How big will 10.1MP print?

<p>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?</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Take a look at this for reference: http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php</p>

<p>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 <em>not</em> purchase a print that I thought would not look good at a too-large size...)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>24 x 36 inches is huge. How about the same dimension matted and framed?</p>

<p>Quite honestly, the size seems a bit ego centric to me.....</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<br>

Good luck.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>rule of thumb is 300 pixel per inch for photo quality<br>

so using a 40D as the example ...<br>

10.1 MP = 3888 x 2592<br>

3888/300 = 12.96<br>

2593/300 = 8.64<br>

<br /> you could get a photo quality 8 x 12 (same aspect ration as sensor, 2:3)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>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.<br>

Ta</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I think, as the photo will be in the house, maybe 300 dpi will be best.</p>

 

<p>240 dpi for large prints is tending on the "overkill" side for quality.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>As several have suggested, one way or another, you need to show the customer something to see if the result will be acceptable to <em><strong>them</strong> </em> .<br>

Of course a little lack of crispness and high contrast can often be a plus in portrait work....</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>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). <strong> But</strong> 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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>rule of thumb is 300 pixel per inch for photo quality<br /> so using a 40D as the example ...<br /> 10.1 MP = 3888 x 2592<br /> 3888/300 = 12.96<br /> 2593/300 = 8.64</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

Neill</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>rule of thumb is 300 pixel per inch for photo quality</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 :)</p>

<p>Thanks heaps, I will upsize it and take a crop sample. See what happens.</p>

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

<p>This question will be asked forever.<br>

<br /> It gets asked each week!:)<br>

<br /> Unless one boxes in the viewing distance there is really no answer at all.<br>

<br /> A VGA image is good enough for a billboard.<br>

<br /> 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.<br>

<br /> The human eye can only resolve a certain arc angle.<br>

<br /> Its worse at night and when drivingl looking through a cars windshield.<br>

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

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

<br /> *****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.</p>

<p>Sadly many folks get ALL WRAPPED up in worrying about the wrong issues.<br>

<br /> What really matters is how the GOOD the image looks to your client<br>

<br /> 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.<br>

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.<br>

<br /> Some rough canavas are so rough that beyond 80 to 100 ppi is not seen; fine canvas can support more.<br /> 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.<br>

<br /> 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.<br>

<br /> 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.<br>

<br /> 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.<br>

<br /> 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.</p>

<p>OP, the answer is NO.</p>

<p>To me the 40D makes acceptable prints up to 11x14.<br>

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.<br>

Then crop the center 8x10 and print it. Evaluate sharpness, re-sharpen and print again.</p>

<p>Now evaluate to see if that matches your threshold of quality.</p>

<p>Text book answer, Kelly. Well done!</p>

<p>Adey</p>