Crop or Upscale for web presentation?

Welcome to our Canon RF Shooters Forum

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Only RF

Only RF

Veteran Member
Pro Member
Pro Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2023
Posts
1,693
Solutions
3
Likes Received
2,471
Points
113
An extension of the PL9 thread. I've really have not figured out if upscaling or cropping is better for wildlife. This is strictly for web presentation. LrC now also offers Super Resolution. I tried it once but I'm still at an impasse between cropping and upscaling.

Since I paid for Topaz Gigapixel I can re-install it. I think I tried it once. I only purchased it so I could get Photo AI v1 for free. Do I have lifetime updates for Giga? I know Topaz dropped lifetime updates for Sharpen and DeNoise AI which doesn't matter anyway. They stopped selling those two about a year ago. Sharpen has not had an update since 2022 and DeNoise since 2023.

LrC now has Super Resolution. I tried it once and it seemed OK. How does this compare to Topaz Gigapixel? I purchased Giga I think around 2020. If I stopped getting updates then installing it to compare to LrC would be a waste of time. I'm sure there have been lots of improvements to Giga over those years. I'll check my account at Topaz as well.

Anyway back to the first question. Crop or upscale for web presentation? Upscaling adds pixels. If you wanted the best detail for images you post here which method would you use?
 
It depends on where you're starting from.

My R5 makes 45mp raw files which works out to an 8192 x 5464 px format. I consider 1600 px on the long edge to be a pretty big web file. That's 20% of a full image, so I can shed 80% of my pixels without much harm to a web-sized file.

In the 90s I had some B&W prints digitized and the files on the CD were tiny by today's standards. I used Topaz Gigapixel to upscale at 4X I think. I was surprised at how well it worked. The files it made are the files I use when I share those pictures now.

Other than that, I haven't really played with Gigapixel. I start with big files so, mathematically, cropping for the web works out fine.

The problem I see most with cropping isn't mathematical. Most of the time, I'm cropping to get at something that was far away and small in the frame. When you crop, it make the subject bigger, but it also compresses the atmosphere between you and the subject. With a longer lens, that's right in in your face so you (and the lens maker) tend to deal with it at the scene. I'm surprised by it a lot when I try to pull a subject significantly closer in post, and never in a good way. I don't know if upscale software could help with that.

I quit using the individual Topaz products when Topaz AI came out. The AI version has always had an upscale module. I've played with it. It works, but I've never used it for anything real.
 
Thanks for the interesting and detailed explanation. I'm at 24mp. I rarely push past 50% for cropping. I was doing some urban shooting in Spain and came across these noisy parakeets. Hundreds of them. Released as pets and have apparently overrun the Iberian peninsula so i took a few shots. I would not post this but I was quite surprised by this lens and my R6II.

Original. I also post 1600 on the long side.

_M3A1209-2.jpg
  • Join to view EXIF data.


No Adobe Super Resolution. File size 863 KB.

No.jpg
  • Join to view EXIF data.


Adobe Super Resolution. 964 KB. I tried to crop as closely as possible.

SR.jpg
  • Join to view EXIF data.
 
Looks like Super Resolution might have an edge for pushed crops?

Since you can't apply Deniose AI with Super Resolution using LrC here is another test with RAW Details. That you can apply on it's own and does also apply automatically be default when using Denoise AI.

RD.jpg
  • Join to view EXIF data.
 
I did come across this video about a year ago and found it. Applying Deniose AI with Super Resolution work around. I just tried it and works works with the new no DNG Denoise AI.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
What's Adobe Super Resolution? Is that an upscale routine in LRC?

I've been using Topaz since before LRC had any good denoise and sharpen capabilities. I still use Topaz as a finishing step. I don't ever use the upscale functionality anywhere, but I'm surprised I haven't run across it.

How does Super Resolution work? Does it give you an X factor like Gigapixel? The Super Resolution example above is a bigger file. Is it still 1600 px across?
 
ShipleyNW said:
What's Adobe Super Resolution? Is that an upscale routine in LRC?

I've been using Topaz since before LRC had any good denoise and sharpen capabilities. I still use Topaz as a finishing step. I don't ever use the upscale functionality anywhere, but I'm surprised I haven't run across it.

How does Super Resolution work? Does it give you an X factor like Gigapixel? The Super Resolution example above is a bigger file. Is it still 1600 px across?
Click to expand...
It's in the Detail Panel. I didn't see any X factor and I never even opened Gigapixel. PS would likely have a more advanced version but I never tried it.

Screenshot-2025-09-04-at-10.03.55 PM.jpg


Original size

sma.jpg


I just applied it and it doubled in size. It didn't create a copy. I made a virtual copy of the original file to keep track of everything.

big.jpg


Then I cropped to down to the size I liked which put it at 7651 X 1501. Then I exported at 1600 on the long side. I exported all bird examples at 1600 on the long side.
 
This is a little old as any process does not create a new DNG.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
This is more current. I didn't know this. You still get a TIFF but you bypass PS. Starts at 5:20

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
Only RF said:
This is more current. I didn't know this. You still get a TIFF but you bypass PS. Starts at 5:20

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
Click to expand...
This is pretty cool. It is faster to send to PS but I created a preset. As he suggested I applied Denoise first (which I always do first), cropped and used my new Export Preset and the TIFF came back stacked beside my original RAW file.
 
Last edited:
Only RF said:
An extension of the PL9 thread. really have not figured out if upscaling or cropping is better for wI've ildlife. This is strictly for web presentation. LrC now also offers Super Resolution. I tried it once but I'm still at an impasse between cropping and upscaling.

Since I paid for Topaz Gigapixel I can re-install it. I think I tried it once. I only purchased it so I could get Photo AI v1 for free. Do I have lifetime updates for Giga? I know Topaz dropped lifetime updates for Sharpen and DeNoise AI which doesn't matter anyway. They stopped selling those two about a year ago. Sharpen has not had an update since 2022 and DeNoise since 2023.

LrC now has Super Resolution. I tried it once and it seemed OK. How does this compare to Topaz Gigapixel? I purchased Giga I think around 2020. If I stopped getting updates then installing it to compare to LrC would be a waste of time. I'm sure there have been lots of improvements to Giga over those years. I'll check my account at Topaz as well.

Anyway back to the first question. Crop or upscale for web presentation? Upscaling adds pixels. If you wanted the best detail for images you post here which method would you use?
Click to expand...
Why not both? I may crop the 45mps down as much as by a factor of 4 which gives me a 12mps or less file, and then use GP to get back to a decent resolution. (24mps or so) To crop or upscale offers two different functions. Why would you upscale if you aren't cropping. To me, upscaling is what you do if you have cropped to a file size that is unusable.

You said "I've really have not figured out if upscaling or cropping is better for wildlife." I guess I don't understand your question.

And you can Crop in GP, which I do, then decide whether upscaling is necessary. If i am going to print I'll upscale to a suitable size depending on the size of the print.

To your comment about GP updates. It is so far beyond what it was for many years. Now has Recover, and Redefine realistic and Redefine creative.AI modes. Other upscaler software doesn't compare. If I think a photo is going to need a big crop, I go from LrC with no crop into GP and crop there.
 
RedCobra said:
Why not both? I may crop the 45mps down as much as by a factor of 4 which gives me a 12mps or less file, and then use GP to get back to a decent resolution. (24mps or so) To crop or upscale offers two different functions. Why would you upscale if you aren't cropping. To me, upscaling is what you do if you have cropped to a file size that is unusable.

You said "I've really have not figured out if upscaling or cropping is better for wildlife." I guess I don't understand your question.

And you can Crop in GP, which I do, then decide whether upscaling is necessary. If i am going to print I'll upscale to a suitable size depending on the size of the print.

To your comment about GP updates. It is so far beyond what it was for many years. Now has Recover, and Redefine realistic and Redefine creative.AI modes. Other upscaler software doesn't compare. If I think a photo is going to need a big crop, I go from LrC with no crop into GP and crop there.
Click to expand...
I said wildlife as a general statement. It can be anything but I used wildlife as an example. Details in bird eyes, beaks head feathers, etc. Will upscaling make any difference for web viewing and the sizes we post at. The fellow in the second video said not really and it was more for print.

I've come to the same conclusion as you. It depends on the crop. I'll do my normal processing and at the end I can use Super Resolution and see if it makes any difference.

I have not checked out my Topaz account yet to see if I qualify for the latest updates.
 
My upgrades for Gigapixel expired in 2023. Considering I never even opened it and never used Adobe's upscaling it's not worth it to me to spend more. I'll mess around with Adobe's Super Resolution as I go and see where it takes me. I sure like that export back into LrC feature. Fast and easy.
 
I am probably missing an important point in the question. If it is for a web presentation, like on this site, or on your own, the images do not need to be too large. In fact, they should not be too large as it will affect the site's performance. If cropping is reducing the image size far too much, yes, upscaling may be necessary, or that image may not be suitable for presenting on the web. What exactly is the problem? Is the image in need of cropping? Is the image too small? Is there another image that can convey the same message? Excuse my oversight if I am missing the obvious.
 
There is no problem. Just messing around with tools to squeeze out more detail. Not that I'm concerned about it or need it and I'm aware of size issues. I've never tried upscaling and was curios about it. A lot of people must use it for something as Topaz kept it as a separate app when they dropped Sharpen and DeNoise. Not just Topaz. There are other upscaling apps out there as well.

The only thing that happens which I have noticed on pretty much every site. Sometimes files never look quite as crisp on the sites as they do in LrC or on my desktop after export. Not a big concern. It is what it is but I'll look at other tools that may help.
 
I understand better now, thanks for the details. These may or may not apply to your issues, but a few things to consider:
  1. When exporting, we convert the color profile to sRGB; I trust you do that too. If you have a display that has a wider gamut, like 95% of AdobeRGB, the Lightroom display will look far better than what you see in the exported images in an image viewer
  2. The amount of sharpening applied while processing is important, as is sharpening at export
  3. Is your display monitor calibrated and profiled? That could also affect how the images in LR and in a viewer may display.
  4. If you use an external image viewer, it may or may not support display profiles. If it does, it may or may not be activated
Just two more cents worth!
 
ACEkin said:
I understand better now, thanks for the details. These may or may not apply to your issues, but a few things to consider:
  1. When exporting, we convert the color profile to sRGB; I trust you do that too. If you have a display that has a wider gamut, like 95% of AdobeRGB, the Lightroom display will look far better than what you see in the exported images in an image viewer
  2. The amount of sharpening applied while processing is important, as is sharpening at export
  3. Is your display monitor calibrated and profiled? That could also affect how the images in LR and in a viewer may display.
  4. If you use an external image viewer, it may or may not support display profiles. If it does, it may or may not be activated
Just two more cents worth!
Click to expand...
Thanks for the suggestions.

I always export using sRGB. I’ve been applying the 3 phases of sharpening for as long as I can remember. I apply texture, etc locally. My monitor is calibrated using Calibrite. I’m using a Mac Mini and an iMac 5K as the display and it supports the calibrated profiles.
 
Last edited:
I did more testing as this still was that clear to me. Let's say cropping down from 6000 x 4000 to 3000 x 2000. I then created a virtual copy and added Super Resolution which doubled the cropped file back to 6000 x 4000. I exported both files at 1600 on the long side. Since the file that had SR was double in size before export I expected it to be twice the size of the original after export. It wasn't. They were basically the same size so that surprised me. I did that quite a few times and got the same results. I must have made a mistake when I first looked into this.

I asked at The Lightroom Queen's site. Basically I'm downscaling both so that made sense. So what is the practical application? Topaz sells Gigipixel as a stand alone app. Are there that many who print big posters in the world? For practical web posting applications a member called Johan Elzenga gave a good explanation.

Yes, it will. Do the math. Your original image is 6000 pixels wide, but if your crop leaves a resulting image that is smaller than 1600 pixels wide, then super resolution can help. Let's take a practical example with some numbers to make it clear. Suppose you shot a bird in flight, but the bird was a quite far away. You crop the image so you have a nice bird picture, but that picture is now only 1000 pixels wide. If you would place that on your website, you would have to upscale it from 1000 pixels to 1600 pixels. If you use super resolution, then that same crop will be 2000 pixels wide, so now you can downscale it to 1600 pixels. Assuming that super resolution is better than 'normal' upscaling, this will give a better result.

I tried that and you can see the difference but cropping down to 1000 is won't help any of my wildlife files. That is way too much. However occasionally at times I do export larger files for other sites. Let's say I crop to 2800 x 1863 and want to export at 3600. Now I see the advantage of SR and I could with tests I did. I always avoided doing that for obvious reasons. Pretty simple but sometimes you need to wrap your head around something. I was stuck on exporting. Glad I looked into it. I have a new tool.
 
I have used the Upscaling option from Topaz Photo AI few times and I find that it works better than supper resolution from LrC.
 
Only RF said:
I did more testing as this still was that clear to me. Let's say cropping down from 6000 x 4000 to 3000 x 2000.
Click to expand...
To, shooting in my R6 (24MP), the magic number is not to go lower than 1998 in the short side. I also have noticed that when using Photo AI, if I go lower than that resolution, the Auto Mode in Photo AI applies upscaling. At 3000x2000 it will recommend upscaling but it does not apply it automatically. I also have LrC set to increase the resolution when exporting to 6000x4000 and I have not noticed any issues when exporting in this way a picture that is currently cropped to 3000x2000.
Of course there would be some degradation but I'm not printing my photos to bill board sides and when showing those pictures in my 60 inches 4K TV everything looks decent. So I'm happy with that.
 
Thanks for the info. I haven't updated Photo AI since v1. I have Gigapixel (last update in 2022) and never even opened it. At this point I have no real interest or need for either.
 
Only RF said:
Thanks for the info. I haven't updated Photo AI since v1. I have Gigapixel (last update in 2022) and never even opened it. At this point I have no real interest or need for either.
Click to expand...
I'm addicted to Sharpen from Topaz, they have included new features such as face recovered which works very well in most of the cases, specially when shooting groups and some of the faces are not that sharp. I used in the past Topaz Denoise and they discontinued Sharpen and Denoise (and I believe Gigapixel) as individual tools. All that is part of Topaz Photo AI and that forced me to upgrade to that version. They have done an amazing work with Photo AI, I love it.

Basically, my current workflow is to pass all CR3s through DXO PureRaw, then import the DNGs to LrC, there correct the cropping, WB, colors, etc, and pass it through Topaz Photo AI for sharpening and Upscaling. If the photo was still to noisy out of DXO, then I apply Denoise in Photo AI or LrC. In this stage both denoising tools work well. I end the workflow exporting to JPG increasing the resolution to 5620x3400.
 
Last edited:
Here is an example of a picture passed through that workflow including Upscaling.

20250906-R6I-075012-3 by Frank J Garcia, on Flickr.

Is perfect? I don't think but for my use, it's perfectly fine (showing it in my 4k TV and Social Media, including this forum).
 
ctitanic said:
I'm addicted to Sharpen from Topaz, they have included new features such as face recovered which works very well in most of the cases, specially when shooting groups and some of the faces are not that sharp. I used in the past Topaz Denoise and they discontinued Sharpen and Denoise (and I believe Gigapixel) as individual tools. All that is part of Topaz Photo AI and that forced me to upgrade to that version. They have done an amazing work with Photo AI, I love it.
Click to expand...
I kept Topaz Sharpen AI and use it on needs bases. I'm happy with my workflow. I only stated the thread because I didn't understand the function of Super Resolution or Topaz's upscaling. I seen the word more resolution so I wondered if I could somehow apply it to photo sites. I am hoping Adobe does come out with a Sharpen AI module some day.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind that the above humming bird photo was shot using ISO 1/25600.
 
So this site does not downsize? How big is the file in KB that you upload. ACEkin had concerns about choking the site.
 
Sorry for choppy texts. I’m the middle of my volunteer gig. I thought there was size restriction/suggestion.
 
Only RF said:
So this site does not downsize? How big is the file in KB that you upload. ACEkin had concerns about choking the site.
Click to expand...
The picture posted above is a link to flickr. I did not upload the file here. The file size is less than 8 MP because I have uploaded this picture to Instagram which does not accept anything bigger than 8 MP.

As far as I know, if you upload the file here, this side downsizes it. I posted the link so you can appreciate all the details in Flickr.
 

Similar threads

Only RF
  • Featured
Lightroom’s AI Workflow — Why Order Matters MORE Than You Think
Replies
21
Views
2K
Only RF
Only RF
PKM-UK
Topaz Photo AI v3.0...
Replies
5
Views
2K
Chris Summers
Chris Summers
Only RF
Mac Sequoia (15) released today
Replies
9
Views
1K
Only RF
Only RF

Latest reviews

  • ctitanic
    Canon EOS R6
    5.00 star(s)
    A nice camera specially if you want to save some money
    I bought the Canon R6 in 2024 to replace my Canon R7. After researching the market, I decided to go with the R6 instead of the R6 Mark II. Why not...
    • ctitanic
  • G
    Prime Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM
    5.00 star(s)
    Long Story Short Review
    10 years ago.....yes I said it was a long story! Canon sent me an EF 50mm f1.2 for a lens evaluation. On my 5D Mark III it was rather amazing. A...
    • GaryM
  • Crysania
    Zoom Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
    5.00 star(s)
    Fast, sharp, and lightweight! A great lens
    This is my main workhorse of a lens and I love it. It's very light weight (only around 2.3 lbs) lens. I've been able to hand-hold it for an event...
    • Crysania

New in the marketplace

Pro Membership

If you'd like to support this community you can easily do so by becoming a Pro Member and unlocking the following benefits:

✓ No Adverts in the Forums
✓ Sell Items in the Marketplace
✓ Forum Profile Signature
✓ Custom Profile URL
✓ Profile Cover Photo
✓ Unlimited Gallery Uploads
✓ Higher Resolution Gallery Uploads

If you are already a pro member thank you for supporting the site!

If not, you can join here.

Blog Resources

You might find the following guides over on our blog helpful:

Shopping Links

You can also support this site by purchasing gear through the following affiliate links:

Although we would recommend supporting your local camera store first if you have one.

User Menu

RF Shooters Text Logo

© 2025 RF Shooters. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer: RF Shooters is an independently run website and is not affiliated with Canon.com
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Back
Top