I downloaded a picture from the web that is very meaningful to me… I would like to get it put on a real 8x10’’ photo. Is that possible? If so, can anyone recommend a company that does it?
Thanks…
I just noticed recently that Wal-Mart will do prints from digital photos. Not sure if it’s from a jpeg, but converting from that to a gif’s a snap. Surf on over (I think it’s http://www.walmart.com) and check their photo section.
JPEG is the standard format for photographs, so if they work from digital images, they’re bound to take JPEGs. The real issue would be quality: A high-quality printer will give you up to 700 dots per inch, and photo film/paper is usually higher quality than that. A picture you got from the Web probably isn’t much bigger than 800x600 or so, which means that at that quality, it’d only be about an inch on a side. If you make it any bigger than that, the quality will suffer, and you’ll probably be able to tell the difference. Depending on your eye for such things, and how picky you are, it’ll probably look fine, but it won’t be as good as an original photo.
It’s definitely possible to print from a computer file to photographic paper. I’ve always done it with TIFFs, but I’d imagine there are places that’ll print from JPEGs - and failing that, you can always convert the file yourself before handing it over to the printer.
BUT…
You’ll need take the file’s pixel dimensions into account. If you want the picture to look anything near decent, I’d say it’ll have to be printed at 150 dpi minimally (the people I use actually specify 300 dpi), so for an 8"x10" print, you’re looking at 1200x1500 pixels on the digital image. Any less and you’ll have to settle for either a smaller print or visible (and thus objectionable) pixels.
As for where to get them printed, I don’t have any specific recommendations but you can either go the professional route - that is, look in the phone book under service bureaus or photo processing and ask them if they have digital services, or do as pesch suggested and ask your local minilab if they can do that.
It is indeed possible to put a .jpg you download from the web onto real photo paper. The results are probably going to be disappointing, however. But first, the good news!
I didn’t know Wal-Mart did this these days, so I haven’t used their service. They are likely to be a very inexpensive route though, so it’s worth looking into. However, you should absolutely not convert your picture into a .gif before putting it on photo paper. GIF compression is very good for illustrations, but not for photos. GIFs can only have 256 colors in them total, so you will see dithering and banding all over the place in most photos. Wal-Mart (or anywhere else that does this) should be able to accept a .jpg or a .tif (TIFF is another graphics format that is often used for print work; it allows excellent quality but has large file sizes.) If you have graphics software, the better bet would be to convert the .jpg to a .tif file, if they can not accept a .jpg. Other places you can look are camera shops and good photo labs. Many of those places can also do this, and I can personally attest to high quality from them, but at a higher cost that Wal-Mart os likely to be. Another alternative is an online place liek http://www.shutterfly.com. You can upload your picture and order prints directly from them. This services is excellent if you have a digital camera as well. I can also attest to good results from them.
Now, the bad news. The vast majority of photos you download from the internet will loook absolutely terrible as an 8x10 photo. First of all, the file will not contain nearly enough information to reproduce at that size without being pixellated or blurry. Even worse, most .jpgs you find on the net are very highly compressed (this is what gives you that blockiness and strange colors). This will only look worse when you put it on photo paper.
Now, it’s possible that you have an image that will actually look ok. How to tell in advance? Well, simply put, look at how big it is. I mean both how big it is onscreen when you view it and how big the file is. The bigger the picture is oncreen, the better. If you view an 8x10 photo scanned at 150 dots/inch on an 800x600 monitor, you’d only be able to see about a quarter of the image. If your image takes up only a small fraction of your monitor (providing you don’t have some gargantuan big screen TV set up as your monitor), it isn’t likely to come out very well as a photo.
Now look at the file size. I have .tif files that were used in brochures and annual reports that are 40 MB and up. When you convert those files to .jpg, they are still over 2 MB. If your file is under a megabyte, it’s probably not going to look very good. If it is under 500K, it’s likely to be terrible.
I would advise you to 1) shoot for a smaller print size, such as 3x5 or even wallet size 2) maintain low expectations 3) avoid spending very much money on this until you are shure the result will be ok. Hope this helps. Good luck!
Yes.
It isn’t hard, either.
I put 640 x 480 JPG files into MS Publisher, and size them to fit on an 8 1/2 X 11 page, use my HP 932C and a sheet of HP Photo Quality paper and get fine looking prints. Not quite photo finish grain, but identical from three feet, for sure. With a 1024 x 648 or larger pic the quality gets very close to photographic. If the size is much smaller, you might want to consider a smaller print, though, because the expansion does cost you something in quality.
Send me your JPG, and your address, and I will send you one. When you get it, you can mail me the buck it cost me to do it. Well, maybe a buck and a half, including postage.
Tris
I go to Longs, they have a Kodak photo machine right there in the store & it prints my photos in about 5 minutes & you can do alterations to it too. Its all touch screen. you can use a floppy, cd, etc.
your jpg might be too small resolution-wise for a picture that big, in that case the machine lets you know too.
Please note the difference between using a printer to spray ink on glossy “photo” paper vs. creating a true photographic print. Although with a digital source, the former may yield a higher quality print (no need to project the image onto photo paper, you’re printing exactly what data is there), the archival quality may not be as good as a true photo. Not telling which way to go, just be aware of the difference.
The printer and ink manufacturers are aware of this issue and have been working on it. At least one company has inks now that’ll last 65-75 years (contrast that to Cibachrome, the photographic standard for longevity, which is rated at about 25-30 years). I believe Epson also has archival inks available now.