Canon 5D MII biggest size print?

[tony_black1]

<p>What is the biggest size print I can have w Canon 5D mKII with and withour interpolation? And w/ interpolation what do you recommend as software ?<br>

I need to print 47" x 70"(120cm x 180cm) in exhibition quality?</p>

<p> </p>

[zml]

<p>Define "exhibition quality." Full frame @ 200 ppi you'll get 28x18" straight from the camera. Then again, there is upresing/upsizing - sky's your limit here. You may want to consult a competent printer to optimize your shooting technique and post-processing work flow for such large print sizes of "exhibition quality."<br>

Oh, BTW, search this forum (and other places, too...) as this topic comes back like a boomerang.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>It's not really even a Canon EOS question. This is a question commonly handled in Digital Darkroom and the Beginner's forum.</p>

<p>I'm sure a stunning print can be had with that 22MP sensor at that large size, indeed. Some commonly referred online establishments might be your best bet.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Ask the printing service.</p>

[mohammed_abidally]

<p>Yes that should be quite possible.</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>With a well exposed shot, no problem</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>I need to print 47" x 70"(120cm x 180cm) in exhibition quality?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If by "exhibition quality" you mean "looks as good as if it were shot with MF or LF," I think that those dimensions are pushing it more than a bit. You certainly could print that large and, depending upon the subject, if no one looks to closely it could work. But if people view it the way they typically view what I assume you mean by exhibition quality prints the close view will probably not quite stand up.</p>

<p>(Typical viewers look at the photo from some distance back. But if you hang it at eye level and they can approach the wall, they will do so - and the image may well not stand up as well at that point.)</p>

<p>There is a simple test you can do. Take the photograph and go through the entire post-process stage and prepare it for printing at full size. Then select a small letter size segment of the full image and print just that - in other words end up with a letter size print of what you would see if you used a scissors to cut this section out of the full size print. Tack it up to the wall and consider carefully.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[dogbert]

<p>As Dan pointed out, those dimensions are normally the preserve of MF or LF if aiming to print gallery quality, ie able to withstand close inspection.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>If your subject is static then you should use panorama stitching. That way you'll never have any resolution problems.</p>

[evphotography]

<p>The size you are wanting is very large and most photographers wouldn't even consider a print that size with 21MP DSLR. You are talking about a 4x6' print, that is even very large for MF and really probably need LF to make exhibition quality. You would have to uprez your image about 750% to get that size. A 5DII at 240 dpi is just little under a 16x24" print. Usually you don't want to print any lower than 240 dpi for the quality you want.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>I would agree with Dan's answer whole heartedly. I recently used a 24 meg full frame SONY a900 in lieu of my MF film systems for a shoot outside of the country. Because I sell very large prints, some of my panoramas are as large as 3'x9' printed on canvas, I need resolution that falls into the domain of large and very large format film. As an example, a 617 format film image is essentially half of a 5"x7" sheet film frame. Scanned at 3200 dpi at 16 bits, this yields approximately an 850 meg file. This allows an image of approximately 200ppi before any interpolation. While 240 might be more desirable, if the image is clean (sharp capture with excellent optics, fine grain or low noise) 180 will suffice for acceptable results in a commercial gallery.<br>

Also, what type of media you print on will have some effect in terms of the presentation. You can stretch boundaries printing on canvas far easier than on fine art paper media. My rule of thumb is that the visual impact of a canvas presentation for landscapes, allows at least a 1/3 increase in overall dimensions vs the maximum I would attempt on paper. This is because of the interaction of the weave of the canvas material with the image itself. As you literally start to run out of pixels, a bit of sharpening/halo can create the effect of a hybrid image (not quite a photograph but not quite a painting) that customers seem to universally accept. As to whether or not this approach is digital art as opposed to fine art photography is another discussion.<br>

You will need to stitch multiple frames when shooting digitally to achieve the large file sizes that will allow the images to rival medium and large format in a gallery setting. I frequently stitch five, six, nine and twelve frames using a 40D or XSi with results that rival or surpass the 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 formats with the 617 format being an exception. When I know that the image has the potential of being printed really large, I shoot with my Fuji 617. On the other hand, stitching multiple frames from a digital medium or large format system is a whole new ballgame and so is the money required to do so.</p>

<div></div>

[andylynn]

<p>I say print it. It's 80PPI, and it's almost a 6 foot tall print. It will be viewed from a few feet away, and nobody will see that it's not the highest resolution they've ever seen.</p>

<p>A 50" 1080p HDTV displays at 44PPI with the best possible signal. (When displaying the more common 720P signal it's at 29PPI.) It's all about viewing distance.</p>

[paulie_smith]

<p>Kodak used to make 18x35 foot enlargements for billboards from Kodachrome slides. They worked well for the intended audience. Your camera should work well for what you want. As for 'interpolation', that is what you get with digital when enlarging the image very much. You just have to live with it and pay close attention to the file size and any changes. When you increast the file size you interpolate. Reduce much and you throw information away. Before making changes duplicate the file and work on the duplicate so you have the unaltered original saved with all original information.<br>

As for 'Exhibition Quality', we don't know your standards. Some are nuts about sharpness and tonality and smooth transitions from light to dark. Some want impact and get it no matter the imperfections, grain or digital noise and work for a look they like and for them that is 'exhibition quality'. I shoot 8x10 and contact print. 5x7 and enlarge. My 'exhibition quality' with that gear is different from what I do with EOS digital gear.<br>

Size a file for your intended finished print, crop a section out of it and print it on smaller paper to see if it meets your standards. If not, get a bigger digital back. A lot of programs from QImage to Genuine Fractals to custom labs doing the work that might be worty your time checking. A lot more on these forums know far more than I do on digital. The digital darkroom section probably has a lot more on it as well as the articles on the front section.(start with the articles)</p>

[tony_black1]

<p>by saying exhibition quality, i mean people will come and look at the photograph from an inch distance. so i guess i will keep shooting w my mf and large format. thank you all.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Tony, for that size I think you are probably on the right track with that. Now, MF digital might well be a good direction for you to move. I know at least one long-time LF film photographer with sterling credentials who has moved entirely to MF digital in the past couple of years - and there are no signs he is looking back. He does print in the sizes you are talking about, and he is convinced - after very careful testing - that he can get the equivalent of LF (4x5) scanned film results from his digital MF system.</p>

<p>Now, if the price would just come down a bit so that these systems don't cost as much as a very, very nice new car...</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I recently saw a photograph of approx that size at a local museum. It looked pretty good. When I walked up close to it, I could see the individual pixels. I counted and guesstimated it was made from an early 1.3MP camera. I once made an 8' x 12' print from a 6.3 MP 10D. That looked pretty good too. It all depends on viewing distance. Most people don't scrutinize a photo that closely and view it from a distance.</p>

[tony_black1]

<p>well, my dealer looks at the photographs from an inch away. i can't just assume some people look a feet away some will look an inch away.<br>

for mf digital cameras, they are ridicoulusly expensive.<br>

long live film...</p>

 

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>long live film...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why don't you talk to a <strong>competent</strong> printer, eh? Try Graham Nash of Nash Editions (yeah, that Graham Nash...) You might realize that a lot of things you have heard about printing from digital is pure BS...</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>for mf digital cameras, they are ridicoulusly expensive.<br /> long live film...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, they sure are - but, oh so good! :-)</p>

<p>Rather than hoping for a long life for film - wonderful as that stuff can be - I'm more hoping for the eventual availability of MF digital at somewhat less stratospheric prices. I think there is some realistic hope that this may eventually come to pass.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>I loved the results of my 1DsII and also love the results of my 1DsIII. I was pleasantly surprised by 32" x 24" prints even looked at from inches away. But for me, that's the limit. If you really want exhibition quality at 47 x 70 I would have to say to to 4 x 5 film. The equipment is very inexpensive compared to mf digital if you don't already have a 4 x 5. </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Re "Ask the printing service."<br>

Unless one *boxes in and defines* the actual closest viewing distance there is really no answer to these weekly/daily "how big" questions.<br>

<br /> A VGA image is overkill for a 12x48 foot billboard.<br>

<br /> In pro work folks have defined goals; in amateur works folks have NO goals; thus to box in the viewing distance is impossible.:)<br>

<br /> The question is like asking how much string or tape one needs to secure a box.<br>

<br /> This question has been asked many thousand times on photo.net; it will be asked each day forever.:)<br /> **If one say has a criteria of 300 ppi at 1 foot; it is equal to 50 ppi at 6 feet; 1 ppi at 300 feet.<br>

<br /> The eye only resolves so much.<br>

<br /> Thus a 12x48 foot billboard is 144 by 576 inches; a Hannah Montana digital is overkill for a 12x48 foot billboard. An amateur wants a 12x48 foot contact print! :)<br>

<br /> In amateur work it is impossible to think about a viewing distance :)<br>

<br /> ; folks would rather walk over hot coals than define an actual distance.<br>

<br /> Thus we as printers get all these upsized to the moon bloaded images for posters.<br>

<br /> As Truman said one cannot polish a turd.<br>

<br /> Thus many times we just downsize them 10 to 100 times; and the poster appears just the same; but the image doesnt take a fortnight to rip with a 3Ghz box.:)<br>

<br /> Consider an actual viewing distance for the project. If it is a detailed LA wall street map for the police dept it might be printed at 300 to 400 dpi so street names are readable in alleys; the copy is viewed 1 foot away sometimes. If it is a gallery; are their ropes to define the distance? If it is a billboard what is the distance to the car? Is the image at zoo across a moat full of alligators?</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Ah, Kelly, but he already specified. As I understand it, he wants the individual pixels not to be visible (right?) at a distance of an inch. That probably rules out anything with pixels, at least with today's technology. The 5DII would be hitting at approx 80 ppi -- darned fine, but still arguably visible. Even with interpolation at 4x the pixels, that still only gets you to 160 ppi. The old standard for invisible dots in computer printers was 200 dpi. Of course grain from a film image would be much more visible than pixels from a digital image, even with medium format, but perhaps that's not objectionable.</p>

<p>Honestly, this is probably a job for 4x5. However, before taking that plunge, I'd recommend printing out a swatch from a 5DII image at that magnification and running it by the dealer to see if it "passes." If not, then I'd go straight to the 4x5.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Unless one *boxes in and defines* the actual closest viewing distance there is really no answer to these weekly/daily "how big" questions.<br>

A VGA image is overkill for a 12x48 foot billboard.<br>

In pro work folks have defined goals; in amateur works folks have NO goals; thus to box in the viewing distance is impossible.:)<br>

The question is like asking how much string or tape one needs to secure a box.<br>

This question has been asked many thousand times on photo.net; it will be asked each day forever.:)<br>

**If one say has a criteria of 300 ppi at 1 foot; it is equal to 50 ppi at 6 feet; 1 ppi at 300 feet.<br>

The eye only resolves so much.<br>

Thus a 12x48 foot billboard is 144 by 576 inches; a Hannah Montana digital is overkill for a 12x48 foot billboard. An amateur wants a 12x48 foot contact print! :)<br>

In amateur work it is impossible to think about a viewing distance :)<br>

; folks would rather walk over hot coals than define an actual distance.<br>

Thus we as printers get all these upsized to the moon bloaded images for posters.<br>

As Truman said one cannot polish a turd.<br>

Thus many times we just downsize them 10 to 100 times; and the poster appears just the same; but the image doesnt take a fortnight to rip with a 3Ghz box.:)<br>

Consider an actual viewing distance for the project. If it is a detailed LA wall street map for the police dept it might be printed at 300 to 400 dpi so street names are readable in alleys; the copy is viewed 1 foot away sometimes. If it is a gallery; are their ropes to define the distance? If it is a billboard what is the distance to the car? Is the image at zoo across a moat full of alligators?</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>With all the kerfuffle seen above, let me reiterate an easy way for the photographer to determine whether the result will be up to his/her standards:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>There is a simple test you can do. Take the photograph and go through the entire post-process stage and prepare it for printing at full size. Then select a small letter size segment of the full image and print just that - in other words end up with a letter size print of what you would see if you used a scissors to cut this section out of the full size print. Tack it up to the wall and consider carefully.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since much of the disagreement has to do with how one defines acceptable image quality in the print, each person can do this test and see if the result meets his/her standard.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

 

[neil_poulsen8]

<p>You can pick your optimum resolution for a fine print. I tend to print between 240 and 300 dpi. At 240, a 5DII get's you a 23.4" x 35.1" print. Upsizing this print by double the length and double the width produces the print that you want. </p>

<p>Try that in Photoshop and then crop the image to something you can print on a standard 8.5"x 11" sheet of paper to get an idea of the quality you can expect. Upsize 30% or so at a time, versus all at once. You'll get a better result. You could view at a little greater distance than you would a typical 8.5"x11" print, since you would be likely to view your larger print at a greater distance.</p>