How big will 10.1MP print?

[Marc453]

<p>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.</p>

[john_holmes9]

<p>Hi,<br>

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. </p>

<p>I agree with those that say "do a print and see for yourself!" This way you will know what to expect.</p>

<p>Best regards,<br>

John</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>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.</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>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.</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>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.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>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. </p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>How big will 10.1MP print?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As big as you want to print. Quality really depends on viewing distance and lighting.<br /> <br /> 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.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>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. </p>

[dan_stegal]

<p>Photo quality is 300dpi.<br>

This chart has tells you how big you can print at 300 dpi with the number of megapixels you shoot:<br>

http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php</p>

<p>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!)</p>

<p>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!</p>

[peter_ferling]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[sven_felsby]

<p>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.<br>

As has been said: if the picture is good, you can print it any size you want. Now get on with taking pictures.</p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>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.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>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.</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>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.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>Photo quality is 300dpi.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p><em>Here is a copy of something I recently posted in another forum:</em></p>

 

 

<p>Just for fun, with an excellent original (good lens, tripod, MLU, remote release, careful focus, IS off) try the following in Photoshop:</p>

<ol>

<li>Make your background layer (the one holding the original image) a "smart layer" by choosing Filter -> Convert to Smart Layer in CS4.</li>

<li>Select the background layer and then select Filter -> Sharpen -> Smartsharpen...</li>

<li>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. </li>

<li>Next select Filter -> Sharpen -> Unsharp Mask...</li>

<li>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. </li>

<li>If you are otherwise finished with your post-processing, save this file but leave it open.</li>

<li>Choose Image -> Duplicate... and make a duplicate copy of this open file. Close the original file that you saved in the previous step.</li>

<li>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 <em>different settings for different types of paper</em> , but for now try something like Amount: 200, Radius: .4 or perhaps .3. It <em>should</em> look over-sharpened a bit at 100% when you finish.</li>

<li>Go to Image -> Image Size...</li>

<li>Deselect the following in this dialog: "Scale Styles", "Constrain Proportions", and "Resample Image." Yes, that's what I wrote: <em>deselect them</em> . In other words <em>we are not going to up or down-res</em> .</li>

<li>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.)</li>

<li>Now go through your usual page setup and print process and see what happens.</li>

</ol>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

 

[todd_phillips4]

<p>I use Miller's Lab to print.<br>

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.</p>

<p>The picture looks great.</p>

[todd_phillips4]

<p>I use Miller's Lab to print.<br>

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.</p>

<p>The picture looks great.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I made two errors. Notice the change in step 5 and the new step 8:</p>

<ol>

<li>Make your background layer (the one holding the original image) a "smart layer" by choosing Filter -> Convert to Smart Layer in CS4.</li>

<li>Select the background layer and then select Filter -> Sharpen -> Smartsharpen...</li>

<li>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. </li>

<li>Next select Filter -> Sharpen -> Unsharp Mask...</li>

<li><em>Try Amount: 12, Radius: <strong>50</strong> , Threshold: <strong>0</strong> 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. </em> </li>

<li>If you are otherwise finished with your post-processing, save this file but leave it open.</li>

<li>Choose Image -> Duplicate... and make a duplicate copy of this open file. Close the original file that you saved in the previous step.</li>

<li><strong><em>Flatten this duplicate copy of the image and do the following steps on this copy.</em> </strong> </li>

<li>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 <em>different settings for different types of paper</em> , but for now try something like Amount: 200, Radius: .4 or perhaps .3. It <em>should</em> look over-sharpened a bit at 100% when you finish.</li>

<li>Go to Image -> Image Size...</li>

<li>Deselect the following in this dialog: "Scale Styles", "Constrain Proportions", and "Resample Image." Yes, that's what I wrote: <em>deselect them</em> . In other words <em>we are not going to up or down-res</em> .</li>

<li>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.)</li>

<li>Now go through your usual page setup and print process and see what happens.</li>

</ol>

[valjalbertphotography]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And isn't that what matters in the end?</p>

<p>Matthew, best wishes on your photographic journey, and best wishes making the print. I hope it works out very well for you!</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<p>-Val</p>

<p>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.</p>

[chrisjb]

<p>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 :)</p>

[d-rak]

<p>I have an Olympus E-3, 10mp, and I have done 20x30 without loss of clarity and a night shot at that.</p>