It's rarely too small. It's usually too soft.

Those two prints came from files the same size. The wolf is legible from the other side of a room. The forest turns into a grey smear at three metres.

Resolution didn't decide that. The images did.

Why does one hold and one dissolve?

Because enlargement preserves edges and destroys gradients.

Making an image bigger means inventing pixels between the ones you have. Where there's a hard boundary — black meeting cream, a solid shape against a ground — there's an unambiguous answer, and the edge stays an edge.

Where the information is a smooth tonal transition, there's nothing definite to preserve. Mist between trees is thousands of nearly-identical greys, and stretched out they become slightly different nearly-identical greys. Nothing is wrong with the result. There's just nothing in it.

So what makes an image print well?

Four properties, and none of them is pixel count.

• Hard edges — a defined boundary between a subject and everything else.
• Value contrast — light against dark, not mid-tone against mid-tone.
• A silhouette that carries the subject on its own.
• Few colours doing distinct jobs, rather than many doing similar ones.

The wolf has all four. It's also why so many traditional garment styles look the way they do — they evolved on surfaces with the same requirements.

Can't the soft one just be enlarged more?

Enlargement isn't the constraint, and adding more of it doesn't help.

Getting a file to press size is handled here, and it's competent. What it can't do is manufacture structure that was never in the image — a foggy photograph enlarged to any size is still a foggy photograph, and fog is exactly the thing cloth is worst at holding.

So the honest answer to "is my image big enough" is usually: the size isn't the problem, and making it bigger won't fix what is.

Does that mean atmospheric images can't be printed?

They can — they just have to be composed differently.

The forest above fails because it's all middle values with no subject. The same forest works immediately with one change: a hard-edged element to carry it. A black tree silhouette in front of the mist. A figure. A shape with a real outline that the atmosphere sits behind.

That's the general fix and it's a design move rather than a technical one: give the soft image something hard to hang on.

How do I tell before ordering?

Squint at it, and look at it small.

Both tests do the same job — they strip out detail and leave structure. If the subject still reads when you squint, it'll read on cloth. If squinting turns it into an even field, the print will too.

Looking at it at thumbnail size works the same way, which is why thumbnail legibility is a fixed requirement on every image generated here rather than something you're asked to check.

Does the garment colour change it?

Considerably, and it's the cheapest available fix.

A low-contrast image on a garment that matches its mid-tone has nowhere to go. The same image on a strongly contrasting ground gains an outer edge for free — suddenly there's a boundary between the print and the shirt, even if there aren't many inside it.

The ground is half the design, and for soft images it's most of the rescue.

What if I love the soft image anyway?

Then use it as a reference rather than as the artwork.

Handing it over to be redrawn keeps the subject and the mood and rebuilds them out of marks that survive — hatching instead of mist, a silhouette instead of a gradient. That's the same operation that makes a frame from a video work as a print, and it's usually a better shirt than the original would have been.

How do I get one made?

Bring the image to JustOG and say whether it should be printed as it is or redrawn. Pick a direction, drag the crop frame, see it composited on the real garment, and it's made to order and shipped.

Designs other people have published are in the shop.

More pixels won't add a subject. That's the thing it was missing.