Zoom in on a small product in frame: AI recompose or crop and upscale
Product too small in the photo? A Pillow crop plus Sume Image Upscale ($0.20) keeps real pixels; an Ideogram 4.5 recompose edit costs $0.075 and redraws them.

When a product is small in the frame, you have two routes on Sume. The first is to crop the area in Pillow and, if the crop is too small, enlarge it with POST /v1/image-upscale-1.0/upscale, which is $0.20 per image and keeps the real pixels as far as an upscaler can. The second is to ask ideogram/ideogram-v4.5 to recompose the photo with the product larger, which costs $0.075 at medium but redraws the product, so label text and small details can change.
Ideogram's 4.5 page lists zoom editing among its edit examples. That makes the recompose route a real option for lifestyle shots, but not for photos where the product has to be a faithful record.
Route 1: crop, then upscale
A crop is lossless in the sense that every pixel left is a pixel the camera captured. If the product occupies the middle third of a 4000 pixel wide photo, a crop to that third is still over 1300 pixels wide, enough for many web uses without any model. When you need more, the Sume upscale route takes a public HTTPS image_url, an upscale_factor from 1 to 4 (the default is 2) and an output_format of png, jpg or webp.
The catalogue price is $0.20 per image, which Sume prices as a reserved estimate of about 16 output megapixels. It is the most expensive step in this comparison, so crop first and enlarge only what you will actually publish.
from PIL import Image
im = Image.open("shelf.jpg")
w, h = im.size
box = (int(w * 0.30), int(h * 0.25), int(w * 0.70), int(h * 0.80))
crop = im.crop(box)
crop.save("product_crop.png")
print("crop size", crop.size)Route 2: recompose with an edit
Send the photo as the first input_references entry and say what you want: the same product, filling about 60 percent of the frame, same background style, same lighting. Without aspect_ratio the edit keeps the source shape, so the new framing happens inside the original canvas. The model draws a new picture around what it believes the product looks like.
This is where drift matters. A label that read a clear brand name in the original can come back with a similar but wrong word. For a catalogue, record-keeping or marketplace image where the product must be accurate, use route 1.
Cost and decision
Both routes are priced per image on Sume. The crop is free; the upscale and the edit are billed.
| Route | Per image | 100 photos | Pixels come from |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pillow crop only | $0 | $0 | The camera |
| Crop then Image Upscale 1.0 | $0.20 | $20.00 | The camera, enlarged |
| Ideogram 4.5 recompose, low | $0.0375 | $3.75 | The model |
| Ideogram 4.5 recompose, medium | $0.075 | $7.50 | The model |
| Ideogram 4.5 recompose, high | $0.275 | $27.50 | The model |
Resolution and framing details
Before you pick a route, measure what you have. A phone photo is often 4000 pixels wide, so a central crop is still large; a marketplace image saved at 1000 pixels is not. Ideogram says 4.5 handles edits up to 4,016 x 6,016 pixels without downsampling on its own page, but on Sume the edit keeps the geometry of the source when you omit aspect_ratio, and resolution on its own does not change a source size. That means a recompose edit will not give you more real pixels than the source has.
The practical order is: decide the final display size, crop to the framing you want, check whether the crop meets that size, and only enlarge when it does not. If the framing is wrong because the subject is off-centre rather than small, a crop alone solves it. If you must keep the original canvas, ratio and all, a recompose edit is the only way to move the product within it.
A short decision rule
If the product label has to be read, crop. If the crop is under about 1000 pixels wide and you need more, upscale. If the picture is a mood image, a social post or a hero where the look matters more than a faithful label, recompose. If you are unsure, do both on three photos and compare labels at full size.
Sources
Related posts
More in Comparisons
- Sume vs Argil: AI avatar video and video agents compared
Argil makes AI-avatar and story videos with a chat agent, Director; Sume is a video agent with a multi-model API. Avatars, API, pricing, and limits compared.
- Sume vs fal: a generative media API or a video agent platform
fal runs 1,000+ image, video, and audio models behind one API. Sume adds a video agent, Formats, and avatars to a multi-model API. How the two surfaces differ.
- HeyGen alternatives with an API: price units, limits, and fit
HeyGen alternatives with an API: Synthesia, Creatify, Argil, Arcads, and Sume compared by price unit, API shape, limits, and live vs rendered avatars.
- Sume vs Higgsfield: two video agents compared on API, MCP, and price
Higgsfield and Sume both put a creative agent over many video models. How their agents, APIs, MCP servers, plans, and billing differ, from each vendor's pages.
Written by Sume