6MP 20x30 Print - Better to Print at 100dpi or Enlarge/Interpolate First?

[simonchung]

I have a 6MP camera, and I have an art show coming up. I'd like to print my

picture to 20x30, but I'm afraid that my 2000x3000 pixel picture won't blow up

well. It was taken in JPG with basic (economical) compression on a Nikon D40

SLR.

 

I wonder if it would be better to print the picture at 100 dpi at 20x30 or if it is better

to manipulate it first by enlarging and interpolating so I can get a file that can print

to 300 dpi. Also, what's the best way to enlarge it if that's a better method. I have

Photoshop CS2 but don't know how to use it.

 

Or should I just give up and print the picture at a smaller size, like 16x24 or better

yet, 12x18?

 

Thanks,

 

Simon

[tonybynum]

it all depends on the quality of the file. If you used quality optics, you have a perfect exposure and it's sharp it will look good. I have stunning 20x30's from my d2h which is 4 mp. If you have a lot of gradients or sky or things that need very smooth transitions you might run into some issues.

 

If the image is sharp, well exposed and you have done LITTLE post production, meaning you have not done a lot sharpening, lightening the darks and increasing the contrast too much, it should enlarge nicely. The key is to use a file that is perfect to begin with.

 

When I've done 30" from a 4mp camera, I first only use perfect images ie well exposed and sharp, then i upsize them in qimage to 240 ppi, which gives me 7200.

 

Viewing distance, paper, and printing systems also play a part. . .

[patricklavoie]

6 mp + jpeg basic + 20x30 = rong mixte..sorry but you wont have any quality print there more than a 8x10.

 

Of course you could print a 20x30, but the quality will suffer if anybody see it at a normal viewing distance. Depend of what you need and what you consider acceptable.

 

Manipulate it first, then have it print at 150-200ppi (you dont need 300 at that size), or i mean interpolated it to 150-200, using bicubic smoother should help.

 

If you give up, ask for a 8x10, nothing more : )

[burnblue]

It's not true that you can't possibly get a good 20x30 from a 6mp file. I have a 36" print from a 6mp camera hanging in Harvard University as we speak, and it looks great from a normal viewing distance. The trick is, for a 36" print, the viewing distance is further than it would be for an 8x12.

 

Make sure the shot to be enlarged is as technically perfect as you're capable of, then resize upwards (preferably with Adobe's "bicubic smoother" which was designed specifically for enlarging photos). Once the image is upsized, inspect it and manually remove any distracting artefacts. You should be able to squeeze enough quality out for great 20x30's, if the file is good. It won't be as nice as 4x5 film or anything, but the average viewer won't be able to tell.

[AaronFalkenberg]

I have done something similar, although not to 20x30.

 

I had a photo that printed 12x12 @ 160dpi. So I did a test, print it at that dpi and let the printer driver take care of it, or, print it via Qimage which interpolates the file to the printer's native 720dpi.

 

The gradients in the Qimage print were NOTICEABLY smoother.

[KenPapai]

"It was taken in JPG with basic (economical) compression ..."

 

That's a rather worthless shooting mode. Memory cards are cheap.

 

That's trues as well, you will not get a good 20x30 inch print (600 sqr. inches) from such a 6MP lossy JPG; however, if you spent a lot of time maybe you'll succeed. 19x13 inch (247 sqr. inches) could be fine.

[greg lockrey]

What Aaron says. I have made 8x10' (yes, that's feet) posters for displays that were

originally 8x10" 300 dpi files just using Qimage and nothing else. One I made was

taken with a Olympus e-20 5 mp camera. I routinely make 20x30" prints for clients that

enter into art shows with their prosumer 6 mp cameras. Unless you tell the observer

about your image, most people will stand back to look at it. Only those anal-retentives

that count pixels will want to look up close with their ten power magnifying glasses.

Here is an example of a 6x8' taken with an Olympus e-20 5 mp camera.<div></div>

[patricklavoie]

6x8' taken with an Olympus e-20 5 mp camera..

 

come on! im sure your print look fabulous from 8 foot, but dont tell me its crisp and smooth when you go closer.

 

Like i said, depending of what *quality* mean for you, to get a 20x30 that *i* consider quality enough, you will need a 35meg file minimum, that you would interpolated at 200%, giving you a 65meg file. That will make you a good visual quality print for all the anal consumer like me. What i hate this day is seing a 16x20 with pixel or oversharpness made by everyday user that dont see it and think that everybody wont see it or will not care..sorry, theres still pro out there that could see the difference between a 5mp blow up print and a 13mp blowup print.

 

My moto is " if i can see it, other can, so if its not perfect for me, its not perfect for others, even if they cant see it".

 

Thats the problem with digital; quality standard as become way less important for everyday user or *normal* people (and let me say that digital run into my blood..so its not a digital vs tradional thing here) since they are use to see crap all around. A out of focus 8x10 will not do a amazing 16x20..it will do a s*** blowup period, and strangly, people wont want to print it because it out of focus? So why do people want to get the biggest print ever from a low quality jpeg taken with a 5mp camera and talk about quality? go figure.

[greg lockrey]

Patrick it is surprisingly sharp. I was amazed myself when I made it and the printing is

at low 360 ppi where the printer is capable of 1440. You can still count the bricks on

the house. How sharp does it have to be? Besides, you usually look at prints at twice

the diagonal anyway. Anything closer just strains the eyes including looking at perfect

8x10" closer than reading distance.

[matt_needham]

Simon, you will need to do some personal testing, and that will include paying for prints that may not work out. That's the only way you can see where the limitations are with your combination of gear, skills, processing, printing, and most of all your opinion. You will learn what works for you, or what weaknesses you need to work on. You might try a 12"x18" print first, and see how that comes out.

[matt_needham]

"...you usually look at prints at twice the diagonal anyway..."

 

Normal people maybe, but not photo geeks. Most of the world will stand back and assess the photo in it's entirety. The photo geek, on the other hand, is the one with the loupe pressed against a wall sized print enthusiastically critiquing the corner sharpness. ;)

[patricklavoie]

Reredaing my post this morning, i have to add that its not just the sharpnes that define a print quality, for me, its not seing pixel blowup, that you certainly see in a 3-4-5-6 mp at 12x18..or at 20x30.

 

Thats for me is more problematic than sharpnes. I realize that i didtn make my point of view clear when just speaking about sharpness.

[van_camper]

"It's not true that you can't possibly get a good 20x30 from a 6mp file. I have a 36" print from a 6mp camera hanging in Harvard University as we speak, and it looks great from a normal viewing distance. The trick is, for a 36" print, the viewing distance is further than it would be for an 8x12."

 

That's the same excuse Gregory is using. I agree with Patrick, come on! So looking at a billboard from .5km is a quality image? I don't go along with that reasoning. What I once thought was a beautiful woman from 50 meters away didn't look the same from up close. I think that has happened to all of us, the quality changes as we mover in closer. Our viewing distance for most art is two distances, one far enough to judge the whole print comfortably for story telling, and the other when we mover in closer to get a better look at smaller details (faces, a dog, building in the distance,etc) in the scene as we inspect futher due to increased interest. You don't want to disappoint once the viewer moves in and realizes the work is c#$p.

I was at a gallery the other day, and saw a beautiful 617 image on deck of a very large sailboat leaning almost 30deg into the water, giving me the feeling I will slide into the ocean. A beautiful frame also, but on closer inspection it was ruined by less then satisfactory quality, and worse I could see the fine dots from a graphic press. It was newspaper quality, but from further looked very good. Does that mean I would buy it? People do look at the quality in determining what it is worth. For $50 some kid might like your 10 ft print on his bedroom wall, but another person would accept only something from a 8x10 camera, because now it is fine art, expects very high quality if the price is high quality, not just wallpaper. So I guess it boils down to price, for $50 it looks good, but for $500-3000 it looks bad.

[greg lockrey]

Look... my intention of making that print wasn't for anything resembling fine art but to be used as a holiday display for Halloween. With that said, my point was that it was only a 5 mp file and that Qimage interpolation did a far better job in enlarging this file beyond my expectation. I have to laugh today about how when I got started in largeformat photography in the late 60's early 70's that "you can not make anything larger than 8x10" with a 35 mm negative and maybe you can pull off a 11x14 if you used German lenses and a 4x5 get's you a 16x20 or a 20x24 if the lens is high quality". Today if you scan 35mm to 65 mp you can make 30x40"s. So which is it? If it's done digitally you can make it larger? I made that image ten years ago with the technology of that time. Today it is light years improved. Film on the otherhand hasn't done a thing. To put any idea that I'm a digital vs film kind of guy, forget it. I use all media where it's advantageous for the task at hand. I spent 30 plus years in a commercial wet lab before getting into digital about 10 years ago. At the time that Oly was pretty much state of the art for professionals. Today a 16-22 is pretty common place. Now the MF backs are getting easier to use and more on the scene. I certianly didn't want to get into any kind of pissing match with you all. With my little digital printing operation I run an average of 200 sq ft a day 7 days a week. There are a lot of decent 6 mp images out there. Could they be better with more mp? Certianly, not arguing that. But when a guy asks if he can make a 20x30 for an "art show", why not? Some people call crops of 54 pixels on a 20x30 as art. You can get away with alot by calling it "art". Now if it was a photo contest... then it might be a different story. Then no one could compete with that 6 ft polaroid in Venice either.

[van_camper]

Gregory, Simon mentioned he wants to exhibit for an art show 20x30 with 6mp. So why are you bringing up images good only for a halloween? I wouldn't go past 16x20 with my D200 (10mp). Any interpolation algorithm fills in the spaces, but you won't be adding new information. As for large prints for art shows from 6mp, I would be embarrassed, but that is me. However, I have done them that size if artistic effects are applied in PS, it in essence repaints the whole thing, and the detail is intentionally diminished for the effect your after.

 

I'm not saying you can't make a decent print at large sizes for home use, but for exhibition where you're next to guys with the same size print done with med/large format, the differences are apparent. The 6mp is arguably not even 35mm quality, and we all are familiar with its output. I say, print it, and decide for yourself. If your not happy, then like the rest of us you may find yourself shopping for a higher end camera for prints at 30 inches.

 

I don't doubt you print from 6mp for guys at 20x30 who do exhibit in shows, but do they win, get the 1st prize ribbon? I see that stuff all the time in amateur clubs, it just doesn't work for me. It's better to print smaller, closer to the limits of the format. Even going from 20x30 down to 16x20 is going to make a big difference, and that is still a large print.

 

Also, those shots are from a D40, not even pro glass, the aberrations will show up at that print size.

 

Good luck

[kari v]

What's the subject in the shot?

 

I was playing around with a 6Mp PanF+ scan and interpolated it to 20x30 @ 300 dpi just for a test. It looked surprisingly good, very good actually - but it was a church in b&w. There's no bushes, tree branches, lawn, odd color gradations, noise, jpg-artifacts (sharp prime on a sunny day helped too)...

 

I also made good 12x18 with some interpolation from a clean 2,5Mp XTi file, but it was a portrait which actually needed very little detail. You get my point.

 

Economical jpg doesn't sound promising though.

[greg lockrey]

Van, first you aren't looking at this print up close and in person. It's really not that bad for only 5 mp and only 360 dpi printing. I get more mural jobs by potential commercial clients than you can imagine by showing that low rez print. Believe it or not I do know something about making mural size prints. I've been doing it for 40 years now. I merely showed this example to demonstrate to Simon and to back up Aaron's suggestion about Qimage. Another point is, I deal with artists everyday some of them are world reknown and I'm positive that you have seen their work, it's my bread and butter making limited editions for artists to sell at their art shows. So I do know a thing or two about what it necessary to sell. That's why I'm kept busy 12/7. I've made numerous 1st prize winners for clients that can only afford 6mp cameras. I guess they are getting judged on the content of their work vs how expensive their camera might be. Sometimes that "fuzzy" look makes it "artistic" . You might be surprized to know that not everyone can afford a MF digital system. So when kid comes to a forum like this and instead of dashing his dreams, I like to encourage him a little instead of getting elitist on him. I do the same here in my studio. I get new artschool newbies everyday. That's always been my gripe about photographers is that there is this equipment envy. Let him make that 20x30 and see for himself. He might like the effect, or dislike how his jubject looks different at that size. He won't know until he tries.

[van_camper]

Gregory, there are many pros in here that would disagree with you, so does the math. Mural jobs are okay, bring in the bread and butter, but it is not the kind of quality (unless done with enough pixels) you bring to an art show. Here it becomes bad advice, because you want to show your best.

 

"I've made numerous 1sr prize winners for clients that can only afford 6mp cameras" .........Greogry, any well known successful pro artist can afford a lot more then a 6mp camera. Shees! Sounds like your dealing with hobbyists, amateur shows, photo clubs where you find a lot of bad stuff.

 

"Sometimes that fuzzy work makes it look artistic.........Yup, sometimes, but what about the rest of the time? Did you even ask him what type of art he has, is there a lot of detail in it (tree branches), or a water color painting with large solid areas, flowers, where detail is minimal.

 

"So when a kid comes to a forum like this, you like to encourage them".......what kind of advice is that? We want straight answers....not kid talk. Kids shoot $10 kodak cardboard cameras. Were trying to give pro advice, good advice.

 

Perhaps you failed to notice he also was willing to print smaller, and my advice is stick to about the 11x14-16x20 area at maximum depending on the image. Try, spend some money, then you will know like the rest of us. If you want big prints, be prepared for spending money on higher end gear. Quality comes at a price, especially if you want large quality prints. People shoot 22mp and larger cameras for a reason, not because they like burning money. If you want poster quality as Gregory suggests, print the size of your house, and it will look great from ? mile back.

[greg lockrey]

Van, not to belabor the point, I once made a 30x40 on canvas for a guy to enter into The Toledo Area Artists Show. Which is pretty presitigous for the locals and there is prize money to boot. Well his particular image was made with a 3.1 mp camera and he hit the "watercolor button twice" in Photoshop. I know exactly what he did because he did it here on my computer. I don't know if the judges didn't see that it was labled as digital photogrpahy or just plain thought that he was a heck of a painter. Anyway, he took second over all and from then on the professional artists have been boycotting the show. Lesson: art is in they eye of the beholder.

[van_camper]

Gregory, I already mentioned above that if you apply artistic effects in PS, which I do a lot, that it repaints the whole thing, breaks down the detail, and you can print much bigger. Add canvas, and that increases the size even more due to the rough surface hiding defects. But, we're talking straight prints I assumed. In fact he gave us no information regarding the type of images (detailed or not).

 

This comes down to what we call acceptable, some find it at 8x10, others at 40 inches. So I recommend he try a print at 30inches and smaller, and decide for HIMSELF. EIther it works, or doesn't for the type of images he has. Anyways, the OP is not contributing, apparently doesn't care. I understand your point, but like 35mm film enlarged to 30inches, it won't look much more then poster quality as a "straight print", although you see a lot of it sold because content (sports events) is more important then quality.. For a show, I agree that applying artistic effects would be his only way to achieve such large prints. I assumed straight prints, and also applying artistic affects does not work for every image, it depends on the image itself.

 

He says he owns CS2, doesn't know how to use it, so I recommend he start with learning that, and also try a few big prints of his art show images, then come back here and tell us.

 

By the way, I am not trying to be argumentative, it's just that we believe a little different. I do for personal work, you do for others. If their happy, so are you. Myself, I invested in 67,69,612,617,45....so I have my standards, and also look at any wedding photographer. They use to always use medium format (especially for a 30 inch print), not 35mm which is what the 6mp camera barely compares too. You can do anything, but will it always work?

 

Cheers

[greg lockrey]

Van, just so you know where I come from personaly, with film 8x diagonal enlargement max and nothing smaller than 8x10. With digital I scan 95% to make my copies at 720 lpi but if the work is too large, I use a 12mp Canon hooked up to a Sinar and stitch up to 3x3" to get about 80 mp so I can make my 30x40's. (I can't afford a mf digital since I care for a wife with MS. That's dirty and expensive disease.) Anything beyond that becomes poster grade and a charge my clients accordingly. If they want it, they get it. I also have all that you have with German lenses except for a couple zooms for the Canon. Even my Poor Man's scanner (Canon/Sinar) uses a Schneider. My first 35 mm was a M4 purchased in 1971 and I still use it. As for the OP, I think we lost him. ;)

[tonybynum]

if any of you sceptics are ever in east glacier park montana, look me up, i'll show you magazine covers and 30 + inch prints taken with 4.2mp d2h. . . you should be able to hold your breath for awhile, beause you will need to press your nose against the glass to check for pixels, you wont find any . . . .

 

4.2 mp + qimage is incredible, I'll bet you sceptics never have tired it have you? . . . .

[patricklavoie]

well then, anyone want my 13mp canon? why would i need it if i have qimage?!

 

seriously, i think whe cover all the area that need to be cover here ; )

[k_i]

why is there all this incessant bantering back and forth between van camper and

the other pixel peepers griping about "quality". All the poster asked is if he could

blow up prints using a 6mp, and yes you can to 20x30 and if they look grainy or

you have to view them from afar, well if the requestor/poster likes that, then all the

other pixel peepers posting here shut the *ff up about art vs life and all this b.s.

The image from the Olympus 5.0MP hanging on that wall looks fine to ME, so it's

a subjective thing, and i will use my D40 to blow up to that size because that print

quality and size suits ME. It's as Gregory says - in the eye of the beholder - so all

you other photo geeks who aren't even artists, go back to dpreview and count your

pixels because you spend more time doing that than going out and taking photos.

[patricklavoie]

Ki, i think people answer the OP from what he sk;

 

" I'm afraid that my 2000x3000 pixel picture won't blow up well. It was taken in JPG with basic (economical) compression on a Nikon D40"

 

And from that, hes rigth. if he want the quality of a 8x10 on a 20x30 he wont get it. But if the question was simply " can i get a 20x30 from my camera?" the answer would have been yes of course, even a 60x90 or a billboard if you dont mind to see pixel the size of a golf ball.

 

From what i see heres, is i think people should use a better vocabulary when asking question; can i still get amazing quality at that size or can i print at that size even if the pixel are huge , would yield better answer. I think van and the other pixel peeper gave really good info for people who care about quality.

 

I dont know how you could tell why theres no artist here..because from your statement, it seem that to be call a artist you must dont care about quality, and man, i dont understand that at all.