8.7 MB image How large a print?

I have an 8,7 MB image that I need to output to a 20 x 24 print. Is there enough info for a very good print or should I just leave it 10 x 12?

-Durr

how many pixels wide by how many high?

how are you planning to print it?

Yes I am trying to replicate a polaroid 20 x 24 print.

It isn't exactly the number of MP that will determine this - it is also the overall "quality" of the image, focus and so forth.

 

A good test is to go through the steps of creating a printable 20 x 24 inch print. Then duplicate this file. Working on the

duplicate, crop out a section that will print on a letter size paper without reduction - e.g. take just a 7 x 9 inch section of the

20 x 24 inch image. Print this small section of the print at the target resolution and the view it from the distance at which

you would view the 20 x 24 print. You should be able to make a decent judgment as to whether it will work at the large size.

 

Dan

Certainly, there are a lot of other variables that will determine how well your print will come out, but I used to print 13X19 with my 20D (8.3MP) just fine and they looked great.

K... I do deal a lot with scanned images but I do not find that the question you ask has a staight answer, hence I'll ask for some info and once I have it I can try and answer.

1) Where is the original image (Is it a print that was scanned?)

2) Tell me about the original image, how was it obtained and what are the width and height of this image.

3) Will you or did you scan the image? Please inform what DPI did you scan it and if it is possible for you to scan it agan.

I'll check back to see your answers and will answer accordingly

Along with the inherent technical quality present in the image, your planned print viewing distance should inform you on the acceptability of image quality at various reproduction sizes. If nose-up quality is expected, a smaller print is needed. If the image is meant to be viewed from 10-15ft. away, a larger print will look good.

Durr, you didn't specify what you mean by "good." A sharp, well-exposed 8 megapixel image can be resampled to create a 50 or 100 megapixel image without obvious sampling artifacts, its local contrast can be enhanced to give an impression of sharpness, it can be printed 20x24 or even larger, and Joe Blow will say it looks fantabulous. Joe Blow will also like gaudy eye-catching billboard images with even less detail than your 8 megapixel image--he never stops and eyeballs them close enough to notice what they haven't got. Content, composition, impact, lighting, and bright colors will all go much further to give a subjective impression of "goodness" than resolution.

I agree with Charles. The content of the photo itself is going to be more important than the resolution, and you can rest assured that only

anal-retentive geeks like me will ever bother to look closely enough to see (you should see me at the mall by those big wall displays). ;)

The suggestions are good; blow it up and select a few areas to print out at full size and see.

 

It's very easy to get lost in the megapixel frenzy, and what often gets overlooked is the quality of said megapixels. 12MP isn't worth a hoo

if there's noise and artifacts. Conversely, a 6MP photo will look fabulous blown up, provided it's clean. Obviously, higher resolution never

hurts, but I don't think it's the be-all-end-all to image quality. There a ton of other factors at play.

Hello all, I was asked by a local group to do a "James Bond" theme photograph and this is what i came up with. It's too

late to redo but I need some help on the printing. The image is 6 x 7.2 inch 300 dpi. I was trying to replicate a giant

polaroid (20 x 24) image. I really do not think I want to go that large with it. What do you think?

I tried to post it in this answer but cannot. So, I just posted it in my photo.net images.

It's graphically very strong, so it's just the kind of thing that would blow up well--note that all the information is in your edge detail, and that is pretty convincing. The overall contrast within the figure area is a little low, and I'd look for a way to give a greater range of tones. The simplest would probably be to select the brown tone and outline it with an edge effect in a slightly darker brown. <p>Incidentally, nice job!

Something like that will blow up to any size. Charles's suggestion about edge effect is good though.

Charles. I would love to try your suggestion. How do I give it the edge effect? Thanks, -Durr

In several ways, one being to put a very narrow notch in your RGB Curve, and another being to run Find Edges on a duplicate layer that you recolor and overlay. You could also select a color area, such as gold, and apply Select->Modify->Border to get a border that you fill with alt-Backspace or ctl-Backspace. The difficulty with edges is that the effect has to be very subtle, or you end up with a posterization or solarization effect that disrupts the original image. <p>It may be easier to take your original, put the whole thing on a duplicate layer and set Blend Mode to Multiply, then clip the black edge of that duplicate layer in Levels. You'll note a darker base color and a rich duotone effect that varies in extent with the Levels slider. You could likewise set another duplicate layer to Color Burn and clip it with the white slider in Levels. Between the transparency and fill sliders on the Layers Palette and the five sliders in Levels you'll have a lot to play with.<p>Since you are concerned about resolution, why not enlarge the original file <u>before</u> jazzing it up? Good Luck! Charles