# PLEASE HELP! -Producing file for billboard printing



## Melmoth71 (Oct 10, 2013)

Hi all, I could definitely use some help with a printing issue.

I have won a commission for one of my black and white photos to be printed as a large (28 x 10.5 metres) banner and placed on the facade of a large arts organisation, so I'm over the moon with excitement but there seems to be a problem with the printing process. 

The file for the printing company is being produced by a volunteer graphic designer but neither he nor the arts organisation are experts at producing images for billboards/banners and I have no experience whatsoever of this sort of thing, so we seem to be lost at the moment and I'm terrified of losing this opportunity.

The problem is that the printing company is telling us that when the original image is blown up to the size required for the printing, the quality is not good enough. The graphic designer has used Photoshop and Perfect Resize to blow up the image. The printing company's team have also produced an enlargement which they say is not good enough. However from what I've read on the Internet people use regular DSLR cameras to shoot photos for billboards.

My original (monochrome) file (resized to fit the banner's proportions) is from my Nikon D60 DSLR at maximum res, it's 3872x1450 pixels big. The designer says the image has to be blown up to 16535 pixels wide which he hasn't managed to do with the required quality.

I came up with the idea of printing my photo with the best quality possible (maybe as a 12x4 inch print), then scanning the print with a high-res scanner to produce a much larger file. Would this be a good option?? Would it produce a good enough image?

What other options could I try?

Any help would be hugely appreciated. The arts organisation wants to get the printing done as soon as possible.

Thanks a million in advance.
Miguel


----------



## KmH (Oct 10, 2013)

It would help if we could see the image.
Is the image the original, or was it converted to B&W post process.

If the original is a JPEG I'm afraid there is nothing you will be able to do, because JPEG is limited to an 8-bit color depth and the image pixels have been converted into pixel groups known as MCU's or Minimum Coded Units.
When the image resolution is increased the edges of the MCU's become visible and the image takes on a mottled appearance. 
MCU's are made up of 8x8 pixel, 8x16 pixel, or 16x16 pixel groups.
When people think they are seeing pixels in an image (pixelation) they are often actually seeing the MCU edges.

JPEGs made in the camera have also been edited and any editing artifacts also get magnified when the image resolution is increased.

The printing company may be a good source of information that would help.

Those DSLR images you know of that have been enlarged to billboard size were likely made from Raw of TIFF image files rather than JPEGs.


----------



## Melmoth71 (Oct 10, 2013)

Thank you very much for your replies.

The original image is a RAW file. I edited it in Camera RAW (including ticking the monochrome option) and turned it over to my designer friend with the xmp file along with a tiff version. I know that he used Perfect Resize for blowing up the image. His enlargement actually looks better than the one the company came up with from the images I've seen. I don't know what processing the company used to produce their blown-up version which does look pixelated.

I'm attaching a low-res jpeg. Any advice much appreciated.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 10, 2013)

this is what image software like Perfect Resize is for.


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 10, 2013)

scanning the print wouldn't do anything but introduce another step for degradation to happen.

What I don't get is why a 5x enlargement won't produce the quality needed for a billboard.

Can you post a link to the picture?


----------



## Melmoth71 (Oct 10, 2013)

View attachment 57628


----------



## KmH (Oct 10, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> What I don't get is why a 5x enlargement won't produce the quality needed for a billboard.


Me either. Something just doesn't compute, which is why I recommended speaking more with the printing company.

The issue could result from what the volunteer graphic designer did.


----------



## Melmoth71 (Oct 10, 2013)

Thank you very much for your replies.

The image I posted is a low-res jpeg as you can see. The original image is a RAW file, I edited it in Camera Raw (including ticking the monochrome box), then turned it over with the xmp file to the designer who did the enlargement with Perfect Resize.

Do you mean to say that it should be possible to do the 5x enlargement and easily get a decent quality image for the billboard? The printing company tried doing that and said the resulting image is not good enough (so it's not the designer's fault).

The designer tried doing the enlargement independently and his image actually looks better than that of the company from the photos he's sent me, but he still thinks it's probably not good enough.

I'm confused because apparently printing companies ask for at least 6-9 ppi for billboards. It's true that with my original image and that final size I'd only have 3.5 ppi. But then how do people shoot photos for billboards with regular DSLRs as they apparently do?

I should probably call the printing company tomorrow morning as you guys suggest.

Like I said any advice is hugely appreciated, thanks a million.
Miguel


----------



## christop (Oct 10, 2013)

Melmoth71 said:


> I'm confused because apparently printing companies ask for at least 6-9 ppi for billboards. It's true that with my original image and that final size I'd only have 3.5 ppi. But then how do people shoot photos for billboards with regular DSLRs as they apparently do?



Most billboards are 48 feet (14.6 meters) wide, which is about half the width of your banner. Your photo would be 6.7 ppi on such a billboard.

What is the expected viewing distance to the banner, anyway? Will people be able to view it up close? At a viewing distance equal to the diagonal of the banner (30 meters), 3 ppi is plenty. Your original photo meets that resolution.


----------



## Melmoth71 (Oct 10, 2013)

The banner will be hung on the facade so people won't be able to see it up close, but I couldn't give you a precise distance. Off the top of my head I'd say 15 m minimum if you're right up against the building looking up, much further away for most people who'll see the banner in that location. 

So hopefully the image may be OK... Thanks again for all the info, it's much appreciated. This commission means a lot to me.


----------



## KmH (Oct 10, 2013)

I get the distinct impression someone is jerking your chain.

The Raw file should be more than sufficient for the intended use.


----------

