Hi, all. Anyone know where I can find HUGE high-resolution images of P's album cover art? Particularly, I'd like the largest, clearest image I can find of the Parade cover. Any leads would be appreciated.

Lammastide said:

Hi, all. Anyone know where I can find HUGE high-resolution images of P's album cover art? Particularly, I'd like the largest, clearest image I can find of the Parade cover. Any leads would be appreciated.

.

You will have to ask Jeff Katz or wait for him to start selling large prints if you want truly high quality images.
.
Scanning the album cover (if you have an A3+ size flatbed scanner) or taking a high-res photo of it can work but only if you're happy with a 12" print as a result. Blowing it up to A2 or bigger would just increase the size of the offset print's dots, you wouldn't be increasing the resolution.

.

For a true high resolution image Katz would need to scan the original 6x6 (cm) film on a professional drum scanner and produce large prints from that. (IF he still has the originals at all – they might be owned and stored by Warners, I don't know.)
.

[Edited 3/24/19 3:38am]

Kares said:

.

You will have to ask Jeff Katz or wait for him to start selling large prints if you want truly high quality images.
.[Edited 3/24/19 3:38am]

I was wondering why Jeff Katz hasn´t published a Prince picture book yet. Have you heard about any such plans? He created some very iconic photographs of Prince, but for some reason I haven´t heard much from him in the last couple of years and I think if he decided to release a book I´d definitely buy it. I´ve bought Steve Parke´s, Afshin Shahidi´s and Allen Beaulieu´s books and I think Jeff Katz is one of those very familiar names when it comes to great Prince pictures.

Kares said:

Lammastide said:

Hi, all. Anyone know where I can find HUGE high-resolution images of P's album cover art? Particularly, I'd like the largest, clearest image I can find of the Parade cover. Any leads would be appreciated.

.

You will have to ask Jeff Katz or wait for him to start selling large prints if you want truly high quality images.
.
Scanning the album cover (if you have an A3+ size flatbed scanner) or taking a high-res photo of it can work but only if you're happy with a 12" print as a result. Blowing it up to A2 or bigger would just increase the size of the offset print's dots, you wouldn't be increasing the resolution.

.

For a true high resolution image Katz would need to scan the original 6x6 (cm) film on a professional drum scanner and produce large prints from that. (IF he still has the originals at all – they might be owned and stored by Warners, I don't know.)
.

[Edited 3/24/19 3:38am]

Suddenly I'm exhausted.

Thanks.

Doozer said:

Use images.google.com Search for “Prince Parade cover art” Under Tools, set your minimum desired image resolution. Or use this: https://www.google.com/ad...age_search

Thank you.

This won't be big enough if you want to have it printed, but for digital use, albumartexchange.com has up to 1500 pixel-sized album covers. It's the first place I go to to find album art for digital files.

Buy the original vinyl record, clean it, buy a digital Hasselblad, invest in some lightning and a tripod - voila

Krid said:

Buy the original vinyl record, clean it, buy a digital Hasselblad, invest in some lightning and a tripod - voila

.

Modern Hasselblads are ridiculously overpriced with their subpar lenses. There's no point in having a 100 or 400 megapixel CCD when your lens is not up to the job.
.
Besides, as I said before, you can scan the album cover with the highest resolution scanner if you want, but that doesn't mean you can enlarge the end result without a drop in resolution. You'll just end up seeing the offset dots.

.

You can also zoom in really tight on a fairly clear image and screenshot it

herb4 said:

You can also zoom in really tight on a fairly clear image and screenshot it

.
LOL
the things you learn on the org...

Kares said:

herb4 said:

You can also zoom in really tight on a fairly clear image and screenshot it

.
LOL
the things you learn on the org...

I work in graphics and large format printing. Have to do it all the time.

People submit logos at low resolution and 3" wide to go on a 4 foot sign. It doesn't ALWAYS work and it helps to have a big, large high resolution screen but if you can find a good image that doesn't get blurry or pixellated when you zoom in, just fill the screen and take a screen grab.

But the OP sounds like they want "HUGE" high resolution art (for just this purpose I assume) and that's gonna be tough. For one thing, the file sizes will be gigantic and most web sites don't need that.

Not to get boring, but a website usually displays at 72-144 pixels per inch (PPI). A good printed image for a magazine will usually be 300 ppi. A large format image (like you see on walls or trucks) usually check in at no less than 150 ppi but high end stuff still usually aims for 300 ppi.

Without knowing what "HUGE" means for the OP, it's hard to know where to point them. "HUGE" could be anywhere from 4 to 8 to 12 to 20 feet. If you have the means (and the albums) just photgraph them yourself at THE highest resolution camera setting and then enlarge it.

EDIT: This is important. When you enlarge an image, the resolution/ppi is REDUCED by how much you blow it up. Meaning, if you have a 10" x 10" image at 300 ppi, if you enlarge it to 20" x 20" your resolution DROPS to 150 ppi. TWICE the size = HALF the resolution.

heh..rename the thread "Prince and the Resolution"

I PM"d you if you want my help

[Edited 3/28/19 15:28pm]

herb4 said:

Kares said:

.
LOL
the things you learn on the org...

I work in graphics and large format printing. Have to do it all the time.

.

You can zoom in all you want, that's not going to add a single pixel of new detail that wasn't there in the original file.

.

herb4 said:

Kares said:

herb4 said:

I work in graphics and large format printing. Have to do it all the time.

.

You can zoom in all you want, that's not going to add a single pixel of new detail that wasn't there in the original file.

.

I'm aware. Not quite what I meant though. You can't "up res" the source image.

But often, when I recieve a low resolution image/logo, sometimes I CAN search, zoom in, screen grab and get a clearer, more high res and workable image than I could have by a direct download. Also, some of the images I'm talking about will preview the high res version but restrict a download.

Don't tell me business, kid.

herb4 said:

Kares said:

.

You can zoom in all you want, that's not going to add a single pixel of new detail that wasn't there in the original file.

.

I'm aware. Not quite what I meant though. You can't "up res" the source image.

But often, when I recieve a low resolution image/logo, sometimes I CAN search, zoom in, screen grab and get a clearer, more high res and workable image than I could have by a direct download. Also, some of the images I'm talking about will preview the high res version but restrict a download.

Don't tell me business, kid.

.

Excuse me? Don't tell me business, kid. I founded a printing and pre-press company, amongst others...
.
No zooming and screencaptiruing will give you more details than the file you're looking at already has. Whether you can download it or not is another question.
And as I've clearly explained already before, there's no point in photographing or scanning an offset print (the record cover) if what you want is a high resolution print much larger than the 12" LP cover. You'll just end blowing up the offset dots. You'll need to ask Katz to scan the original 6x6 film.

.

LovePaisley said:

Prince and the Resolution...

.

in 640x480...

Kares said:

herb4 said:

I'm aware. Not quite what I meant though. You can't "up res" the source image.

But often, when I recieve a low resolution image/logo, sometimes I CAN search, zoom in, screen grab and get a clearer, more high res and workable image than I could have by a direct download. Also, some of the images I'm talking about will preview the high res version but restrict a download.

Don't tell me business, kid.

.

Excuse me? Don't tell me business, kid. I founded a printing and pre-press company, amongst others...
.
No zooming and screencaptiruing will give you more details than the file you're looking at already has. Whether you can download it or not is another question.
And as I've clearly explained already before, there's no point in photographing or scanning an offset print (the record cover) if what you want is a high resolution print much larger than the 12" LP cover. You'll just end blowing up the offset dots. You'll need to ask Katz to scan the original 6x6 film.

.

I was joking with you

It came off strange

Everythingyou said is accurate but the workarounds I posted CAN work. I do a series of large format portraits (cut out heads of famous people) and, typically, the method I describe DOES, in fact, give me a better working photograph than just downloading the image. It works for certain logos as well.

Not all of the time but usually. I use a lot of cheats for these large format jobs since their file sizes are so demanding and wouldn't bother posting it if I didn't have success with it. I sincerely doubt the OP has access to the negatives so I was taking a more realistic approach. Certainly in a perfect world your approach is optimal. I think a high res photos with proper photoshop work would produce satissfactory results

[Edited 3/29/19 4:04am]

herb4 said:

Kares said:

.

Excuse me? Don't tell me business, kid. I founded a printing and pre-press company, amongst others...
.
No zooming and screencaptiruing will give you more details than the file you're looking at already has. Whether you can download it or not is another question.
And as I've clearly explained already before, there's no point in photographing or scanning an offset print (the record cover) if what you want is a high resolution print much larger than the 12" LP cover. You'll just end blowing up the offset dots. You'll need to ask Katz to scan the original 6x6 film.

.

I was joking with you

It came off strange

Everythingyou said is accurate but the workarounds I posted CAN work. I do a series of large format portraits (cut out heads of famous people) and, typically, the method I describe DOES, in fact, give me a better working photograph than just downloading the image. It works for certain logos as well.

Not all of the time but usually. I use a lot of cheats for these large format jobs since their file sizes are so demanding and wouldn't bother posting it if I didn't have success with it. I sincerely doubt the OP has access to the negatives so I was taking a more realistic approach. Certainly in a perfect world your approach is optimal. I think a high res photos with proper photoshop work would produce satissfactory results

[Edited 3/29/19 4:04am]

.
Okay, zooming+screencapturing can, in some cases, produce an image that seems to be slightly better than the original. What I'm saying (and we both agree on) is that whatever the difference is, it's only fakery – it won't magically reveal any further REAL detail that wasn't there in the original file. It might add interpolated pixels when your screen capture is of higher resolution than the original image, but it won't be comparable to a genuine high-res, large format print.
I don't think there are many album artwork images online larger than perhaps 1500x1500 pixels, and I had the impression OP was looking for something much larger than that.
.
Logos are a different matter of course, as they are most commonly created in vector formats and they are often used online in either purely vector- or hybrid formats too, so with those, you can zoom in.
.

herb4 said:

Kares said:

.
LOL
the things you learn on the org...

I work in graphics and large format printing. Have to do it all the time.

People submit logos at low resolution and 3" wide to go on a 4 foot sign. It doesn't ALWAYS work and it helps to have a big, large high resolution screen but if you can find a good image that doesn't get blurry or pixellated when you zoom in, just fill the screen and take a screen grab.

But the OP sounds like they want "HUGE" high resolution art (for just this purpose I assume) and that's gonna be tough. For one thing, the file sizes will be gigantic and most web sites don't need that.

Not to get boring, but a website usually displays at 72-144 pixels per inch (PPI). A good printed image for a magazine will usually be 300 ppi. A large format image (like you see on walls or trucks) usually check in at no less than 150 ppi but high end stuff still usually aims for 300 ppi.

Without knowing what "HUGE" means for the OP, it's hard to know where to point them. "HUGE" could be anywhere from 4 to 8 to 12 to 20 feet. If you have the means (and the albums) just photgraph them yourself at THE highest resolution camera setting and then enlarge it.

EDIT: This is important. When you enlarge an image, the resolution/ppi is REDUCED by how much you blow it up. Meaning, if you have a 10" x 10" image at 300 ppi, if you enlarge it to 20" x 20" your resolution DROPS to 150 ppi. TWICE the size = HALF the resolution.

heh..rename the thread "Prince and the Resolution"

I PM"d you if you want my help

[Edited 3/28/19 15:28pm]

you make signs? i make signs. i worked in the print department for a few years. i've been running cnc routers and fabricating for the past 12 years of so.

i forget everything i ever knew about printing...

Kares said:

herb4 said:

I was joking with you

It came off strange

Everythingyou said is accurate but the workarounds I posted CAN work. I do a series of large format portraits (cut out heads of famous people) and, typically, the method I describe DOES, in fact, give me a better working photograph than just downloading the image. It works for certain logos as well.

Not all of the time but usually. I use a lot of cheats for these large format jobs since their file sizes are so demanding and wouldn't bother posting it if I didn't have success with it. I sincerely doubt the OP has access to the negatives so I was taking a more realistic approach. Certainly in a perfect world your approach is optimal. I think a high res photos with proper photoshop work would produce satissfactory results

[Edited 3/29/19 4:04am]

.
Okay, zooming+screencapturing can, in some cases, produce an image that seems to be slightly better than the original. What I'm saying (and we both agree on) is that whatever the difference is, it's only fakery – it won't magically reveal any further REAL detail that wasn't there in the original file. It might add interpolated pixels when your screen capture is of higher resolution than the original image, but it won't be comparable to a genuine high-res, large format print.
I don't think there are many album artwork images online larger than perhaps 1500x1500 pixels, and I had the impression OP was looking for something much larger than that.
.
Logos are a different matter of course, as they are most commonly created in vector formats and they are often used online in either purely vector- or hybrid formats too, so with those, you can zoom in.
.

Really sorry about how that comment came off. I was quoting a movie and it read hositle.

And, yeah, I get totally get it. I'm trying to find workarounds and stuff that works for me. I could cobble something together with the album and a good camera (not a scan). I do set up and maninly my job is spinning shit into gold. I got a TON of jpg web logos that some dork threw together in MS WOrd or Publisher and often have to go hunting for better images. I have trouble finding good vectors and find that most companies just use the jpgs most of the time. It's astonishing and has actually seemed to have gotten WORSE over the years since everything is web and phones and powerpoint stuff.

Often, I can recreate the art in Illustrator but most places don't want to pay me to do it it.

I assumed the OP would need a workarond or they wouldn't be asking and, again, without knowing the target size or the intent (viewing distance, application, use) it's hard to guide them. I found one that SAYS its a 1200 x 1200 image (highest one I found) but it links to a 320 x 320


https://1850516970.rsc.cd...38x338.jpg

I think the OP is gonna have trouble finding a really good one without a watermark

peedub said:

herb4 said:

stuff

you make signs? i make signs. i worked in the print department for a few years. i've been running cnc routers and fabricating for the past 12 years of so.

i forget everything i ever knew about printing...

i do. Wraps, window perfs, design, pre-press, wall decals, retractables, set up, contour cutting, box trucks and stuff. Not too much router work, hand made stuff or heavy installation but lots of foamcore, coroplast and banners

I'm sure this is just FASCINATING for the thread ) so sorry for rambling.

herb4 said:

Kares said:

.

Really sorry about how that comment came off. I was quoting a movie and it read hositle.
.

.
No worries, really

herb4 said:

I assumed the OP would need a workarond or they wouldn't be asking and, again, without knowing the target size or the intent (viewing distance, application, use) it's hard to guide them. I found one that SAYS its a 1200 x 1200 image (highest one I found) but it links to a 320 x 320

https://1850516970.rsc.cd...38x338.jpg

I think the OP is gonna have trouble finding a really good one without a watermark

.
The largest I can find online is 1500x1500. This is pretty good:

.

https://albumartexchange.com/coverart/gallery/pr/princeandtherevoluti_parade_9ra6.jpg

.

.

[Edited 4/3/19 10:54am]

Best one I can find. Have you considered using the untire foldout that carries over the back cover? You know what's weird? You reminded me when I lived in SF one time I saw this very image on the ceiling of someone's apartment that was absolutely HUGE. My guess is that it was from a billboard and was tiled/sectioned but that was really cool seeing that thing from the street.

Anyway...

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/83/8e/ba/838eba358969c02a2c3fb24a98440778.jpg

http://memberdata.s3.amazonaws.com/hi/hitsdd/photos/hitsdd_photo_gal__photo_1305842013.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/77/80/34/7780346c81353c496203f32873f4a84c.png

REALLY appreciative of all the insight here. Thanks, everyone.

I think the 1500 x 1500 file above should work for my purposes. I want to blow the image up to roughly 4' x 4' for framing and hanging in my home. I'd obviously like the sharpest image possible, but I needn't something perfect for, say, commerical use.

UPDATE: I took the 1500 x 1500 file above and ran it through the online photo enhancer at https://letsenhance.io/ and it looks AMAZING!!! Definitely serves my purpose!

[Edited 4/4/19 18:47pm]