Print enlargement: DPI, viewing distance, stock, and gamut
`print-size-enlarge` must translate finished dimensions, viewing distance, and substrate into real pixels. Web “72 dpi” folklore is not a print-shop brief. Shadows and highlight separation fail harder on paper than on RGB monitors, so soft proof or physical test strips matter.
Print-oriented upscale flow
- Inside `print-size-enlarge`, multiply final trim size by the target DPI, add bleed, and note the shortest edge pixel count.
- Hunt for banding in skies and skin ramps; fix with higher bit-depth sources or gentler smoothing instead of more upscale factor alone.
- Tell the lab whether profiles are embedded or sRGB is mandatory so their RIP does not force a second conversion.
Print upscale Q&A
It looks razor sharp on screen but soft at A2—why?
Recalculate pixels for the physical output; display PPI and print DPI follow different math.
Gradients stair-step in the sky?
Usually 8-bit stretching plus over-denoise; improve the source or stage adjustments rather than only boosting resolution.
The shop claims resolution is fine yet I still hate it?
Check for surprise interpolation upstream or detail already destroyed by social recompression.
Before publishing `print-size-enlarge` assets externally, which compliance checks are mandatory beyond visual quality?
Start with "normalize naming conventions", "define size thresholds explicitly", and "align brand policy checks", then explicitly verify "unexpected thumbnail crop" and "stale-cache replacement lag" before release approval.
Under deadline pressure, how should teams balance speed and stability in `print-size-enlarge` processing?
Start with "retain source/output evidence", "track export parameters", and "align brand policy checks", then explicitly verify "CDN fallback inconsistency" and "detail loss after compression" before release approval.