Print size with a 5D

[images_in_light_north_west]

How large have you been able to print landscapes for standard wall framed

prints ? real world what have you actually done ?

[will king]

I've printed a 13x19 from shots on my 5D on my Epson R2400 and they look great. I've seen 20x30 prints and they look great as well.

[abrepsom1]

I have prints from a 5D file in 50x75cm in excellent quality. I have not tried larger yet, but I guess you could even go a little larger (maybe 60x90cm).

[michael_ziegler2]

I regularly print at 13 x 19 on an Epson R1800 with remarkable results. I know I could go larger but have not done so.

[brendan1]

36in X 24in. looks good.

[howard_slavitt2]

Up to 24" on the long end yields results comparable to medium format. Beyond that you'll see diminishing quality. Assuming excellent technique and top quality lenses, 30" is still very good to excellent, beyond that you're pushing it, depending on the use.

[gary_ferguson1]

I've printed some shots on an R2400 that show small but noticeable advantages when printed at 480dpi. This would imply a maximum print size of 6"x9" from a 5D!

 

Most photographers conclude that printing at 300dpi generally gives you all the quality you can realistically exploit, this implies a maximum 5D print size of 9.7" x 14.6". Of course you can go bigger, but you're sacrificing quality if the image is rich in detail and is to be scrutinised closely. Printing at 240dpi is IMO the minimum for close range print inspection, and this gives a maximum 5D print size of 12" x 18".

[mpalmquist]

13"x19" are very good even under close examination, but 20x30 and maybe even 30x40 should be okay depending on how close people will really examine the image. I have a stiched panorama that is 44x120 around 160 DPI, but since it is behind the wetbar and people only see it from 6'-10' away it looks awesome. walk up to the print and view it from 1' and it clearly is lacking but I don't need it to appear sharp from 1' away.

 

It all depends on the distance at which people will 'typically' view the image as to what can be acceptable. Look at a billboard from 1' away and there is no way to see anything but a bunch of large 'dots' stand back 20' and the image is okay, at 100' it looks sharp.

[ed_okie]

The camera's capability exceeds the user 99% of the time. Limitation factors invariably are the person behind the camera, technique and skill set. Same applies to almost all cameras. 2' x 3' prints are consistently produced, some even coming from non-redline lenses. The question is akin to asking how fast is a car? The Canon is fast. How fast can you drive? is the real question.

[roger___3]

Resolution of larger prints is often a question of what is acceptable in the eyes of the photographer, with a tad of photoshop expertise thrown in. I've shot film in both 35mm, 645 and 4X5 formats as comparison. The 5D makes a very nice print at 16X22, but at that size it's starting to loose just a little resolution. It's comparable to a good scan from 645. At that size and anything larger, 6X7 or 4X5 will have noticably more detail, though the 5D enlargement may be acceptable to the viewer or photographer.

[nevilleb]

I've gone to 18 x 12 from a 10D, and that's a 6.3mp sensor. I haven't really blown up images from my 5D yet, but you get the picture, what with the 10D data.<p>

 

Neville Bulsara<br>

<a href="http://www.nevillebulsara.com">India Photography Tours, Workshops & Expeditions for the Discerning Photographer</a>

[jacob_brown]

You won't get the level of crisp detail at 16x24 compared to a LF camera, but most people won't notice.

[Ian Taylor]

I do 12"x18" and they look great.

[nels]

Given my printer's (HP B9180) max size limit of 13x19, I haven't gone bigger. Nor have I felt a compelling need to, given the limited space on most city apartment walls. Though, if HP brings out a 16x24 upgrade desktop version with built-in Spectrophotometer (a la their current Z series printers), I may be tempted to.

 

There are some "experts" who claim that under proper light, for certain kinds of pictures, they can tell the difference between a 300dpi print and a 240dpi one. In real world, I don't know if anyone has carried out such tests, and even if true, I doubt that the vast majority of us would care for the most part.

[carbon_dragon]

It's a matter of viewing distance too, right? I mean if you're going to examine the print from a few inches or a foot or so then 240dpi might be as big as you dare to go. But big prints are typically made to be viewed from longer distances (like framed on a wall at a distance of 5-6 feet) so presumably you could get larger sizes if that is the case?