quality control, resizing, etc.

There are also aspects of the workflow that don't seem to get mentioned, though they are important, such as setting the camera for maximum quality, the issues associated with sharpening, problems with excessive automatic in-camera sharpening and saturation adjustments, the benefits of correcting WB etc. in RAW and then converting to Tiff for Photoshop or other editing adjustments. For those copying artworks there should be guidance about the choice of lenses and the optimum aperture to get the sharpest results, the family of angles which create shiny reflections on flat surfaces and want to be avoided, the benefit of a telephoto lens in photographing artworks etc.

I realise this is more complicated than most people want to get but it's not really difficult to organise if you have a space where you can control what goes where and once you have a set-up that works, you can stick with it. I presume that everybody wants to present their work at the best quality they can.

Surely guidelines for basic photography of artwork and the workflow to get the best results would be a welcome resource?

http://fineartamerica.com/saleannouncement.html?id=c154d246beba3a7d4a1221f6d6f38a89


---Mike Savad

...

Paul, I could not agree with you more. Nowhere else do things that were once well ingrained knowledge for me, get actually confused and backwards, except here. Then add to that, some of the artists here seem to enjoy jumping in with useless information, or just simply disagree with anything anyone posts. The whole FAA experience has been greatly downgraded for me...hmmm, perhaps that is what other FAA artists think they need to do, discourage others and leave more room to sell themselves.

I prefer to believe people are ignorant rather than malicious. So many of us (I include me) have got seriously into photography since the arrival of the "prosumer" DSLR nine years ago and so few of us (I exclude me on this bit) have bothered to learn the basics of photography and imaging because the good old Auto setting means we don't need to.

And it's worse for the painters, they probably want nothing to do with cameras but are shoehorned into trying to make them work, somehow. I feel sorry for them. They need some simple instructions .... that are right ... so they can present their work.

One thing that I've noticed is that the FAA full res preview is not as sharp and clear as my 100% view in my software. Based on the quality of some fairly large prints I've had made I'm pretty confident that my photos are FAA print worthy. But the softness I see on the full res preview has caused me to turn it off on my images. I also, more often than not, as a precaution take the price off the largest available print.

That said I've made a couple of sales, which leads me to a question I can't find the answer to. When a sale is announced and listed in your Sales button, I'm assuming it already passed muster? In other words, if there is an issue, are we notified before an announcement is made? I'm assuming the answer is yes, but you know what they say about assuming...

@Rooky, have you done any searching around FAA for your answers or is your judgement on FAA members trying to help based on a few random queries? Contrary to your misguided opinions, most FAA members are very knowledgeable in the areas that they try to answer...and for FREE! Have you given any good FREE answers lately? In regards to photographing paintings which is what this topic is about, here is some FREE info. that may be helpful:

http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=284083

If you think you have a better answer, don't just sit there on your ***, offer some of your own FREE help. Just my 2cents or perhaps I'm just trying to "discourage others and leave more room to sell themselves", as you have so eloquently put it.


-W

Chuck, when the sale shows up in your Account balance and you receive an email regarding the sale, it is NOT a done deal. It's just the beginning of the deal, the notifications are done almost as soon as the buyer picks the buy button. If your image is not up to muster, usually within 24 hours, you will get an email from either Dawn or someone else regarding this; plus when you log onto FAA, you will have a big fat notice smack in your face. You will then have a little time, not much, probably no more than 24 hours to make the correction and reupload and reply to Dawn via the email sent to you. Whenever I make a sale of 60" or larger, I am on pins and needles for the next 24 hours hoping NOT to see an email from Dawn.


-W

Good to know. Thanks W!

uh..HUM...mr or miss wings...IF this FAA site was not so darn challenging for my ISP to reach consistently, you would see that I do actually give out VALID information on a regular basis. But the way things are now, I choose to do this on websites that for starters, have things organized, and secondly I answer honest questions with honest answers. I could go on and on about all of the things wrong with this 'community' but why? (bother) Nothing is going to change here, faa thinks they are perfect, just as every other POD does, I choose to spend my time, experience, and knowledge where it counts.
Paul, I am sorry to hear you are also experiencing problems here, I had gathered from your question that you know a heck of a lot more than most people that call themselves photographers. I will only add here that, anyone is welcome to contact me personally for assistance. I needed assistance when I walked into POD, and I am more than willing to pay it forward.

Honest questions will Always be answered with with honest, Non-condescending answers by me.

Err ... I'm not experiencing problems here, Rooky, I don't know what gave you that idea.

The link wingsdomain put up from Murray Bloom seems to have exactly the right info in it. Shouldn't it be pinned permanently to the top of the forum?

It is. See the help tab in the main forum tabs

Hi Beth, I just read this carefully on FAA: For Premium member " Automatically Submit Prints to Google Products: Each print that you offer for sale is via our print on demand program is automatically submitted to Google Products on a weekly basis. This ensures that your prints are always available for purchase through that service and, thanks to our search engine optimization, that your prints always appear near the top of the search results!"

I am not sure how it works from FAA or Google. I only do the search for my own name, but my one or two years old images show on Google search, not even my 1/4 of my posts. I hope it means what it says!

That has nothing to do with image quality.

Please use the form for Tech Support http://fineartamerica.com/contactus.html

OK, I will do it, thanks. I thought this was for anyone needs a help.

I just need to apologize for my previous hostilities. I am still angry and disappointed that image theft is so easy on FAA, but this was the wrong place at the wrong time for me to say the wrong things.

Rooky

That is fine and thank YOU for coming back, really appreciate it

Great and helpful thread!

Is part of the problem with the images on FAA that they are JPEG or .jpg which tend to degrade with use and saving? Why not .png or .tif?

I'm heading over to forum with this idea,in answer to Jeff's thread, and Angelina's too, but just plonking it down here, too. Three fine members, now, offer advice/help repairing images, but, who? them maybe? will pass images for print from among the three, rather than go through the faa shock/re-shoot within 20 hrs situation due to print quality? On a regular basis - like Paul said - for me and many painters, there's just no knowing how really bad unprintworthy our photos of artwork are ! Especially as has been said...our full res doesn't show the quality of our original jpgs.

Sort of, a Yes or No

No, Roy. Besides we accept PNG

Most of the bad images I see are down to people enlarging or over sharpening.

Id like to see FAA accept TIF files also. 95% of the time am using Lightroom, and it does not create PNG Files, so it makes extra work. Output to the drive, input to PS, convert the image to PNG before uploading.

I've noticed what I see mentioned above. I look at the lizard picture I just uploaded, it looks blurry. I look at it on my computer, it's lots better. Still a tiny bit soft, but very little. I guess maybe I need to try one I've already printed and see how it does. I originally intended to offer these for sale, (I've only uploaded two so far) but shut off that option for now until I find out if this is something related to resizing and uploading or the picture itself. I know the picture I originally took looks better than what I see uploaded here. I've seen this when uploading to photography forums too, and started sharpening for that sometimes, but I usually don't need to sharpen anything good enough to print.

I'm shooting in JPEG, picture uploaded is not resized smaller than the crop size, and was saved at high quality. I know it's a tiny bit soft when I look at it 100% in my picture viewer, but not nearly what I see after uploading. I usually do very little editing, just crop and resize when necessary, occasionally I push the contrast a bit, that's about all. For print photos I don't down size at all, and this lizard picture was not enlarged either. I would understand the loss of quality if it had been enlarged.

At any rate, I'll see if I can find a couple more that look good and upload, see how it goes.

Last month I had seven of my photos sent back by customers. One customer I knew. So I contacted her to find out what was going on. She said one photo was too dark, another one had part of the photo of a bird cut off, and another one was blurry. I printed out each photo (that was the exact image on FAA) at the same size she ordered it. and sent them to her. None were too dark, cut off or blurry. She said she couldn't believe the quality of my HP printer and how terrible the FAA's prints looked. She was especially disappointed, because she bought 2 of mine photos a year ago and she was thrilled with the printing and framing. I never got an email from FAA saying that something was wrong with them. One of the items she also bought were greeting cards .... which she didn't send back, but they too were fuzzy. Why wasn't I told my photos were not acceptably? ?

.tif files ? Are you serious?
I have .tif files (Panoramas) that are bigger than one Gigabyte !! I'd like to see a POD site that accepts those. I doubt it's not out there, yet.
I'd just be happy if the upload limit could be raised to e.g. 50 MB ...

Prints:
After a lot of work and I mean a lot of work, I am completely confident in what I submit for print. I had to train my eye to see what FAA printers see.

It is totally worth all that work, taking the original jpegs back to photoshop, playing around with it, re-uploading...repeat, repeat...some images I had to do three or four times. I'm talking about photos of my artwork. For some images I had to go back to the original artwork and re-photograph them.

I ordered prints of some that I wasn't sure of the quality and sure enough they weren't printable, but FAA worked with me and because I inquired about what sizes were printable for those images, they took the time to look into it and get back to me. I ordered the max print sizes and saw that FAA was right to say they could print the larger sizes. They would have been pixelated. Those images are now offered at smaller sizes and the high res box option is turned off.

After training my eyes to see and training myself to Photoshop my images correctly, I ordered some more prints. Those print came out perfectly. Very professional looking.

All that work was worth it. I know that what I am offering for sale is going to be printed and be printed with quality.

Cards:
FAA cards print darker than the images show on your page. It works for some images, but not others. If you images have a darkness to them already, then they will not print correctly as a card.

Getting good photos of drawings is more difficult. I've tried artificial lighting and lighting by a bright Northern exposed window, but the best lighting I have found to photograph drawings, and paintings with a lot of white showing, is angled (very) slightly away from direct sunlight at this time of year and afternoon sun in spring and summer or very bright, cloudy day. Some drawings have a sheen to them when in direct sunlight. A slight angle takes away the sheen.

Here is an example of one done on a bright sunny day. It is given a sepia tone. It could be improved on a bit (a slight shadow on a crease on the right side of the paper is showing), but considering how difficult it is to photograph drawings, I think it came out really well:



Here is an example of a drawing that was photographed on a bright cloudy day. This one looks more black and white. The orginal color of both images is actually somewhere in between the two. A slightly sepia paper with a graphite drawing over the top. The paper has a heavy tooth so in the high res box you can see the texture that it adds:

.

I'm fairly new here, so I hope this post isn't out of place, but if it is, I apologize. I just wondered if someone could take a look at a couple of my images and tell me if they are good enough to print. Since I've never sold prints before, I'm still getting a handle on photographing my paintings, and I know I have a lot to learn.

I am in the process of re-doing my photos because I think many of the ones I had up initially were not good enough. But I want to know if the new ones I've taken would suffice - and if not, would I need to photograph them again, or could the images be tweaked to fix any issues?

Here are two of my new ones:

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/young-tree-in-an-old-forest-anna-bronwyn-foley.html

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/lakeside-in-winter-anna-bronwyn-foley.html

If someone could take a peek and let me know what you think, I would really appreciate it! Thanks!

They look great to me, Anna. :-)

I have a buyer who will be ordering a canvas print. She wants me to sign it. She is local and willing to bring the print to me. My question, what type of pen should I use to sign the canvas?

Be careful and have someone else with you unless you personally know them Arlene.

If it's a paper print, then I think an acid free and archival safe marker/pen is best. You find those in the scrapbook sections of stores.

If it's a painting...I think painting the signature looks best for continuity...that's my humble opinion.

re Andee's reply: or meet somewhere publicly

Ladies, I know the buyer. She has purchased my work before directly from me. This is the first time she is buying one of my prints from FAA. This will be my first canvas print sale. I am just concerned about signing a canvas print. I have the archival gel pens in gold, black and white. I am not sure they would work on the canvas print. I am really excited to see the print.

As an aside: She found my print on Amazon.com. She will not go to my FAA web site because she claims her computer got a virus while she was on the site a few weeks ago. I told her to come to my office and I will order it for her and she will pay me. The amazon print is more expensive than the FAA print. Amazon is selling it for $167.84. The same size is $142.17.

When I first started I ordered a print of one of my paintings. I was told it could not be printed and suggestions were made for me to get the results needed... like use a tripod, etc. I just did not know. I ordered I tripod and resubmitted the order and received the prints in a couple of days. I plan on selling all of my originals, eventually and want a framed print for myself.

Hi Beth,

I have a new order of a canvas print of the same painting that I sold in September with the same image. But this time I received the below email from FAA regarding image problem of my below order. The first order was bigger 24 by 18 inches but this time is much smaller 12 by 9 inches. It says: "Your image is too close to the edge of the artwork and will get partially cropped out during production. Can you please rephotograph your work so that it's farther from the edge of the image?"

Could you please tell me exactly the problem with my image? When I asked this to my dear helpful friend and fellow FAA member Jeff Campbell, he suspected it means my signature and other elements at the bottom and right are too close to the edge. So, he was very kind enough to move my signature a bit above by editing my existing image for free. The edited picture is now uploaded as below:



Could you please confirm this was the problem only and now the image is problem free? I also emailed Dawn to orders- at - fineartamerica.com and you in FAA email.

The announcement page of sale: http://fineartamerica.com/saleannouncement.html?id=677f5c21f8422538b67f30f973ec23fe
The problem notification email from FAA: http://fineartamerica.com/announcementimageproblem.html?announcement=true

Thanks,
Kasana

Sold a print of this painting, but FAA said they could not print it. So, I lost the sale. The original was sold a long time ago, so I cannot reshoot it. Sure wish FAA had the ability to let me know at the time of uploading whether the image is of such poor quality it cannot be printed. It is embarrassing to have a customer order it and then have FAA refuse to print.

just wondering how will I know if my new upload is good enough for printing I have two sales pending and haven't heard back from FAA I did email them back to tell them it was done thanks Bev

@Beverly Livingstone, Most of my prints here are printed by me in the largest size I want FAA to sell. I have them done by a pro lab, so the colors and everything else are perfect. I expect that the lab that FAA uses will hold to the same quality standards.

One thing I have noticed is that FAA allows larger prints than I would dare print. In other words, lets say I upload a 16x20 print at 300 DPI. That is the standard for printers. However, FAA allows much larger prints, lowering the DPI on that print in the sizes above 16x20. To control this, I uncheck the extremely large sizes on some in order to avoid potential print quality problems.

thank you AM , such a hard thing photographing art work

bumping this one up too.

Hello;
I’m wondering about mine too. Any comments, advice, quite welcome.

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/three-pears-kim-bird.html

That is not very clear....check your signature at 100% in your photo editor

Question for Beth - I recently had a couple of sales cancelled after they were shipped - that is they were returned for refund (I have not read this entire thread to see if this was already answered) but got no notification that there was any problem with the print quality. They were point and shoot camera images for which I limited the size for sale. Do we get notified BEFORE a sale goes out if the quality is not good? I'm assuming the purchaser just changed their mind for some reason.

That said, I did recently get a very high resolution, large monitor at work. I've been scrolling through some of my stuff when I have time to see what should just be taken out of my gallery. Sometimes the full resolution box doesn't really tell you the whole story....

Mary, if the images were returned by the buyer, it is not a print quality issue your end.

It will have been another reason

Thanks, Beth. Although disappointed at the return, that makes me feel a little better....

Have had a few rejected for reasons which I did not feel were legitimate. Know as much about printing, as probably anyone doing any printing, but believe those examining the prints, are not those doing the printing.... That the final decision when there is a question, should be made by a printer.

Have been printing black and white since 1942 professionally. Was a photographer in the Army, and worked in the Counter Inteligence Corps Photo Lab for three years.
Then, attended NYIP to for B&W, color processing and printing... for two years. Have been printing on Epson Printers ever since they made the first one. Still have two of them, on set up strictly for printing Black and White, the other for Color exhibition prints... But now they are in storage, since retiring, have been traveling 12,000 Plus miles a year in our Motor Home. Don't have the room for two large printers, so have been outsourcing printing that we sell on EBay.... For the past five years was using Zenfolio which has a profession service for printing.

In FAA have most of my work set for HD viewing.
Last month had a 40x rejected for "pixels" where there were absolutely NO pixels showing in the image anywhere.
In Photoshop, even enlarged it 100% _beyond_the_point for ACTUAL PIXELS to check for pixels and none showed....
Had to enlarge it double again, before pixels began to show,or over 200% larger than the sample FAA inspector sent me.

My images are all shot with a Nikon, using RAW (fine) quality for the Highest Resolution.
This gives me an image so large, that it must be REDUCED in size, so that it can be sent to FAA as a PNG .... Even some cropped images are over 35mb is size. Usually have to reduce the resolution from 400 to at least 280, sometimes 250 or 200 pixels per inch to send them. This means FAA is NOT getting an image with as good definition, as what comes out of the camera...

Recently have seen a message recommending a 12 or 14 mpx camera to take pictures. Such a size is NOT an indication of the quality of a camera.
There are some very cheap 14mpx cameras on the market, with very poor lenses, that will not produce as good a quality image as older Nikon, Canon, and other cameras....

They sent me an enlarged image of the area they claimed was pixelated, IT WAS NOT... "0 pixels..." were visible.
ONE edge of a sharp line in the image was the edge of an element of the image, which _should_have_been_a_sharp_edge, but no where did it show even a portion of a "pixel."

Even sent them a sample of the definition of PIXELED images from Wikipedia and sample of a "pixelated image..."
They still rejected a perfectly good image, insisting it was.... Yet it has been sold to more than a dozen buyers via Zenfolio in the past five years without any returns...
The image was also set so that the BUYER had the opportunity to view it with HD in FAA, it seems as if they do not even consider that.
It makes me wonder how many other sales they may be losing, they lose more, because their profit margin on the image is much greater than mine ...

Another one, they were going to reject because it was "out of focus or blurred." Guess they do not recognize DEPTH OF FIELD in an image.
It was a landscape of a series of mountain ranges, shot with a 450mm lens which compresses distance.
Focused on the first one, which was razor sharp. The second was not quite as sharp, personally know that MTN is five miles further than the first, but they complained "it is blurred."
The third range is 20 miles away, so was more blurred due to distance and depth of field.... as it should have been to show the depth or distance in the image...

After several back and forth exchanges, they finally printed it and it was _not_ returned by the buyer...
The first one should have been shipped also.... Have never had an image returned by a customer yet, in over 70 years of printing.

If Id been the buyer who ordered it, Id have been quite upset, especially if Id checked the HD views of several areas, and was satisfied with the definition/resolution....

Bob

My photographs don't look quite as good when I open them in the full resolution. Why is that? I used a 16MP camera and only optical zoom. Would this cause any problems when printing large sizes?

@ J C, it's more than the number of megapixels, it's also the quality of the lens and the IQ of the camera's processor. Since you mentioned "I used a 16MP camera and only optical zoom" I assume it is a point and shoot? I assume that you are pushing it by trying to print anything over 16x20.

You can try to uncheck larger print sizes and do tests on your images like I do by printing them at a local pro lab in the largest size I'm willing to have FAA sell. (I say print at a local pro lab for tests because you get immediate feedback on your quality and also avoid causing FAA to have to reject a marginal image, costing them money.)

Oh! Thanks for that feedback! I thought that when FAA got rid of my option to use the largest size(s) for some of my pictures it took care of that problem.

Beth will need to correct me if I'm wrong on this: I think that FAA will print an image down to 100DPI. For me, that is way too pixelated. I will go a little under my 300DPI upload but 100 is too low for my comfort. That reminds me, I need to check my own images for how big I allow them to be printed at.

You need to make your determination as to what is best for you, I didn't look at your images. I'm just talking in general terms.

Now I'm curious, any of my photography work... are they alright? I use my Nikon D60 for some of the photos I had in the past & currently use D7000...

I am glad I see this discussion! I assumed if it gets accepted it will be ok. So is this image too pixelated? If so I better start deleting the larger sizes!
Thanks!

Ooops -- posted to wrong thread. My apologies!

This is great discussion for me. I follow it..and hope can learn a lot..for my photography..! thank you all..:-)

I am so glad I found this thread. I've been lucky enough to be able have a scanner at work to use, and small enough images to fit on it, but when I start making bigger paintings, the info in this thread (and the links it contains) will be invaluable. Especially the part about the satin finish. (The tutorial I was using says to use a gloss finish, and I had wondered about that. I'm going to go with satin finish on mine.)

This was a photo of street art done on a brick wall so the plane of focus is common across the image. The image was not altered and I enlarged the image for pixelation and could find none. The image size is about 5.5 MB. It was not scanned and I can't account for this.

Jim

Great topic for discussion. I was wondering as far as photo digital images go. Images that have been digitally enahnced with filters etc. How can one get a clean, clear resolution on them, I have a problem with this on my photo digital images.

My RAW images saved as a PNG file are too big to upload to FAA. Does anyone use Photoshop to reduce file size but keep a good resolution? How? Thanks
Laurel

Great in-depth post, Beth, thanks for all the information. I want to make sure FAA will make my prints to my tastes like my wet photo lab does, and your links answer all my questions. Thanks again, your ears must be burning as I was just getting reading to ask this question here.

@ Laurel: I have not had any problems when saving an image that is larger than 25 MB. I just did one recently that was 30 MB. After uploading the image to Photoshop, I simply clicked the save option and it told me how big the file was at maximum size. There is an option to dial it back until it is at 25 MB or a little less. I believe it shrinks the file without shrinking the dpi quality. A shrink to fit FAA's 25 mb maximum. I viewed it in Photoshop in the 'actual size' view as well as used the high Res box here at FAA after uploading the image and neither showed pixelation.

I have not yet received an order for this one so i guess afterwards I will know if that worked well. This is the image. For now I am offering it at the highest size available; which is pretty huge (60 x 45) and probably won't sell that big. The high Res box view shows it as larger than the largest image available (bigger than 88 x 66. Is it possible that FAA has reduced some of it's available print size options recently to avoid problems?).
(I'm basing that on this pixel x pixel chart I found on FAA:
http://fineartamerica.com/groups/horse-pictures.html?showmessage=true&messageid=1103034 )

Here is an image I just finished and uploaded today - I do worry some - if you do the hi res green box under the "ports" at the top - you see little black dots, under the "porpoise nose" more. These are intentional - they ad some sparkle to the image.

Roy, to me it's obvious that it's the way it should be! Beautiful!

Most of my photography is not tack sharp and isn't meant to be. I have started to go through all of my pictures with the high resolution preview and as long as there is no pixelation, then I will leave them in. So far, they seem to be fine. I have also cut back a couple of notches on the largest size allowed by FAA. Not much else I can do other than put in some disclaimers about softness etc. I always leave the high resolution box turned on.

Roy I just went to water sports and added a fav and a vote!

who was it above that said to view your images at 100% in your image editor - i do that all the time, and go even larger - i will not upload anything that does not withstand super-sized views. that said, i almost always resize my images (I know, NEVER EVER EVER do that) but i was doing it for a long time without problem on other PoD sites. since i joined FAA, however, and have read so many discussion threads about this issue, i am much more careful about it, AND always do my own hundred percent or larger review before posting.

since it was stated above more than once, is it safe to assume that, if an image passes your own 100% examination, that it will be ok to print?

my two most recent sales have been large: one canvas print 60x46.38 inches and one metal print at 2x3 feet. SO FAR no feedback on clarity issues - second question: if the issue is not brought up as soon as the buyer clicks the button or at least very quickly thereafter, is it safe to assume that there will be no objection to printing the image?

i am still a little gun-shy from a cancelled sale once on an image that was fine for printing (so i was told) but the buyer changed his or her mind. i would almost rather not be informed of a "sale" until the money is going to my paypal account.

Ginny

I cannot say 100% that yes, if you okay it your end it will pass. That is because, believe it or not, some people would pass terrible images because they do not know what they are looking for.

I am 'pretty sure' that if YOU are looking then you will be fine but cannot guarantee that

If you have one special image you want checked, you can always contact us

I agree with Ginny on the timing of the sale - at least wait until it's been printed and shipped. Then - you could actually put the recently sold in order that they are bought - not random, anywhere from an hour ago to 16 + hours ago - and why are they randomly put up there anyway ? to keep us from knowing what just sold last?

Hello all. I am new to FAA and find the sizing very challenging. I tried to size based on the standard poster size of 24x36in or 36x24 inches. I sized my artwork to 20x32 inches thinking that the extra inch FAA adds around the print would create the 24x36 I was going for, it did not. Should I have made it 22x34? So, I obviously need a bit of guidance getting the exact measurements right. Thanks for any help!

I have been informed this morning BY MY CUSTOMER not by FineArtAmerica that a series of prints he ordered are not suitable images for the large prints he has ordered. They have canceled the order and told him that they tried to work it out with me. That is not true. No one has emailed me about a problem with any of these images. They are digital art/painting and have a particularly grainy look to them - ON PURPOSE - and the buyer was aware of that. I find it really difficult to understand how FAA could do this, lie about having been in contact with me about the problem and not even offer your services as a possible solution and then cancel the entire order without notification to the artist. Why does FAA not check the quality of the print BEFORE announcing the sale?

Here is a link to one of the 14 images in the set the buyer ordered in size 40x40 paper print.

Please check your spam/junk folder. Emails are sent out immediately, normally from orders- at - fineartamerica.com

Mary

You do not need to size for the prints. That is the beauty of this site. You upload what you have and we size to you

Thanks for re-posting this thread. I think we should not disappoint the buyer. It would really suck to lose my first sale to something that won't print. Will be checking mine and honestly analzying them. I have blown up some for personal use and they are fine so I can use those that are on here as a reference also.

I have gone through all my images since there have been more rejections discussed in the last few months and downsized my sale size options on anything I took with a point and shoot, and anything that I thought would not look its best at the largest sizes. That said, it's really hard to tell what will print well and what will not unless you have a really large, high-quality monitor, even after blowing it up on your regular-sized screen and scrolling around the image to check for issues.

So far I've not had any non-printable notices, but neither have I sold anything above 20 inches. I really wish there was a foolproof way to tell if an image would be rejected. I have a few things I shot at a really high iso, and there is evidence of that in the preview box, but it's uniform and not a flaw, and the patterning is even throughout the image, and does not detract at all, in my opinion. I left those marked for the largest sizes, but I sit here wondering if those would be rejected.

Mary, I think it is wise for you to knock off a few size options to assure quality. I looked at your close-up still life images as I do that type of photography as well and have printed a few of mine to see for myself. This particular one of yours, that I've selected for an example, needs to have a few of the larger size options knocked off because it just won't print well at those sizes. I'm basing this opinion on seeing my own pieces printed that have a very similar quality to them in the high res view box.

You have this one available as large as 60 x 40. Based on the pixels, you can print the image that big, but the clarity of the photo will not be good enough at that size. I suggest knocking off the two largest sizes you currently have available so you can be assured a great print. That would mean the largest available for this image would be 40 x 26. Still very large. This is a cool image, btw.



Here's one of mine at a similar clarity level through the high res box. Based on pixels, I could print it at 30 x 20.75, but I don't offer that size. I offer the size under that one. I've also purchased a print at the size under 30 x 20.75 (on metal) and it was clear that I made the right choice by knocking off the largest size available. Any larger and the quality of the print would suffer.

This is what happened to me.

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/1-margaret-hunt-hill-bridge-elena-nosyreva.html

The sale of this image did not go through. I was told by FAA that my image was "blocky" (?).
Fortunately for me the buyer contacted me through email. The buyer was told by FAA that due to the low resolution they can not print 60x40" size image.
The buyer turned out to be a local interior designer. She picked my image out of thousand others (as she said) for her project, and when the order was cancelled she was heartbroken.
So we went to a local gallery/print shop, I used their service before and knew that I can rely on them. They had no problem with my image, printed it 60X40", and made all of us happy.
You can see a certain amount of grain in the image, which is the result of post processing, and the the buyer had an opportunity to see this on a computer in the printing shop. She said she loved it, because it gave the image an antique look.
I know we discussed "quality vs artistic treatment" issue before, but seems like it is not resolved yet, maybe this matter is so subjective that there is no solution to it.
In this case I'd prefer to be informed in advance whether my image is up to FAA standards.

Lots of info....so how many megapixels should my camera have to shoot at the larger sizes? I have an 8 mp I am replacing. I have been looking at the 12mp is that too small? Or should I just jump to a 16 mp?

http://imageshack.com/i/ngj0vp
I saw another thread where pictures were added to a response from ImageShack, so I put mine there and this is the link to it. Maybe it will turn into the image itself after I hit submit, I don't know. ... EDIT - no it doesn't become the image, but still links to it on ImageShack.

At any rate, it is a screen shot of the green square enlargement of the upper right corner of this image

which I posted yesterday, so if the above link does not turn into a picture, you can go to the image itself and do your own green square from that area.

This has been discussed ad infinitum here, whether a lack of sharp detail would be deemed as intentional or as an unprintable flaw. It brings me again to the point that if a buyer sees this in the green square and wants to order the print anyway, FAA should not arbitrarily and cavalierly cancel the sale but at the very least communicate with the buyer with their printing concerns and allow the buyer the option to decide whether to complete the order or perhaps to switch to a smaller print.

It also brings up the point - again - whether FAA could or should determine upon upload of every image whether it would be suitable for printing at extreme sizes - the response to which is they lack "the resources." I am not a computer programmer, but I still believe there must be some way to build into the upload process an automatic examination of the quality of enlargements, which could limit the size range of possible prints. If I am not mistaken I have been told on Redbubble that a certain image that I just posted would not be suitable for prints larger than such and such a size and so the option to order those sizes would not be available.

If I were ever told to upload a better version of something that had been ordered as a large print, I would have to say sorry, what is up there is the best I can do - if I had to go back to the original to rework it from scratch, the result though of the same subject would ultimately be a completely different picture, in terms of nuances in color and texture. Basically what you see is what you get. Someone above said it would be a slap in the face - yes but not just that, in my case it would just not be done.

Resources or not, there should be a way to determine upon upload the appropriate maximum size for a print. I myself would be willing to disable the options for the sizes that should not be allowed to print. The best I can do is to view my piece before I upload it at the "print size" option and then zoom in farther even from that - and if it goes too blurry in my opinion, I will scrap it before uploading. I do not upload anything that I don't think is good enough to print. If it turns out not to be good enough to print, then orders for it will just have to be cancelled.

Bad for me - worse for the poor soul who innocently orders something and believes that because it is possible to order, the order should go through.

I think there is a problem when I reduce the size/resolution of an image after It's been uploaded. The original downloaded pixels preview does not change, it does not reflect the smaller size I have reduced the image to. I hope to hear from Isabella on how this could be remedied. I hate to have to upload the images all over again.

I would like to hear your experience.

I am 'worried my image isn't going to be printable at large sizes'....
All of the explanations make sense, but I am unsure.
When I preview on Mac, the image size is 2.1 MB; the resolution is 355 pixels/inch; and the number of pixels is 1899X2695.

So it is automatically offered at sizes up to where it says 'not enough pixels to print at that size'.

However, when I put the green box on it for a full resolution preview, I lose confidence in how it will look in large sizes.

Can you please look and advise? Thank you.

Sherry, you have a camera flash showing on that image so it would not print

http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=28408 How to Photograph Your Art
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=199853 How to photograph your Artwork at Home
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=200640 How I Photograph Art...
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=371117 Let’s Talk Photography
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=102801 Photographing paintings
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=917008 Rich's Tutorial On Copying Artwor
http://rolfbertramdotcom.zenfolio.com/p545849061/e13632899 Tips & Tricks for advanced painting photography

These may help :)

Sherry, you have a camera flash markedly showing on that image so it would not print

http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=28408 How to Photograph Your Art
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=199853 How to photograph your Artwork at Home
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=200640 How I Photograph Art...
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=371117 Let’s Talk Photography
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=102801 Photographing paintings
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=917008 Rich's Tutorial On Copying Artwor
http://rolfbertramdotcom.zenfolio.com/p545849061/e13632899 Tips & Tricks for advanced painting photography

These may help :)

Will these two images be printed at all sizes? I am asking as I see noise in some portions where Red color is there.

Thanks for the reply about the camera flash. I deleted the image until I can get another photo of it.
If you would, please let me know if this attached image would print:

Thanks for the discussion.

Hello, Please help, I had a sale for this in a canvas print 24x19. Received e-mail. too dark and the high res was not good, I have been unable to upload a new picture, or an edited picture today was the last day to do this and I lost my sale. I blame no one but myself, I guess for future I may not see what it is that was the problem with printing could you please help and point it out to me?. I am not a computer wiz and I want to get this right. Thank you so much Tanja

Tanja, When I click your picture I see the canvas texture. But besides this it is a bit blurry. I don't understand the 'too dark' comment. The customer seems to have liked the "dark" colors. If you go back to the suggestions on 8/13/13 you will find some help as you how to photograph your work.

Ursula, Thank you I tried using the square res box but it would not let me move it around so I am unable to see blurry, as far as too dark I am like you ,not understanding. again Thank you for responding- Tanja

Also I still can't use high resolution square or upload new picture, it just keeps saying "please wait............" This seems to go on for awhile I have closed out and tried again, and again same message

When you click it (sometimes it takes a while to respond) it shows you just that one area. To see another part of the picture you have to click that part. It does not let you move around. You need both a fairly good camera (friend?) and good lighting to photograph your work. Hope that helps.

When you click it (sometimes it takes a while to respond) it shows you just that one area. To see another part of the picture you have to click that part. It does not let you move around. You need both a fairly good camera (friend?) and good lighting to photograph your work. Hope that helps.

When FAA is very busy it does not work, try it another time.

Ursula, Thank you

I do understand that you can not "move" around the high res box. but I try to click on another area and it just gives me the same spot, in the clouds somewhere.

The camera I am using is : Nikon coolpix L120. 14.1 mega pixal. Nikor 21x wide optical zoom. Of course I have no idea what some of this means but it is not a little digital camera. I do have a tripod, however some of the pictures were taken before tripod and this one happens to be one of them, and I am going through and reshooting the paintings
.
I was able to upload one of the paintings after 4 days of trying, still tooooo late to save the sale.

Again Ursula Thank You so much for your help

Tanja Beaver

Tanja, this is weird I have no trouble viewing the hi res box, there is a problem on your page and you should call tech help, it's somewhere in the many links or maybe you could search for it. How about other pictures, same?

Your camera is great but when you bring the photos into your computer, make sure it does not reduce them to smaller jpgs for email and such. Also make sure your camera is set to take photos at that high resolution it's capable of. Most of your images do not look good in the closeup. Remember enough light is needed too.
You may also put a note on your page that if FAA does not want to print your image they could contact you directly.

Good luck!

I would love some input on my photo quality. I don't know why but I'm having trouble seeing if some of them are clear enough -- may be my vision -- and would appreciate it if someone has the time to check even one or two of my paintings and give me some feedback.

Something else I have noticed is that when I upload my photos into fine art america, the color is perfect, then when I upload the same photo onto my facebook page the color is harsh and too intense. What's up with that?

May I remind people please that we do NOT review your work for you. It is not our job unless you make a sale

You need to view all your work, at 100%, in your programme before uploading and go over every inch yourself.

If you sell an image we will refuse to print if the image shows.......

Pixellation
Blockiness
Bad cropping
Blurriness nor in keeping with the image (ie not meant to be there)
normal font signature
signature cropped half off the image
large watermarks
noticeable camera flash

Abbie, you wrote, "If you sell an image we will refuse to print if the image shows....... normal font signature....."

What does that mean?

Susan, if FAA had to check every picture uploaded they would need a huge crew, so that is not going to happen. I have lots of images from as far back as 1997! So I have started to redo one image at a time by painting them over in a larger size. That is hard to do with a straight photo though. I checked your lovely images and find that if
you enlarge the edges you may find some pixellation (a bit like a staircase) instead of a straight clean line. If you reduce the print sizes available this may disappear. I think the signature has to be a handmade signature not a digital font.

I was asking Abbie about her term normal font, not about inspections of uploads. Sellers here use a variety of signature styles, hence my question!

I once got that notice of an image that was sold but too blurry at 100%, and I was shocked when I realized what I had uploaded! Then I contacted the current owner of the painting and scrambled to get a new, better image onto the site. The results were happy. Whew! That's not a mistake I want to make again.

Ursula, if we reduce the print size like you suggested, the full res preview still does not change. That is the way it works and many members are not happy about it. Jani's suggestion not to offer the largest available sizes is spot-on AND is how I upload my images. Please don't presume otherwise.

Susan

Basically Arial/Times font with a name plastered across the bottom (or anywhere) of the image

Thanks, Abbie. Just wanted to make sure!

Susan, I am sorry! The first part of the question was for Tanja, the second part was meant for your. I should have separated the two answers.

Your concern that the preview does not change even after you eliminate the larger sizes is correct. I have found that I have to upload a new smaller version from scratch to make that work.

Lenore, how did you go about letting FAA know that you had uploaded a better image? Whom did you contact?

the same person has visited one of my images 13 times ,i believe i am having a sales issue do to the watermarks on my images ...may i have them all removed without changing anything else.thank you for your time.

Quality test you can do with your image:
Make copy of your image to USB Memory Card
and make 5x 7 print at local store.
You will hate or love what you have.
:)

Ursula, I contacted the person who had emailed me about the problem, by replying to the email.

Tom, YOU can control the watermark image (whether to show it or not). Just go into "edit image" and click "unable watermark".

Lenore, that was a good thing. Usually FAA will let you know when the quality of the image is not high enough to print. So glad you did not loose the sale!

I havent sold any photographs of mine, what am i doing wrong???

Finally got around to uploading with my new camera AND a tripod.looks good to me and I was careful with the crop! Hope I am right!

@franshica- you'll have to open a thread for a site critique, this thread is about image quality in itself. anyone answering would be getting off topic.


---Mike Savad

duplicate

Cathy, though I am not an expert the resolution of your images seems fine, especially since you are wise not to offer larger sizes. Sometimes FAA is really fussy about lighting: your owl image seems to have a dark area on top and top right. It maybe your painting itself has those dark spots. I am slowly reloading my digital paintings by repainting them at a higher resolution (very time consuming) and other times reducing the sizes offered. I noticed that unless I upload the new smaller size from scratch the preview shows the original high res preview. But right now most of my images are not up to snuff.

Ursula thanks so much.I see that shadow now! I was trying so hard to crop properly and not shake the camera! I have to replace everything too! I also have to read the camera books.i had a sale before I had to reshoot.many of my pieces need to be bigger prints.I am also stuck with a iPad edit program until I get my computer fixed....if possible.The drama of technology is a bit much for me!

Cathi, the drama of technology, that's a good one!

Hi, New Guy Here, just want to get my image set correct can you look at this test image. Tell what is wrong with and what I can do to fix it. This the only image in my gallery.

Thanks

http://l-j-smith.artistwebsites.com/featured/abstruse-l-j-smith.html?newartwork=true

When I see how long ago this was started, I am surprised that there isn't some place we can be directed to when we first start uploading images that would avoid the mistakes some of us are obviously making and only find out when a sale falls through because of issues with the quality of a large image. I understand no one could possibly review all that is lister here, but we should have a tool or a schedule to refer to in order to make sure we can make that call.

Just happened to me and I want to learn from it - of the 56 pictures I have listed, I want to review how many are a problem to print at the largest size I have it listed.
So here's the question -
I had an image I uploaded at 6000 x 8000 resolution- thinking, the bigger the better. At this size, it was not a clear image, but at the sizes that came up as I listed it, I thought it was acceptable, and that is why those sizes appeared for me to add prices to, if I chose to.

I had a sale for a 22.5 x 30 - and FAA sent me email to see if I could provide a better image as this was 'blocky' and 'blurry' at the 'full resolution' (which I don't know if it meant the 6000 x 8000 or as it would be at the 22.5 x 30) and also provided shots of the corners and certer at the size that was ordered to show how it would look. The corners were really not a problem because the background was not meant to be in focus. I don't really know what 'blocky' means. The cerner shot was not really the main point of interest in the photo, but I agree that it was not as good overall as it could have been.
Unfortunately the email requesting a replacement went to my spam folder and I never saw it in time to do anything and so my first sale was cancelled.

Where can I go get a chart that tells me that for FAA to print a 22 x 30 image it has to be xxxnumber of pixels.
Letting me upload the image in the first place and giving me the options of the really big sizes was misleading ----- I don't want to have this happen again and would like to fix it before I list any more images incorrectly.

I looked through this chain and didn't find such an answer - there must be one, or someone who can tell it like we need to hear it. To just pick a size and look at it at 100%, then increase it again and again - seems like there has to be a more intelligent way.

Thank you in advance for any advice --

Andrea

When you go to upload an image, the majority of the upload page shows examples of what to do and not to do when you upload an image, things such as upsizing, compressing the file too much, checking for focus/blur, and properly cropping. The demo photos will give you a good idea what they mean by 'blocky'.

This chart should help you with the pixels vs. print size question - a good rule of thumb is that, to print, say, an 8x10 at 100 dpi, which is what FAA will print at, you must have 800 x 100 pixels without having upsized to get there. The number of pixels in the original file determines the size you can offer. http://fineartamerica.com/printondemand.html

Andrea. I agree that it would be good to have a central spot for information about quality that you could find right away. Maybe they assume you already have some experience and if not would find out on your own before uploading. But there is lot of information and help if you ask. One thing they are clear on is not to change the resolution of the image. What that means is that if you start with a certain pixel dimension you don't increase that. That will cause the blockiness you speak of, and it is there at all sizes, just more noticeable in larger sizes. 600x 8000 is a lot of pixels. It sounds like you upped the resolution. Use the resolution that came with the photo or scan. If you want bigger, use a bigger camera or stitch several images together or get a higher resolution scanner. Just multiply the image size by 100 to get the file size you need for that size. If you don't have that as a minimum, changing the file size in an image editor is not a good solution. Even if you don't fill out the lager size prices. You degrade the image at all sizes when you upsample.
Actually when you upload new images the main things to worry about are all spelled out right there. It talks about upsizing and resolution and how it causes blockiness. And the other main points are there also. Resolution and upsizing is commonly misunderstood, even by those with experience.

L J, I can't tell the print quality/resolution as you don't have the LARGE PREVIEW enabled. You chose that when you upload your work and you can still change that by
editing it.

Can you use a vector image? Thanks

Check this same image as before in vector,,, then saved as bit map.

http://l-j-smith.artistwebsites.com/featured/vector-test-l-j-smith.html?newartwork=true

Take a look.....
Thanks

LJ I don't know what saving it in vector would do, I am not familiar with it. But if you view your image at 5000x5000 pixels it somewhat fuzzy and the edges show some 'staircase' pixels. If you sharpen it the pixellation will show up even more. I think you are pushing it in this case, I doubt if FAA would print it. Maybe offer it at a smaller size and see if it looks better? I myself am really struggling with the same issue and going through my images and uploading them in a smaller size.

Bradford - thank you so much for addressing my question. Yes, I did increase it because I totally misunderstood what that would do.
I think I didn't understand the relationship between size and the dpi - that is whether it's at 100 or 300 and how that relates to the size of the image that can be printed with good quality. I appreciate the simple rule of multiplying by 100 - I will do that from now on and look at all those I've already listed to make corrections. I will need to go back to my original as I took it and see what it really is without the increase in its size I created.

Christie - thank you very much for the help and your explanation that makes it easy to determine what I should be doing - and to know the rule for the 8x10 and that they print at 100dpi is very helpful. And thank you, also for the link.

Back to the drawing board for me! I hate to have lost the sale, but I honestly did think that particular image was not good in a large size - so this has been a very good opportunity for me to learn to do better.

Thank you, again, from a greateful rooky!

Andrea

OK,,, I HAD THIS IMAGE SCANNED ON A LARGE FORMAT SCANNER. Take look,, tell if you think this would pass.

http://l-j-smith.artistwebsites.com/featured/test-2-l-j-smith.html

This is ONLY image in my gallery "TEST 2"

Thanks for your help.

L.J.

LJ I can't get a preview, FAA must be very busy. I'll try again tonight when I'm back home. Seems like this is just a small part of your painting.

LJ I tried again but the link does not work anymore.

I couldn't open the link that LJ provided either. And I'm struggling and learning and cleaning up some of my older work on this site as time goes on just like many others are. I do have a couple of questions though. I've noticed on some new devices that much-much higher resolutions are being used and displayed. And. well, I have always published items here that are at least 300 ppi but I am curious if anyone is going up and putting things here up to 400 ppi or 500 ppi. Granted, different printers might have to res-down, but wouldn't that option be better for them and for FAA then having an image too small and in poor quality? I mean, anything set to 72 is really terrible print quality to begin with.

My other question is ... ? ... partly a question and partly a statement and would love to hear feedback. Is it better to be straightforward with each other when we come across each others work to send an email or send a nudge about the quality of the image or cropping... and what is the general consensus here about the correct way to tactfully and gently do this -- in an effort to help each other learn and get better AND make more sales. It seems to me that it would be doing each other a favor and helping to raise the quality and reputation etc. of this site, but I'm sure that I might be the odd-person out. Some people might take great offense to this, so... what do others recommend? Thank you.

I notice a marked degradation of quality when I view my images on FAA in the standard low-res display. All my files are uploaded at 300 ppi, none were enlarged and most were shot with 18 mp cameras (converted from RAW to the highest quality jpegs). I can't view pieces of them at high-res in the little green box because 90% of the time the preview will not load. If the high-res preview doesn't work for me, I must assume it doesn't work for potential buyers either and all they can see are low-res, degraded images. Is there any chance of reaching a happy compromise that would display a higher-resolution image since most of my images won't display in high-res boxes?

Megan. The DPI of the device or the image fil does not affect wat prints here. Only the total number of pixels. The printer will adjust the DPI to maximum of 400 and a minimum of about 100, depending on the size of the print and the total number of pixels.Some may scan at high resolution to get a good image , but the DPI is adjusted by the printer accordingly. Changing DPI in an image editor changes nothing unless it also changes the file size, which it would do if you resample.The file size may be decreased but should never be increased. My normal workflow is to scan at a high DPI and then drop it after editing.
I can't say how people will react if you contact them with a critique. So far I have done it successfully a few times and I am no diplomat. I don't give unsolicited critiques in a forum, which can be very rude and embarrassing no matter how well meaning.

Kathleen, There has been some discussion about the image file pages appearance in another thread. I don't know why the green box does not always load. Both are problems with the site that could affect sales, but not print quality.

Thank you Bradford. Knowing that is very helpful.

I'm in agreement with Kethleen about not being able to look at the high-res preview of my own work (and sometimes other people's work) because the preview won't load. All I get is the broken-image and sometimes I have to wait and wait and wait to even get that. Is it me or is it FAA?

Thanks, Bradford. I understand it won't affect print quality but I wonder how make sales are lost (not just mine!) because buyers are put off by the low-res display. They can't know that the original files may be substantially higher quality than what they view on the FAA site.

I though I had it - but maybe not...sheesss.... more questions -
I went to the Image Upload page and under Do not enlarge images - followed a link at the bottom of the instructions that took me to a discussion that was posted by Shaun, though he signed it Brian (?) I didn't quite follow that - but the information in this first post was detailed and wonderful.....
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=98350

so now I see here explained also not to enlarge the image or change the dpi because the 'DPI doesn't matter' - wait, dpi doesn't matter????

I tested an image that is straight out of my camera - Canon EOS Rebel T1i - my original is 3456 x 2304 at 72 and is 23,328KB and the jpg file size is 3,393KB
when I uploaded it as is - the largest option to print that came up automatically is 40 x 26.625 ----
but according to the chart here at FAA -
http://fineartamerica.com/printondemand.html
it was OK under the 'minimum acceptable' but under the' minimum recommended' for a size around the 3456 x 2304 - it would only be an 8 x 10 - that is a big difference.
What does this mean? At 72 dpi, would FAA actually print this at 40 x 26??

As Christi said above - FAA prints at 100 dpi - should I have changed it to 100dpi, which then changes the image to 34 x 23 - (the multiply by 100 works!)

So before I change what I already have uploaded - I'd like to understand what I really should be doing.

Also - in the discussion by Brian (or Shaun?) I mentioned at the beginning - he cautions about the 'JPEG compression setting' - that it be as low as possible.
I looked as I was saving it as a jpg file - and under 'options' I saw that it was set at 50% -- I didn't do that - it must be the default......so does that mean that I've been compressing all my files, and according to Brian, irreversibly losing the quality??? Or is it my camera doing that also, as when I look at the properties of the original image, I see that there is JPEG compression -
what does all this mean?? I am now totally confused!
Can someone please set me straight -- or should I be signing up for a course?

Andrea

Andrea, I can't speak to any of the FAA recommendations but I strongly advise that you shoot only in RAW, not jpg. Much more information is recorded in RAW than jpg, which means that you will have much more latitude in post-processing. It is my understanding that you lose 75% of the image information by shooting jpg vs. RAW. Don't convert to 8-bit jpgs until you are done editing the RAW image and then save it at the highest jpg setting.

Keep off the compression Andrea as much as possible. 50% is a lot of compression

Do not worry please about the ppi at all. You are shooting at 72 naturally it appears and that will be fine if the work is at good quality.

The 100ppi is good for math. 1000 pixels = 10" but, people need to just worry more about the quality of the image, and please forget all this about the ppi

dpi is not needed to be worried about at all, by any of the artists.... that is a printer term.

so this is ALL you need worry about

You need to view all your work, at 100%, in your programme before uploading, and go over every inch. Do not compress, or compress very little, (down to 10 in Photoshop)

If you sell an image we will refuse to print if the image shows.......

Pixellation
Blockiness
Bad cropping
Blurriness nor in keeping with the image (ie not meant to be there)
normal font signature
signature cropped half off the image
large watermarks
noticeable camera flash

Hope that helps

Abbie

Kathleen and Abbie - thank you very much for the help.

I have seen some back and forth about shooting in RAW without a definite conclusion, of course. I do see the merit, however, as I just tested it and am very surprised at the size of the file! The old concept of not using up so much memory really isn't an issue anymore as it is all so inexpensive, so I have to alter my old mindset, I think, to actually get the best image my camera and I can get.
So I will definitely shoot in RAW particularly when I know I am taking photos seriously with the possibility of having it enlarged.

Regardless, now I will go back and re-examine all I have uploaded and will go back to the original images for the problem ones and I won't increase the resolution this time, accept the dpi as is and make sure that the compression is as low as possible.

Again - I am very grateful for the time you've taken to give me all this wonderful advice.

I wish everyone a great day!

Andrea

Abbie, thank you for your explanations about print quality, they have been very helpful to me. However, one thing not listed in your last post is noise. I have concern about some of my images that have been converted to HDR. They have a good appearance when viewed at sizes I think will print well, but if viewed in full resolution there is noticeable noise. Will the printer reject these in the smaller sizes?

Thanks,
Phyllis

suppose your work is intentionally blurry as with bokeh in photos which allow the foreground subject to stand out?

These are all good questions and good answers... the bokeh question is very interesting too and I'd like to hear an answer. I just want to say that I am in a Digital Design program at my local college and my instructor constantly hammers into us that anything intended for print publication or sale MUST be at 300ppi or else he will not even print it or publish it or even present it to any professional ad agency, etc. He refuses to even consider anything below 150. Yes, I understand that this is a printing term or issue, but isn't Printing On Demand exactly what this is all about and why we are even on this website to begin with! We all want to make sales, right. So, shouldn't people be advised to submit 300ppi as at least 'recommended.'~~

Bump :-))

Hi. I'm a newbie and don't know how to check my pixels
or how to add my photos to a message but I'm thrilled to be
here and to learn!

Debb

Debb,


Here's how you add your images to any discussion:
1. Go to your Artist page, and then to Galleries and then to the image you want to include in your thread.
2. In the lower right hand corner of your image, that shows how the art can be ordered, framed,canvas,etc, in the bottom is a box, just under the color pallette, click on that box.
3. With the box now highlighted, do a "CTL C"
4. Return to the discussion thread that you want to add the image to and do a "paste" or a "CTL V"
a href='http://fineartamerica.com/featured/ball-of-light-marco-island-beach-rich-franco.html' size='20'>

5. You're almost there! The image will show up after you hit "submit"
6. Extra credit!!! You can change the size of your image by changing the 2 numbers after the "=" sign, width & height, but do so proportionally so you don't distort the image.

And as far as pixels, you should be able to see that with any software that you have or came with the camera, it will be under "image size" of something like that,

Good luck

Rich

p.s. looking at your 2 images, seems like you have a pretty nice camera and there should be all kinds of info in the manual about the capture size.

p.p.s Here's my small group,which you might enjoy: http://fineartamerica.com/groups/photo-critique-one-on-one-.html

Don't forget to change the ALT and TITLE tags in your image before hitting submit for EXTRA, EXTRA credit.....

Back to quality issues.... I know FAA has a no shame policy but can we admins post images of artworks that have serious problems in our group threads????

ie; Crop marks, blurs, high noise, flash splashes, over cooked, under cooked.... etc?????

I don't want to make people feel bad, and I certainly am not a pro at spotting or even fixing some of these issue, but I know I appreciate when someone tells me....hey Barbara, take a look at this, it might not print because.....it might not be what I wanted to hear, but I appreciated it because I would much rather fix it before a problem with an order....

So can we as admins have a thread in our group where we post up images with problems without feeling like we are shaming some one??? I don't want to start emailing people individually because that could be a full time job....

How do you all feel?

Cheers, Barbara
Saint Jean Arts

Barbara, I am not sure what the ALT tags are. I do know about the keywords and description. Also what is the EXTRA credit you mentions above?
Thanks!

Ursula

http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1431449

Rich,

Thank you so much! I joined your group and am now uploading quite a few more photos. Your message, I'm not
ashamed to say, made me jump up and yell, "YAY" while dancing around in glee. Yours is the first comment on
my work and I'm very grateful !!


Here's one of my first photos with the new camera I got last week. I have quite a few others, too.

Is it better to load all at once? In other words, the more uploaded the more exposure on this site?
Or is it the view count that matters most?





Again, thank you!!

You can stroke the hairs on his chin even in hi res preview :D



I know cause I painted every single hair!

Thanks Abbie! I'll check it out.

Debb,

On this site, with few exceptions, it's really about quantity of images,especially if they are generic, "sunsets,flowers,birds" etc. If very specific, then artists here are selling ALL the time with 100 or so!

Rich

p.s. you didn't tell us the camera you're using!

Hi, Andee wrote me to say she is no longer editing.

My price is not $5 anymore. It's $10 and up depending on the amount of work.

Thanks.

I had a problem with an image and they were right when somebody placed an order and FAA send me an email saying it's too blurry. So I've uploaded a new image and I think it's crisp clear and sharp and they still say it's blurry and they cancelled the order!!
Have a look here please and tell me what you think: http://fineartamerica.com/featured/going-home-arie-van-der-wijst.html

Ok...nice tips..I fav...

@arie - odd, it looks sharp enough. did you tell them that you upoaded a new one? because they won't know unless you tell them. when a sale is made the blurry copy will be sent over as soon as it's bought, and that's the only version they would know about. right now it looks perfectly sharp. though depending how long it took the customer might have given up - could have been time related for xmas.


---Mike Savad

Arie

Did you upload a new one or change the one that was up?

Thanks for your reactions, yes, I told them I've uploaded a new image so that shouldn't be a problem. They saw it and told me it was still blurry.

I actually asked if you changed it or uploaded a NEW one

ie, did you upload a new image or EDIT and CHANGE image?

Arie, too bad you lost the sale! It's not blurry now. Maybe they mistook the tiny dots of paint for a pilxellated image!

as in, did you edit that image and replace that image. or did you send it as if it were brand new. that would make the difference.

usually they send you that picture of where it's bad, if they still showed you something blurry, then they were looking at something else. they did that to me a few times, even though i sent a good one, they still had the old one. otherwise you can explain to them that it's a painting and it won't be perfectly sharp. maybe they were expecting canvas and assumed that because they can't see it, then it's blurred? instead of looking at the wing tips where my eye looked first.

---Mike Savad

I uploaded a complete new image (replaced the old one) that I've scanned this time, the old one was a photo and that one was blurry. They were right about that one.
This time I got a very short and rude actually, message by a woman called Rosemary, it's still blurry and we've canceled the order.

We get a lot of members upload a completely new image unfortunately. They should not be doing that. They should edit the image, change image, then reload the image replacing with the new one

Rosie is normally a sweetie. She is not actually in quality control but in Customer Support. knowing her, I am positive she did not mean to be rude.

I did edit the image, not uploaded it as a whole new artwork or anything. That would be wrong of course.
How can she say it's still blurry if she's not in quality control then?
Now I sound rude, I don't mean to, I just want to understand how they can say it's still blurry, because I've done everything to change it. And I checked all the areas of the image. It wasn't a rush case at all.

The thing is that lots of times you upload a image and it comes up automatically with a number of sizes that are bigger than the actually size of the original image. The other thing is that you can only upload an image that is not bigger than 25 mb. That's too small really in my opinion.

Thanks dear people for your nice reactions and help! I really appreciate it!

could have been a mistake, i'm sure christmas is crazier, mostly with people probably writing in asking if they will get it on time. i find their writing style changes considerably when high volume comes in. i see that image as sharp. i'll go with my original conclusion that it stopped on blurry, they contacted the customer, it was a gift and they didn't want to wait.

---Mike Savad

She can see the images and has the say so to refuse them same as I do.

However, I have to say that I have looked at the image you uploaded and it is pristine. Beautiful quality.

Therefore I am not sure why the image was refused unless it had already been cancelled before they got your upload message

I can only apologise, not knowing the full reason at present

Arie wrote;
'The thing is that lots of times you upload a image and it comes up automatically with a number of sizes that are bigger than the actually size of the original image. The other thing is that you can only upload an image that is not bigger than 25 mb. That's too small really in my opinion.'

You and only you get to pick the largest size you want to sell. If you have the default settings set you will see the sizes for a 100 dpi print using the full amount of pixels you upload. You can blank the prices out if you don't want to sell at that size.
25 mb is a big file. If you have art that big and can't upload it try compressing a bit. You can always come in the forums and ask help because there are a lot of knowledgeable (and bored) people looking to help.
BTW it's fine now. You should check all your images so it does not happen again.

I am going and changing quite a few of my images to improve them, but when the site is very busy it may take up to a few days to actually get uploaded.
Maybe it was just late?

I just had on order canceled because it was too blocky. It was going to be a 40x60 metal print. My original file size was 35 mb from a 21 mp sensor .
I know it would be ok at 36x48.and I was told by a local lab that I could do larger up to 60" . So im thinking that the order was canceled because of FAA ability to only upload 25 mb and they have limited printing ability.

It was probably because the image was blocky. Which image is it?

Continued: I actually just removed that option for purchase so I don't run into the issue again...

FAA makes 60 inch prints routinely. What did you mean by limited printing ability? Not sure why you can't get the file down to less than 25mbs. The green box prevview is not working for me right now so I can't check it, but in the small image there is plenty of blockiness.

he can remove the prices so he can't sell larger prints.


---Mike Savad

Bradford, I did get the file down to 25mb,,but the actually file is larger and has more data in it..Downloading a 25mb file instead of a 40 mb file means there is less data available for print quality

if the system allows you to upload a larger file - then do that. the more you compress a large file, the worse it will look - it will look blocky. i'm trying to look at it now, but the darn thing won't work again.


---Mike Savad

Jon,

Green box not working for me either. I think the printer has the largest Epson printers, the 11000 or whatever and can print up to 65" wide,so that shouldn't be an issue. What I would like to see, for large prints like this, is the ability to upload much larger files, to their FTP server, like "Dropbox", when a buyer requests a much larger, out of the ordinary print size. I sold a 4' x 6' print here, from a pretty small file and I'm sure a much larger file would have been easier for both of us.

I have a freind with a Epson 9900,which prints 44" wide and we normally send files that are 300mb or even twice that size to the printer. My friend has a Medium format back and his files are generally over 1 gb!!!

Rich

Jon. Just save the file at the original 21 MP at the highest JPEG quality. Check the unopened compressed file in your in your operating system file viewer, not an image editor. It should be well under 25 MB. More like 10 not 45. If it is up around 25mb or more than you have upped the file size somehow.

I just uploaded a new file,,had to adjust it to 17 mb from an original file size of 36 mb file..the green box works now...

What you have now is a 24MP file which is higher than the stated resolution of your camera. (21 MP). It's a bit funny looking in the sky. Maybe acceptable for a 60 inch print. My biggest file here is about 35MP. The Jpeg shows 98 MB in my image editor. But it is actually only 11.3 MB when it is unopened. That is saved at the highest quality. It sounds like you have a workflow issue. No need to up-rez or overcompress. The files will print at slightly less then 100 dpi so you should get a 60 inch print out of the original file. But even if you fudged a bit and up-rezed from 21 to 24 Mp there should be no reason to save at less than 100% when converting to a JPEG. If you are using Windows just go to the file and you can see the true file size by looking in properties.

I took a look and the painterly effect you have on it (at least I hope that is what it is) makes it look grainy. I would not say blocky but definitely grainy. It is a shame (personally speaking now) that you had an effect on it at all

it has to be in my workflow that im having this issue,,I am going to reprocess this without so much sharpening..and no the painterly effect was not on purpose,,,:(

My workflow for sharpening is to apply it selectively, lightly and none to the sky. If that helps. If the sky is noisey, I will apply NR to the sky only.

Well i uploaded one more time,,I cant do any better at this point,it is what it is,I don't know what else to do to the image to improve it..I tried not to over-sharpen it the other times and especially this time..thanks for the input

Now the image is 35 MP. If this is not a stitched image then, you are upsizing if you started with a 21 MP single image. It actually looks better now. You still should not be changing the number of pixels when editing. Sometimes crop settings will do this. Don't mess with the DPI. That will do it also. If you do change the DPI, do not resample and the MP will stay the same. Also be sure to put the prices in for all the available sizes. As it is now you have enough pixels for a 70 inch print, but are only offering a 48 inch.
BTW these are great photos and I see the problem in others in your portfolio. I am sure you can get it worked out.

Re sharpening - I've recently discovered NIk's output sharpener. It can be set to match FAA's printer resolution of 1440x720 and you can choose the paper type. The other controls can be finely tweeked and applied selectively. It doesn't seem to introduce noise but I am careful not to apply it to any areas of sky or water. I just finished touching up the eyelashes on a raven.

Jon,

A bit grainey and mostly obvious in the sky/clouds. I would remove the grain from the sky and let the rest be what it is. Grain in the rock or trees,isn't so much of an issue. While you're here, and the green box is now working, I did see some sensor dirt in the sky, in at least the two places I looked,

Rich

finally it opened. they are looking at the flat areas when it comes to noise, and what you have is a splotchy noise, though while large, and it shouldn't matter unless they get a 72" print, it should be mashed with median or something. oddly the stone doesn't look sharp - was this a panorama? if so, the overlap may be just a bit off making it look soft. or you used an enlarger of some kind. i don't see a paint effect, i think the pixels are just a bit soft looking. you shouldn't have to blur it more to fix things


i'm looking at your other work, and they all seem to have like 8000px - do you have a really high end camera? or are you doing something else? because that's abnormally high


this one here is the pixel size i was expecting - 3000x5000 or so


then this one is a 6000x9000 and it's doubtful this was a panorama, and i do see light blocking in the sky. if it was stretched it was done pretty well, but up close it still looks lossy. and the larger you make these, the smaller in megs you have to make it, creating lossy images.


---Mike Savad

Jon

The image is still not print worthy



Terrible artifacts around the trees and in the water

The sky is the same plus there is at least one dirty mark

Wow,,thanks for all the feedback,,i really think its really helpful,,,I start with a 21 mp camera,,then do global adjustments in LR and then bring it in to photoshop to adjust for the sky and clouds with a little structure,then will selectively sharpen using Pixelgenius only in specific points of interest in photographs..I will ad these as layers, then flatten and bring back into Lightroom. And thats it,,when exporting to FAA i am starting with 10000x10000 pixels but will bring it down if need be to get as close to 25mp as possible .this is at 300 dpi and Jpegs of course,

I always thought that you want to get as close to 10,000 MP as possible when exporting

Mike- I am using a canon 5d mkIII

Isabella-thanks for the feedback,,i will get that dust spot, i missed that one!!

No need to mess with the pixel size. What comes out of your camera is what you process and what you upload. Resampling is where you are getting into problems. If your camera gives you 21 MP, best to just stay with that. Save as a JPEG at the highest quality. I am repeating myself.

if your using a mark 3 then your native is 5760x3840 - your size should never get larger than that. and if you crop it should be less than a 1/4 of that or you'll have issues. any time the image is enlarged you lose detail. and unless you shoot these as a panorama the image should never be larger. like my crop size is 5550x3700 - same camera. the camera is capable of getting good detail, but you can't enlarge it in any way. and the sharpening is set to fine, since your increased the size of the image, you lost the detail in the rock and trees, but the noise remained. the noise was sharpened along with stretch marks. then the problem was compounded when you tried to save a file that was much too large, you lost more detail because you were forced to save it lower.

don't worry about selling things in all sizes. 6200 is the cut off for this camera anyway, and i never have ever sold a 72" print. and i don't increase the size of my images just so i can.


---Mike Savad

Bradford- A big thank you for repeating yourself..I heard you the first time but didnt listen..bad habit that I admit too!!

Mike-Thank you for the exact numbers,,,im going to remember that,,5760x3840 is being added to my export template right now!!And will remember the crop size too!

I have ALOT OF Pictures to re-upload and reprocess,,OH Boy!!

You don't need numbers in your export template. Just uncheck the resize box in LR and export at the size you arrived at after any straightening or cropping.

yeah, whatever the camera is defaulting too - that's the size you want. it's the native size.


---Mike Savad

Wow,,did I make my life so complicated downloading files. thanks for the help Bradford and Mike!

I am going through all my images to check for quality with the "full resolution view" tool to decide whether to reduce the size of the image or delete it all together. That "magnifier" tool has not worked for me for a couple of weeks now, no matter how long I wait. It was really helpful in deciding.

You should not be using that for your quality control anyway. You should be using your photo editor at 100% before you upload it

the magnifier is meant for, not for you. you have the original file. and if you load that file into any graphic viewer you can load the 1:1 view or 100% view of that image and look at it there. just use what you have at home.


---Mike Savad

same time... synchronized...


---Mike Savad

Got it Isabella and Mike! Thanks.

Bummer...Dawn reviewed my photo before printing and declared it wasn't good enough. Then she ignored 3 follow up emails. Still, I have only heard there was a problem. I needed to log on to the site to learn the order was cancelled. Is this typical?

Can someone please tell me if this would print?


or this?



Thank you.

Kim,

Both look good to me, but maybe somebody else can jump in. The green box on the flower,Mum, doesn't seem to be turned on.

Also, I would raise my prices, if I were you,really nice stuff.............

Rich

the second one has no loupe, but i see the crop on the top, so i would say no. the first one looks fine.


---Mike Savad

@shane - typically if i can send a cleaner image, and tell them you did - it's usually ok. sometimes they send mail back and it never gets to us for different reasons. sometimes they can wait but it depends on the customer. if you tried and it failed, then too bad. it depends on which image you have - if it didn't print now it won't in the future, so at least fix it now.


---Mike Savad

Thanks Mike and Rich. There is no crop on the image but I added the full view thing.

Hi, can you tell if this three pictures are good enough for printing?
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/night-sky-joanna-cieslinska.html
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/new-jerusalem-joanna-cieslinska.html
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/birch-joanna-cieslinska.html
I'm not sure, but I'm afraid they are not.

Thank you!

Joanna,

I'm just guessing, but I think they are fine,for the sizes you specify. My only comment, is the first one,where you can see the "fabric" showing,where the white paint should be,was that intentional? Bothers me, but maybe not others. Green birch trees, slightly soft, but probably good for the largest size you have listed,

Hope others will join in and add,

Rich

Thank you Rich for your comment :)
The "fabric" was intentional - it's the very diluted paint - so you can see the background color.
Thank you once again.

Joanna

Wow, this has been an amazing journey through this thread. I have read every single post. I intend to shoot in raw from now on, but am still dealing with my original work and I would just like to boil two things down. First-When I open an image in Photoshop and my resolution defaults at 72, If I raise that to 100 dpi for FAA or 180 for Nations Lab or 300 like I've seen people (not here) say is a requirement for some printers, am I correct that doing that is not the same thing as enlarging the image, and that it has no bearing on the image quality as far as sharpness, pixilation etc? I can do that without worry? As long as my image looks good at 100% I'm o.k.?

Second, a Photoshop question- am I correct that the Actual Pixels view = 100% view?

Hope I'm right on both counts...lol. Thank You Thank You Thank You to all who have contributed to this great thread!!!

Ami

You do not need to enlarge to 100. All my work has been printed at 72

100% view is what you need to look at, yes. I go for 120-150% and, if THAT is good then we are set

Okee dokee! Thank you!

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread - very informative. As someone who scans in almost everything, I was thinking my images are all OK for printing, but now I'm not so sure. I scan at the highest resolution that will not exceed the upload limit, so I hope they are OK since I can't increase resolution and still upload.

If Abbie or others would be kind enough to check a few images for printability, I would greatly appreciate it. I have two different scanners (one was free, the other I paid about $200 for) so I have included images taken with each of them below, and in different media.

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/cougar-watching-cristolin-o.html
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/1-orioles-cristolin-o.html
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/doe-and-fawn-cristolin-o.html
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/2-lost-coast-cristolin-o.html


I'm also thinking that I should limit the sizes available, just to be safe. Right now I just let the system decide and go ahead and price even the largest sizes, but perhaps the largest sizes are pushing it.

Thanks in advance for any help on these questions. I'm learning so much from the folks here.

For me, I'm still not okay with uploading large files to online sites, even FAA. Also I have never printed from a jpeg because of quality and all the labs I use expect a Tiff. I know they are larger files but when someone buys the image a tiff is by far the best print.

I will be back on here in am hour or two and take a look at your images Cristolin

I just got three 16 x 16 prints on Rag paper of some of my prints I'll be offering as limited edition signed prints. The quality of the printing was fantastic. The work looks so much better "live' than on the site. Only issue the 100% rag paper is very thick and takes a while to unroll after being packed in a tube.

My suggestion to any artist offering their work online - order a print to check the quality. After all if you are asking other people to purchase your work, wouldn't you want to make sure its good?

$200 seems high for scan, but i see no issues with any of them.


---Mike Savad

The images look great!

Abbie and Mike - Thanks very much for your time and for checking. And so fast! Glad it was good news on printability.

Mike - You are absolutely correct about the price. There are definitely cheaper scanners out there, and $200 was more than I wanted to spend, being a real cheapskate. But this was one of only two models that I could find that would scan up to 11 x 17 without having to use stitching software, and one of only a handful that will print up to 13 x 19.

Since most of my paintings and drawings are in the 11 x 14 range I wanted to be able to place them on a scanning bed without having to worry about parts of the original being crunched/bent/creased to get it to lie flat over the edges of a standard scanner (such as happens when using my free scanner that still apparently does a fine job for smaller items). And even if I could manage to not damage the original, there is still the stitching step which I wanted to avoid.

If someone has a similar situation and can spring for the larger bed scanner, it seems like it could simplify their uploading compared to photographing the work. I place it on the bed, choose a resolution that will not exceed the file size limit, use auto exposure, and press scan. I then upload that file directly, no other adjustments needed. There was a bit of a learning curve on the scanner software, but not too bad. Mostly because there are tons of options that I tried out but have no need to use. I never did master the learning curve on getting the lighting right for photographing my work, and the scanner, though twice as large as my free scanner, takes up less space than a good lighting system would.

The expense of the larger scanner/printer is definitely not for everyone, but the frustration it saves me is worth it (and my husband is now totally attached to it because it also photocopies his 11 x 17 sheet music).

Thanks again Abbie and Mike for your help.

After some print issues, anyone care to say if this would print at full size? This hasn't sold but I'm just curious.



The intent was to have the inside of the crater be sharp with the mountains softer. It's already been sharpened a touch but wondering if it would get flagged as not printable?

I'm mostly asking because there was a will not print email for a different image with a pretty sharp focus in the center that got softer toward the edges. The bottom edge of the photo was about 4 feet from the camera while the top edge was probably anywhere up to a mile.

I used to sharpen everything more but then it seemed like they looked sort of fake/over-processed so I stopped but now maybe they are not sharp enough so would like to try to find the sweet spot.