How big will 10.1MP print?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by matthew_dale, May 18, 2009.

  1. Hi, I have a Canon 40D and am going to do some wedding photography. The couple would like a 24"x36" print to put up in their house. I am unsure if my camera will print that big acceptably. What is the biggest size you recommend printing in the situation?
    Cheers
     
  2. I don;t know either, but I would upsize the pic and then crop an 8x10 portion of it and print it to see if the quality is acceptable.
     
  3. Natively, without some sort of up-sizing software, you'll get approx an 13x8.5 inch image at 300ppi, a 19x13@ 200ppi, or a 26x17@ 150ppi. Usually people refer to "Photo Quality" at 300ppi.
    What quality you (they) need will depend on viewing distance, quality of the original shot, etc. There is some good software out there like genuine fractals that specialize in up-sizing photos that may help. I would recommend paying to see a print that size before the wedding shoot so you know what you can pull off and they know what quality to expect.
    Take a look at this for reference: http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php
     
  4. Juergen's suggestion is what I usually suggest as well. I do this with my own prints. (In one case I did it to convince a client to not purchase a print that I thought would not look good at a too-large size...)
    There is no hard rule about how large you can print - there are too many variables involved. Some subjects (e.g. - detailed landscapes) may fall apart at smaller sizes that other subjects (certain types of portraits). The viewer's expectations also make a difference. Will the photo be hung as a fine art print of made into a poster? etc.
    24 x 36 inches from a cropped sensor is, in my experience, pushing it. I've gone as large as 16 x 24 with decent results, but at that point I felt that small details were beginning to be lost in a way that I could see. And this was working with originals shot from the tripod and using very good lenses.
    Take care,
    Dan
     
  5. 24 x 36 inches is huge. How about the same dimension matted and framed?
    Quite honestly, the size seems a bit ego centric to me.....
     
  6. You can get a 24x36 print from Adorama for under $30. It's worth the investment so you can decide for yourself rather than listing to other people's opinions. You can also show it to your clients so they know what to expect if they insist on a print that large.
     
  7. With good lighting and technique, you should be fine....I've printed 24x36 from studio shots taken with a 30D, and it looks quite good, even up close. Apply a little bit of sharpening, and upsample in Photoshop. I wouldn't try to enlarge anything shot over ISO 200 that large, since the noise will become quite noticeable.
     
  8. I have printed this large from the 20D, but it was on watercolor paper. This is more forgiving than photo paper, since it adds some texture. Also, some pictures will enlarge better than other, i.e., soft focus, blurred backgrounds. Detail intensive pictures may not fare well. In my limited experience, photos that were "exposed to the right" also held up better.
    Good luck.
     
  9. I did a 16x20 family portrait from a 6 MP Canon 10D that turned out better than I thought. The professional printer was able to get much better quality than most home printers, even my 6 colour one. You'd certainly be pushing the envelope a little with a 10 MP 24x36 print, perhaps compromise and end up at 20x25. Good quality lenses will help.
     
  10. rule of thumb is 300 pixel per inch for photo quality
    so using a 40D as the example ...
    10.1 MP = 3888 x 2592
    3888/300 = 12.96
    2593/300 = 8.64

    you could get a photo quality 8 x 12 (same aspect ration as sensor, 2:3)
     
  11. Ok, cheers, How does one upsize? I have Photoshop CS4. It will be with a tripod, ISO 100 and on a sunny day. I will probably use 50mm 1.8 or 17-55mm 2.8. In fact, which one would you recommend? It will just be the bride and groom. I also own 100-400mm and 60mm but I don't think they are right for this.
    Ta
     
  12. What is your minimum acceptable dots per inch? Divide this number into the horizontal and vertical pixel dimensions of your image, and you have your answer.
    300 dpi may be rule of thumb for some, 240 dpi seems fine for others, and is actually Adobe Camera Raws default. Larger prints will likely be viewed from further away, and then minimum dpi becomes a moot point. Perhaps for 24x36 inch prints 180 dpi, or less, is sufficient.
     
  13. I think, as the photo will be in the house, maybe 300 dpi will be best.
     
  14. 240 dpi for large prints is tending on the "overkill" side for quality.
    Disclaimer -- I routinely print with 40D images at 13x19 inches, super sharp. I am far from alone there. 200 DPI more than enough for a 6 sqr. ft. print. That is BIG.
     
  15. As several have suggested, one way or another, you need to show the customer something to see if the result will be acceptable to them .
    Of course a little lack of crispness and high contrast can often be a plus in portrait work....
    I print 13x19 from a 20D, XTi, and a 5D and find all perfectly suitable to me at that scale. I'm guessing that a 40D would do fine up to the 24x36 "beloved Leader" size print for me, but I ain't your couple.
     
  16. I routinely enlarge to 16x20 and 20x24 and occasionally to 20x30 with my 1D MKIII which is also 10 mp (although it has a larger sensor than the 40D). They come out beautiful with just a tweak resize in Photoshop. I've never done 24x36 but have no doubt I could. I've done a lot of experimenting on upsizing and my findings are if just enlarging slightly larger than the native resolution of the camera stick with Adobe's recommendation (use Bicubic Smoother). But if you're enlarging much larger (twice the size or more) use Bicubic Sharper. Either way I just upsize in one step - not the 10% increments that older versions of Photoshop required. Photoshop CS3 and CS4 had the algorithms updated. I use Photoshop CS4 and I size the files for 300 DPI. Never any problems.
     
  17. rule of thumb is 300 pixel per inch for photo quality
    so using a 40D as the example ...
    10.1 MP = 3888 x 2592
    3888/300 = 12.96
    2593/300 = 8.64​
    Most people who print would disagree strenuously with your "rule of thumb," at least if you are suggesting that good quality prints require you to work no larger than what you can get from native 300 ppi from your camera.
    Take care,
    Dan
     
  18. I have a 24x36 print of an elephant at Amboseli taken on an XTi with a 100-400 at 400mm, cropped to about 75% and it looks great, Eyelashes still discernable and all the wrinkles etc sharp and easily visible. I was after a particular look, an old bull elephant coming across the hot plains with the background and distant hills out of focus. The print was done by a chain store onto Fuji paper. I didn't bother with printing a small section at the proposed enlargement, I just took the risk it would be ok.
    Sure, it's not as sharp as the A4s I do but at a foot or two viewing distance its everything I hoped it would be.
    Neill
     
  19. rule of thumb is 300 pixel per inch for photo quality​
    Make some prints and soo how necessary that really is. People who don't shoot MF or LF have been doing great large prints with much less than 300dpi for decades.
     
  20. I have done 16 x 20 & 20 x 30 from 20d ok using FM`s `Stair Interpolation Pro` & S-Spline tho 11 X14 biggest so far with 40D. I`ve looked at a more unconventional method for larger prints. we have a chain of printers here in OZ using large format printers. the prints on canvas look quite detailed and I`ve been given claims of wall murals from DSLR files. because canvas needs lower rez you can print larger, not sure but printers are about 120dpi. my local one charges me pro price bout 90$/sq.mtr. May be worth a look, wonder if anyone else gone this direction :)
     
  21. Thanks heaps, I will upsize it and take a crop sample. See what happens.
     
  22. I have two 24"x30" prints at home that were shot on a Canon 20D. One at ISO 400 the other at ISO 100. Both look fantastic.
    Sure, if you're up close you do notice a few minor defects, but given a good composition, good lighting, sharp photo, you'll easily pull off a 24x36 print.
     
  23. This question will be asked forever.

    It gets asked each week!:)

    Unless one boxes in the viewing distance there is really no answer at all.

    A VGA image is good enough for a billboard.

    If one uses a trial target of a 300 ppi image as being OK at 1 foot viewing distance; then only 30 ppi is required at a 10 foot distance; an 3 ppi at a 100 foot distance; and 1 ppi at a 300 foot distance.

    The human eye can only resolve a certain arc angle.

    Its worse at night and when drivingl looking through a cars windshield.

    In pro work one defines the viewing distance; the number of yards of concrete to pour; the electrical load and distance.

    In amateur work this is harder; one wants a wishy washy black and white answer.:)

    *****In printing larger images here for decades for the public one things stands out like gangbusters; those who focus on upsizing; resolution; pixel helper tend to use the WORST images; ones without a soul; with lower impact.Its like if somebody was so focused on making perfect puncutaion and speellling :) in a book and the book was boring as hell.
    Sadly many folks get ALL WRAPPED up in worrying about the wrong issues.

    What really matters is how the GOOD the image looks to your client

    If the image is a Los Angeles wall map that is 12 by 6 feet; it might be printed at 300 ppi; they want to read the dinky steet names. If its is a 12 by 6 foot poster on a high wall LAX 30 feet away from a viewer; the image might only be 10 ppi and be perfect.
    This *bothers* many folks; they think somebody might get up on a ladder; or they want to over specify the requirements to drive costs higher; or cover ones bum.

    Some rough canavas are so rough that beyond 80 to 100 ppi is not seen; fine canvas can support more.
    For a client with an image of a person(s); there is much emotion involved; a proof weddings CD's VGA images often make a fine poster image; or cell phone images; or simple P&S images. These simpler images may be the ones that really cover the event more than a serile weddings chaps images.

    In court case work here I have made 32x40 inch trial posters from 320x240 1/4 VGA images; the ONLY images that existed as legal evidence. They work because the viewing distance is large; plus it is the ONLY image available to use; they CANNOT be reshot.

    Make some sample prints. Here at my shot I have 32x40 posters and some 40x60" shot with 1/4 VGA through 4x5" drum scans. TYPICALLY folks are OFF an order of magnitude as to the input that was used. Thus a 32x40" poster made with my 1.3 Megapixel P&S is deemed to be made with a 6 to 10 megapixel camera. Once you mention the input; folks get testy and downgrade an image; ie personal bias agenda kicks in.

    FOLKS should really makes some poster samples; brew their own coffee; figure out how much Ketchup on the burger by themselves instead of asking others. SAMPLES are what matters.

    Typically folks new to making poster inputs for printers upsize to the moon; ie create bloaded useless files. Often one can downsize these 10 to 100 times and the poster CANNOT be told from the original input. Thus do NOT go too crazy with upsizing. As Truman said one cannot polish a turd. Think moderation.
     
  24. OP, the answer is NO.
    To me the 40D makes acceptable prints up to 11x14.
    The best way is to see for yourself. Just resample the picture you would like to print at 24x36 and the native dpi of the printer you will use.
    Then crop the center 8x10 and print it. Evaluate sharpness, re-sharpen and print again.
    Now evaluate to see if that matches your threshold of quality.
     
  25. Text book answer, Kelly. Well done!
    Adey
     
  26. Go talk to a photo lab that makes large prints. Also you can talk to a printer who uses large format inkjet printers. I used a printer who had an HP 60 inch printer with a RIP software program and the image was near perfect. The image was supposed to be a 24X30, but he made it 48X60 by mistake and you couldn't tell that it was from a 6mp Canon D60. He said it was the large format printer and software, not the size of the image. All I can say is go to a good professional printer.
     
  27. Hi,
    I have printed 23 x 33 (A1) and 23 x 16 (A2) straight off a 40D with great results. Most of the shots are indoor sport at high ISO. In one case the print was done at 72dpi. Up close it looks fuzzy, but if you move back a few passes to take in the whole picture it is crystal clear.
    I agree with those that say "do a print and see for yourself!" This way you will know what to expect.
    Best regards,
    John
     
  28. Hey Matthew. If you do an ink jet print, you can get away with 180 dpi on the high end HP printers. Do the math. You might be cutting it close.
     
  29. I've enlarged a 6mp shot to 8 x 12 which would be in the 270 dpi range I believe, I could not see any pixelation or loss of detail when viewing it through a photographers loupe. So I think 270 dpi is fine with me. You could do an 11 x 14 with similar results. Any larger, I would upsize via PhotoShop using the Bicubic options.
     
  30. You may want to consider doing a canvas print at 24 x 36, where the details are generally lost in the texture of canvas anyway.
     
  31. Really depends on your threshold for quality. I see some people talk about "tack sharp" 20x30 prints from 6mp DSLRs....which I just chuckle at. Others have higher expectations. Here are my feelings based upon too much testing. From the 40D, the max for landscape images that rely on detail to convey the message.....about 11x14....maybe 12x18. For portraiture and wedding work.....something that doesn't rely much upon detail.....16x24 would be my limit....sometimes 20x30. These would be prints I make on HM Photorag 308.
    Keep in mind that if it's a landscape image, people still like to move in close to immerse themselves in the detail. If they close and find the image falls apart in a soft, mucshy, digital mess, then the viewer finds the image can fall flat. For me, as long as large prints contain 220 to 240 dpi of output resolution, you'll be fine. Yes, 300 (or 360 depending upon the printer) will appear better....but then your options are really limited to sheet film for the sizes you're looking at.
    Do as Mauro said....print some crops and see how they turn out. Don't forget that if you're printing an 8x10 crop from a 24x36 in print....view that 8x10 from the same distance you would view the 24x36.
     
  32. How big will 10.1MP print?​
    As big as you want to print. Quality really depends on viewing distance and lighting.

    How close will people be standing to the photo when they are viewing it? If they are 10' away, I'm sure that a 24"x36" print from your 40D will look fine. I've seen larger prints from 4 mp cameras, and they looked great.
     
  33. Dale you can use photoshop with very excellent results, set to bicubic smoother, used to be recommended that one would do it at 10% increases at a time, I still do, set as action and takes less then a minute. I have printed excellent 11 x 14 prints from my 1D at 300 dpi.
     
  34. Photo quality is 300dpi.
    This chart has tells you how big you can print at 300 dpi with the number of megapixels you shoot:
    http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php
    So, basically 8"x12" - rounding down to the nearest whole measurements to stay at 300dpi. (I really wish we could metric like the civilized World!)
    As for me, I love large pictures (16x20 or more) that look great from across the room and then walk up to them and stick my nose up to it to see very fine detail. It has this 'infinite perspective' that I like. Nothing replaces photo quality - 300 dpi!
     
  35. 40D at 11x14 is comparably sharp to 6x45 MF at 24x30, 300 dpi on Epson 9800. Some shots can go larger to 24" depending on subject matter (i.e. clouds and water vs. trees and people), etc, and if shot on tripod, with MLU, etc. etc. Otherwise you'll have to think about pan and stitch.
    Ads for 3 - 6 foot banners and such are ok for if you can stay at 150 dpi or higher, with useable viewing distance is about ten feet for trade shows and billboards, and certainly is not fine-art quality.
     
  36. my largest print to date is 24" x 36" from a 200ISO Fujicolor negative. No problem. 10Mp should match it. At the lab they have vintage pro Nikon (4Mp) prints in the same size. Look brillant.
    As has been said: if the picture is good, you can print it any size you want. Now get on with taking pictures.
     
  37. Forget the old 300dpi rule, it no longer applies - modern minilab pro equipment can enlarge your 10MP image with great results. The upscaling algorythms are extreemly good nowadays, better than you can do in photoshop.
     
  38. I printed a 24x36 from my 40D and it looked great. I didn't get a magnifying glass out and inspect it extensively, but I doubt your customer will either. It should be fine.
     
  39. This question is difficult to answer as it requires attention to detail from exposure through processing and finally printing. There is no single answer as your total workflow will determine the final outcome. If you're sending the image out to be printed, talk with the service bureau and let them guide you through what you need for the final file.
    If you want a print on photographic paper then the service would be using a Durst or LightJet - both machines having very good interpolation software. If you want an inkjet print, then ask the service bureau whether they use raster image processor (RIP) software for interpolation. In either case you can ask the service bureau to do a test print from an area of the image so you can see how it will look.
    If you want to make the print yourself... send me an email and I'll send you a description of results from a number of different interpolation programs and methods that I have tested. I make prints from an M8 that are 18x29 that will stand up next to prints from a 6x7 film camera...but, the M8 does not have an anti-aliasing filter (your Canon does), and and not having the filter in front of the sensor helps in preserving image details.
     
  40. If everything else is spot on (lens quality, shooting technique, post processing) then you should be able to pull this off with a portrait shot.
     
  41. Kelly - great answer. Some of the world's great images have been printed quite large and impress viewers despite the fact that they were shot with systems that had less total resolution and/or more grain than a modern DSLR + CAD designed lens. I can even think of one famous photographer who produced some of the finest work in his field using 35mm when his contemporaries generally used medium and large format.
    Matthew - make a moving shot that the couple will love and use your best technique to optimize sharpness and clarity. After that, with the right post processing the rest will fall into place.
     
  42. I have had prints of this size made from low ISO, on-tripod exposures from my 20D and 40D. It's really pushing the limit if you want incredibly fine detail such as for landscape photography, but for portraits it looks great. They will still see more wrinkles and details than they care to.
    I use Adobe bicubic smoother to upsize. Ask your lab what resolution they recommend. I was surprised when my lab told me anything bigger than 250 ppi was wasted for the C prints I'd been ordering.
     
  43. Photo quality is 300dpi.​
    Please stop it. That is simply not a true generalization. If you know what you are doing in post and in printing you can produce very fine prints at 180 ppi depending upon subject. There is a lot of silliness tossed around here as truth about printing - and the "must print at 300 dpi" generalization is one of the worst. It always makes me wonder if a) the poster has actually made large prints, b) the poster has a clue how to optimally use post-processing techniques such as smart sharpen and unsharp mask, c) the poster knows that you have to over-sharpen for printing (to compensate for ink spread on the paper, and d) if the poster actually started with a truly sharp photograph.
    Dan
     
  44. Here is a copy of something I recently posted in another forum:
    Just for fun, with an excellent original (good lens, tripod, MLU, remote release, careful focus, IS off) try the following in Photoshop:
    1. Make your background layer (the one holding the original image) a "smart layer" by choosing Filter -> Convert to Smart Layer in CS4.
    2. Select the background layer and then select Filter -> Sharpen -> Smartsharpen...
    3. Try something like Amount: 150 and Radius: 1.0 and Remove: Lens Blur. (Other defaults are possible - some like Amount:300 and Radius .3 and many other variations are possible. Other values could also be tweaked here, but let those go for now.) Apply these settings.
    4. Next select Filter -> Sharpen -> Unsharp Mask...
    5. Try Amount: 12, Radius: 1.0, Threshold:1 as a starting point. (If you want to see the effect on screen, zoom out so that you can see the entire image on your screen.) Apply these settings.
    6. If you are otherwise finished with your post-processing, save this file but leave it open.
    7. Choose Image -> Duplicate... and make a duplicate copy of this open file. Close the original file that you saved in the previous step.
    8. Zoom in to 100% and do one more Filter -> Sharpen -> Smartsharpen... operation. The object here is to somewhat over-sharpen the image for printing, with the goal of compensating for ink spread on the paper. Believe it or not, you would want to use different settings for different types of paper , but for now try something like Amount: 200, Radius: .4 or perhaps .3. It should look over-sharpened a bit at 100% when you finish.
    9. Go to Image -> Image Size...
    10. Deselect the following in this dialog: "Scale Styles", "Constrain Proportions", and "Resample Image." Yes, that's what I wrote: deselect them . In other words we are not going to up or down-res .
    11. In this same dialog use the Document Size: section to enter the target dimensions of your print. For example you might enter 18 inches wide by 12 inches high of you are printing on 13 x 19 paper. When you do so you'll notice the "resolution" value change to something odd looking. As long as it is at least 180 (to simplify the concept here) you are fine. It may be a lot higher if you make a small print - and that is a good thing for small prints. (I could say a lot more about that last point, but I'll spare you for now.)
    12. Now go through your usual page setup and print process and see what happens.
    This is a simplified description of a process that works quite well. Don't worry about not interpolating in CS4 - your printer will apply its own interpolation algorithms. Sophisticated use of this approach (and just about any alternative approach to sharpening) will require some judgment and experience and you'll need to alter some of these settings to suit the specific image, paper, size, and so on.
    Dan
     
  45. I use Miller's Lab to print.
    I am sitting about 10' from a 30x40 metallic print. The original shot was taken in RAW on my Nikon D200 (10.2 MP) edited and saved as TIFF. I donot remember if I had to convert to JPG to upload it to miller's or not.
    The picture looks great.
     
  46. I use Miller's Lab to print.
    I am sitting about 10' from a 30x40 metallic print. The original shot was taken in RAW on my Nikon D200 (10.2 MP) edited and saved as TIFF. I donot remember if I had to convert to JPG to upload it to miller's or not.
    The picture looks great.
     
  47. I made two errors. Notice the change in step 5 and the new step 8:
    1. Make your background layer (the one holding the original image) a "smart layer" by choosing Filter -> Convert to Smart Layer in CS4.
    2. Select the background layer and then select Filter -> Sharpen -> Smartsharpen...
    3. Try something like Amount: 150 and Radius: 1.0 and Remove: Lens Blur. (Other defaults are possible - some like Amount:300 and Radius .3 and many other variations are possible. Other values could also be tweaked here, but let those go for now.) Apply these settings.
    4. Next select Filter -> Sharpen -> Unsharp Mask...
    5. Try Amount: 12, Radius: 50 , Threshold: 0 as a starting point. (If you want to see the effect on screen, zoom out so that you can see the entire image on your screen.) Apply these settings.
    6. If you are otherwise finished with your post-processing, save this file but leave it open.
    7. Choose Image -> Duplicate... and make a duplicate copy of this open file. Close the original file that you saved in the previous step.
    8. Flatten this duplicate copy of the image and do the following steps on this copy.
    9. Zoom in to 100% and do one more Filter -> Sharpen -> Smartsharpen... operation. The object here is to somewhat over-sharpen the image for printing, with the goal of compensating for ink spread on the paper. Believe it or not, you would want to use different settings for different types of paper , but for now try something like Amount: 200, Radius: .4 or perhaps .3. It should look over-sharpened a bit at 100% when you finish.
    10. Go to Image -> Image Size...
    11. Deselect the following in this dialog: "Scale Styles", "Constrain Proportions", and "Resample Image." Yes, that's what I wrote: deselect them . In other words we are not going to up or down-res .
    12. In this same dialog use the Document Size: section to enter the target dimensions of your print. For example you might enter 18 inches wide by 12 inches high of you are printing on 13 x 19 paper. When you do so you'll notice the "resolution" value change to something odd looking. As long as it is at least 180 (to simplify the concept here) you are fine. It may be a lot higher if you make a small print - and that is a good thing for small prints. (I could say a lot more about that last point, but I'll spare you for now.)
    13. Now go through your usual page setup and print process and see what happens.
     
  48. Hi, I have a Canon 40D and am going to do some wedding photography. The couple would like a 24"x36" print to put up in their house. I am unsure if my camera will print that big acceptably. What is the biggest size you recommend printing in the situation?​
    It all has do do with how well those 10.1MP are utilized. It's all about how you shoot, your light, your focus, how stable you (or the tripod) hold the camera, your workflow (eg what upsizing algorithm), what medium you are printing onto, and of course the subjective content of your pictures.
    I used to hate it when people answered my questions with answers like the one I just gave you above. I just wanted the answer to my darn question. But back then, I was extremely naive about such such things, and I didn't understand that there really is no concrete answer to such questions--even when they seem exceedingly simple and technically based. There is no such thing as "the answer" to a question like the one you posted above. Now that I understand this, my answers to such questions sound very much like the ones I once so despised. Answers like these make us think, and help us to realize that there is often more than meets the eye at first glance in even a seemingly simple situation.
    Ok, if you really do want the simple answer, it is YES! your camera is indeed capable of printing that big. Without a doubt it is, under ideal conditions. But all other variables still come into play and may alter the equation. Therefore, your own mileage may well vary.
    Next time, have a little more confidence that YOU can pull it off. The only way to get that is to experiment and see what works and what doesn't for YOU personally. It's all about what you find works for you and no one else. No one can tell you but YOU. That is why it's so complicated. Ultimately, if the image quality looks good to your own highly discerning professional eye, it means that it will also look good to the client most of the time.
    And isn't that what matters in the end?
    Matthew, best wishes on your photographic journey, and best wishes making the print. I hope it works out very well for you!
    Cheers!
    -Val
    PS: The EOS 40D is a state-of-the-art imaging machine, and it can produce very fine results in capable hands. Be thankful you have such world class equipment as the EOS system at your disposal.
     
  49. I recently used ACR for some Raw coversion, (2nd PC without norm s/w) I notice as well as `PPI` @ 240, also size. Now by changing this for my 5D from norm res to 6144x4096 (25m) when opened in PSCS3 I now have a file 16bit 144m, 25x17 inch@240PPI. Any thoughts on starting the upsize process this way ? cheers :)
     
  50. I have an Olympus E-3, 10mp, and I have done 20x30 without loss of clarity and a night shot at that.
     
  51. Great answer kelly... anyone just delving into large prints should talk to a friendly local printer. I get 1m edge posters on photo qual paper for NZ$40 they look great on the wall but camera club enthusiasts and most wedding clients like 300 dpi 12 x 8s matted ready to frame - especially showing mum's stitching on the dress :)
     
  52. I shoot with the same body, I used to manage a print shop and have printed 24x36 out of a 8mp body and they looked great. I have printed a 30x40 with my 40D and the print was perfect by anyones standards.
     
  53. I recently used ACR for some Raw coversion, (2nd PC without norm s/w) I notice as well as `PPI` @ 240, also size. Now by changing this for my 5D from norm res to 6144x4096 (25m) when opened in PSCS3 I now have a file 16bit 144m, 25x17 inch@240PPI. Any thoughts on starting the upsize process this way ? cheers :)
    There is a Luminous Landscape Reichmann/Jeff Schewe video (well worth watching, by the way) that addresses this. I obviously can't speak for him, but here is my recollection. For the size print you are targeting there is probably no advantage in doing this, since you can get a 20" x 30" print (approx.) at 180 dpi - and that is plenty for such a large print. (Try it if you don't believe me!)
    If you want to go larger than this this, Schewe talks about doing more or less what you have described in ACR. My thinking is that if you can maintain at least resolution of at least 180 for a large print it is probably better to not interpolate in either ACR or CS4, but to instead let the printers algorithms take care of this. (See my lengthy description above - it touches on this.) If the print needs to be larger than that then your ACR approach might we one to try.
    Regarding not interpolating (up-rezzing) in CS4, when I first heard Schewe describe this approach I was very skeptical. But I was sitting at my computer so I gave it a try - and much to my surprise it works very well, and it also simplifies your workflow a bit.
    Dan
     
  54. I printed D2H 4.1mp close to 17x22 with no fancy magical tricks, don't even think about dpi or ppi or anything . Did straight from Lightroom
    This is not the best example:
    [​IMG]
     
  55. I print 20x30 with my XTI using the following:
    Start with a RAW file and convert to TIFF. Open in PS, I have CS2, and use the crop tool. Set you height and width to your target size and the DPI, I use 360. "Crop" the image. You will enf up with a huge file. As for the lens, if your 60 is the canon macro, I would use it at 2.8.
    Good luck
     
  56. A co-worker of mine just returned from vacation using a 6MP Nikon D40 with the kit zoom lens. He shot everything in JPEG and was shooting in daylight. He has a 20x30 shot hanging in his office and he also brought in some 16x20's of other scenes.
    I stood with my nose literally 4 inches from the 20x30 and the 16x20 (much closer than is considered 'normal' viewing distance for looking at prints that size.) I was amazed at what 6MP can do. Unless someone is submitting photos to a magazine editor, I think 6MP (using good technique) exceeds most amateurs level of photography.
    Just my .02
     
  57. Yes you will be able to print 24x36 prints with a 40D.
    About 2 years ago, i made fourteen 24x36 prints with canon 30D and they looked surprisingly good! but be sure to start with technically good photos. Printed on a Noritus LPS-24PRO on silver halide.
    To enlarge the RAW files and get a TIFF, i used Canon DPP and set the output size to 24x36 at 300dpi and it works really good. I also had access to Genuine Fractals but i still preferred DPP ( the outputs i got from DPP actually looked better ). And i edited and sharpened in Photoshop CS3.
    Dont worry, start with a really good picture (shot in RAW), use DPP to process and enlarge at the same time and edit in Photoshop and print with the Noritsu LPS-24Pro if its used by any Professional labs in your area. I love that machine!
     
  58. I was recently at an art exposition where many iconic architectural shots were exposed. I was pleasantly surprised when I saw one of HCB's prints up on the wall printed about 30 * 54 inches. The print was huge. When i saw it from across the room, i was stunned, it looked beautiful. As i got in to about 1-2 feet, the image turned to mush, but that's perfectly normal. It's all about viewing distance...
    Oh, and by the way, that print was done on relatively grainy ISO 100 black and white film. It simply did not matter, the composition and seing something that beautiful so large was worth the time it took to see the exposition.
     
  59. Matthew:
    It Depends upon the quality of your Lens. You can go much further than 24 x 36, for me at iso 100 the most important thing is the lens that you use and less the machine.
    Friendly Regards
     
  60. I've made 20x30 inch prints from my XTi (same sensor as 40D I believe) for an interior designer who wanted large format prints to display in his lobby. They came out really well. I thought so, but more importantly from a business perspective, the client said so :) I've no doubt I could have done 24x36 as well. I shot them all at no higher than ISO 200.
    Regarding lens choice for your particular 'assignment,' you need to try and ensure that if you're shooting wide open (with either the 17-55 or the 50 prime) that your focus is pin-sharp accurate. Any errors at large print sizes (soft focus or OOF images) get magnified. Personally, I love the 50 f/1.8 for portraits, but since I haven't tried the 17-55, can't comment on that.
     
  61. You'll never know unless you do a print and see. Juergen's first answer to your question will save you a lot of reading. Please keep in mind that one person's idea of a great print is someone else's idea of unacceptable. Peter Ferling also has a relevant point. A scanned MF neg will give you much higher print sizes and you wouldn't have to worry about upsizing. Two things will come into play more than other factors, and that's the type of printer used and the quality of the original shot. Subject matter is the next big issue, and obviously a portrait will be able to go bigger than a landscape or architectural shot. My personal experience on these things is that while these forums are great for technical advice, questions like this are best answered by doing the print yourself and seeing how it goes. It's just too subjective.
     
  62. All of the different reports of what maximum size this or that person has printed for this or that purpose still don't really provide a concrete answer for the OP. Again, the only way to know for sure - until you perhaps do your own printing and start to be able to anticipate what will and won't work - is to either print a small section of the larger full print (my approach) or simply try it.
    I've licensed the use of 8 MP DSLR photos for reproduction at 48" along the larger dimension... but the were part of a panel of images used in a new hospital in a situation where they were likely to be viewed more as "decor" than as fine art. On the other hand, I've strongly discouraged other clients from using simiilar images at similar sizes when it was apparent that they were imagining a different level of image quality at those sizes.
    I'm sure that everyone who says they are happy or pleased or satisfied or stunned by such a 24", 36", 48" or whatever print from a cropped sensor original is telling us the truth. But what we don't know is how we would react to it.
    Time for a test print. Even if you are going to send the photo out for printing, at least use a decent small photo printer to produce a small letter-sized section from the large image. Tack it to the wall. Take a look. Decide if it holds up in the way you expect.
    The process is pretty straightforward:
    1. Go through the full workflow to prepare your 20 x 30 or larger print to be sent to the printer. Completely finalize the image.
    2. Save this version and make a duplicate copy.
    3. Using this copy, crop a small section out of the middle of this very large image - you want to end up with a letter-size bit of the full print that includes elements that allow you to visualize what the quality of the full print might be.
    4. Print this.
    5. Tack/tape it to the way and inspect - from typical viewing distances and from whatever distance you typically might inspect when you look at photos. If you move in close, do the same here.
    Dan
    Dan
     
  63. I've done 70x100cm from 350D and 40D. I've done a lot of 50x70cm from 350D. Nothing fancy done i Photoshop. Looks great.
     
  64. So for all those who state that "no bigger than...x" may I ask you quite simply if only 8x10's were printed prior to the advent of larger camera sensors, I've seen many collector items produced, and sold by the Smithsonian, shot on a D70's.
    I'm also certain that a 24"x36" print is not being viewed at the same angle as a 4x6 or even an 8x10.
    I've been searching online for an article that discussed the relativity of image size to viewing angle.
    Ever been up close to a billboard? Ever been up close to an Annie Liebowitz 30x40?
    Would I prefer an immense sensor..sure, would I automatically rule out certain images? of course not.
    My suggestion, a cost effective one I think..though several days after the question might be whistling in the graveyard, but here it is:
    create the image 24x36"
    then crop out an 8x10" section of a particularly important section...print that
    is the detail/resolution acceptable?
    there's your answer
     
  65. IMO just use what you have. Upsizing IMO gives a false sense of security, IMO a lot of people do it because they think they have to do something. The act its self can cause image quality issues. If the printing shop you have make the print thinks they need to re-size, let them do it. IMO your only asking for at least a PIA if not IQ problems by just up-resing with out knowing exactly why and for what device. And 300 dpi is not a great reason.
    Use a low ISO to keep noise low, as fast of a shutter speed as you can, use a tripod and very good lighting. Dark shadows will have noise in them that will not look good in a large print.
    You are doing a portrait, not a grand canyon landscape that begs for detail. As long as the composition is good, lighting is good, and they don't blink I think you should be able to get them something they like. I have a 24x36 in front of me shot with a XTI at ISO 800 1/50 F5 with flash, and it looks good. I think the flash saved it. While I used Qimage to print it, I did not do any up-resing myself. Qimage is a RIP program, a kind of print driver. Pro print shops should have something similar. You should not really have to do anything.
    Think about it, the print will be on the wall, not the table top (at least I hope so). So, the viewing distance will be decent. I.e. no need for 300+ dpi as no human would be able to see that at 6+ feet. So, the real factors for success is the composition, your interaction with the subject, and shutter speed and lighting, basically your technique.
    The 300 dpi came from film days, with pure digital you can get great prints with a lot less. Which is very true with portraits, the images are clean and good contrast which make them pleasant. What they want to see is the person in the photo, they reall don't want to see all that much detail. That said, I do love detail and would love to have a P65 MF digital camera LOL, and would love to have a true 600 dpi large format printer.
     
  66. Try a sample 24x36 at www.fullsizeposters.com for $9.99 (new accounts). I've had them do a couple this size from a D70 (6 megapixel) file and a D200 (10 megapixel) file and was quite impressed. These are inkjet prints. For 24x36 photos, try Elcocolor.
     
  67. Yes, the print will likely be viewed from "typical viewing distance" - which, for the typical photographer is limited only by the length of his/her nose... :)
    Dan
     
  68. One addition to the thread, I found many clients ask for enlargements without realizing how big they really are, especially wedding couples. By printing various sizes and hanging on the studio wall, a few come down to earth. eg 24x36 with just a 4in border and mat + 2 inch frame = app 36 x 48in. quite large on an average normal wall (here an average ceilling hgt is about 8 feet) and much more to frame in $. most come down to a more reasonable 16x20, a lot less taxing on the camera system. And more savin for the client, bit less $ for us:( but less work :)
     
  69. You can blow it up as big as ya like. The better the image, the better it will look!
    If you blow up a polished turd, then it will look like a BIG polished turd.
    If it's big, then they must have a big enough house to stand back when looking at it. Otherwise, they are just silly.
    :)
    I have a 400D, and I manage to get by... Of course, I'd rather a 5D MkII, but I don't have one, I have a 400D, and I can still make billboards, posters etc... just like I could if I had a 350D or a 300D...
    If you are really stressed about it, go get a film camera!
    Simple!
     
  70. As has been suggested, crop a couple of 8 x 10 areas of the sizes you are thinking and have them printed actual size and see what you think. At mini lab prices it's crazy not to do it and get the answer yourself.
    For me, viewed very close (nose to print), 18 or so inches in the long direction is about the limit on that sensor. So from a few feet away (which would be quite close for a print of 36 inches) the print would probably look good if good technique were used.
    If it's an available light shot, at this size being on a tripod would probably be more important than sensor size unless a very high shutter speed were used.
     
  71. The shop that I use for giclees of my 20D images has printed 20 X 30 inches, on canvas, and they are supurb. He even takes my 300 pixels/inch and converts them to 200 pixels/inch. I don't know why - he just says that's all he needs/wants.
     
  72. Well, not really. It all depends on your workflow, that means if you use negative film (as in the movie) or slides, how they are scanned, how they are post processed and how meticulous you transport the image quality from step to step to the final level. Also - which RIP did they use - was it optimized for film or digital?
    It is obvious that Nikon wants to promote their new cameras (the 'old' ones are no longer produced).
    It is obvious that if I would have used a Fuji Provia 100 F the result would have looked different. But anyway, it's up to you to believe those 'third party tests'. I am a professional analog photographer for a very good reason.
    To the OP: just do it. Large format printing is - among others - a craftsmanship based on experience and the gadgets used. A large format HP printer with a good RIP (Raster Image Processor) will give you stunning results. And don't 'blow up' your image with any software or PhotoSoup - the RIP algorithms are far better than those of any software for a PC or Mac.
     
  73. jens, my impression is that you are engaged in a bit of wishful thinking if you believe that analog (at least 35mm) is better than FF DSLR IQ or that you cannot get the highest possible results by using the right software on a PC or Mac.
     
  74. I teach photoshop at the college level, and recently did a series of prints to compare dpi for my class. I printed a close-up image of a butterfly at 300, 150 and 72 ppi on photo-pro paper with a Canon Pixma iP6000d. Of course the 72 was bad, but viewed from >6 ft away even it looked okay. The surprise was that we had to comb over the 150 ppi image to find an area where it looked different. Only extremely fine detail -- like the fuzz on the back of the butterfly was slightly diff.
    I guess the short answer is print one and see.
    For the best upsizing in Photoshop - go to Image>Image Size.. and then in the lower box change the "inches" to "percent". Then type in 110. Make sure that the "Resample Image" is checked and that box at the bottom reads "bicubic smoother." This will upsize your picture 10 percent at a time - which is supposed to result in much cleaner enlargements. Keep going 10 percent at a time until you get to the size you need. I record these steps as an action so that I only have to press "play" repeatedly.
     

Share This Page