How big will 10.1MP print?

[tirau dan]

<p>Great answer kelly... anyone just delving into large prints should talk to a friendly local printer. I get 1m edge posters on photo qual paper for NZ$40 they look great on the wall but camera club enthusiasts and most wedding clients like 300 dpi 12 x 8s matted ready to frame - especially showing mum's stitching on the dress :-) </p>

 

[mark_dill_jr.]

<p>I shoot with the same body, I used to manage a print shop and have printed 24x36 out of a 8mp body and they looked great. I have printed a 30x40 with my 40D and the print was perfect by anyones standards.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>There is a Luminous Landscape Reichmann/Jeff Schewe video (well worth watching, by the way) that addresses this. I obviously can't speak for him, but here is my recollection. For the size print you are targeting there is probably no advantage in doing this, since you can get a 20" x 30" print (approx.) at 180 dpi - and that is plenty for such a large print. (Try it if you don't believe me!)</p>

<p>If you want to go larger than this this, Schewe talks about doing more or less what you have described in ACR. My thinking is that if you can maintain at least resolution of at least 180 for a large print it is probably better to not interpolate in either ACR or CS4, but to instead let the printers algorithms take care of this. (See my lengthy description above - it touches on this.) If the print needs to be larger than that then your ACR approach might we one to try.</p>

<p>Regarding not interpolating (up-rezzing) in CS4, when I first heard Schewe describe this approach I was very skeptical. But I was sitting at my computer so I gave it a try - and much to my surprise it works very well, and it also simplifies your workflow a bit.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[jamesnjohnson]

<p>I printed D2H 4.1mp close to 17x22 with no fancy magical tricks, don't even think about dpi or ppi or anything . Did straight from Lightroom<br /> This is not the best example:<br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3485/3464946866_3aa7d680fb_o.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="800" /></p>

[tpurvis]

<p>I print 20x30 with my XTI using the following:<br>

Start with a RAW file and convert to TIFF. Open in PS, I have CS2, and use the crop tool. Set you height and width to your target size and the DPI, I use 360. "Crop" the image. You will enf up with a huge file. As for the lens, if your 60 is the canon macro, I would use it at 2.8. </p>

<p>Good luck</p>

 

[derek_czar1]

<p>A co-worker of mine just returned from vacation using a 6MP Nikon D40 with the kit zoom lens. He shot everything in JPEG and was shooting in daylight. He has a 20x30 shot hanging in his office and he also brought in some 16x20's of other scenes.<br>

I stood with my nose literally 4 inches from the 20x30 and the 16x20 (much closer than is considered 'normal' viewing distance for looking at prints that size.) I was amazed at what 6MP can do. Unless someone is submitting photos to a magazine editor, I think 6MP (using good technique) exceeds most amateurs level of photography.<br>

Just my .02</p>

[ujwal]

<p>Yes you will be able to print 24x36 prints with a 40D.<br>

About 2 years ago, i made fourteen 24x36 prints with canon 30D and they looked surprisingly good! but be sure to start with technically good photos. Printed on a Noritus LPS-24PRO<strong><strong> on silver halide.</strong> </strong><br>

To enlarge the RAW files and get a TIFF, i used Canon DPP and set the output size to 24x36 at 300dpi and it works really good. I also had access to Genuine Fractals but i still preferred DPP ( the outputs i got from DPP actually looked better ). And i edited and sharpened in Photoshop CS3.<br>

Dont worry, start with a really good picture (shot in RAW), use DPP to process and enlarge at the same time and edit in Photoshop and print with the Noritsu LPS-24Pro if its used by any Professional labs in your area. I love that machine!</p>

 

[samoksner]

<p>I was recently at an art exposition where many iconic architectural shots were exposed. I was pleasantly surprised when I saw one of HCB's prints up on the wall printed about 30 * 54 inches. The print was huge. When i saw it from across the room, i was stunned, it looked beautiful. As i got in to about 1-2 feet, the image turned to mush, but that's perfectly normal. It's all about viewing distance...<br>

Oh, and by the way, that print was done on relatively grainy ISO 100 black and white film. It simply did not matter, the composition and seing something that beautiful so large was worth the time it took to see the exposition.</p>

[vascoabranches]

<p>Matthew:</p>

<p> It Depends upon the quality of your Lens. You can go much further than 24 x 36, for me at iso 100 the most important thing is the lens that you use and less the machine.</p>

<p> Friendly Regards</p>

[markonestudios]

I've made 20x30 inch prints from my XTi (same sensor as 40D I believe) for an interior designer who wanted large format prints to display in his lobby. They came out really well. I <i>thought</i> so, but more importantly from a business perspective, the client <i>said</i> so :) I've no doubt I could have done 24x36 as well. I shot them all at no higher than ISO 200.

<p>Regarding lens choice for your particular 'assignment,' you need to try and ensure that if you're shooting wide open (with either the 17-55 or the 50 prime) that your focus is pin-sharp accurate. Any errors at large print sizes (soft focus or OOF images) get magnified. Personally, I love the 50 f/1.8 for portraits, but since I haven't tried the 17-55, can't comment on that.

[steve_mareno]

<p>You'll never know unless you do a print and see. Juergen's first answer to your question will save you a lot of reading. Please keep in mind that one person's idea of a great print is someone else's idea of unacceptable. Peter Ferling also has a relevant point. A scanned MF neg will give you much higher print sizes and you wouldn't have to worry about upsizing. Two things will come into play more than other factors, and that's the type of printer used and the quality of the original shot. Subject matter is the next big issue, and obviously a portrait will be able to go bigger than a landscape or architectural shot. My personal experience on these things is that while these forums are great for technical advice, questions like this are best answered by doing the print yourself and seeing how it goes. It's just too subjective.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>All of the different reports of what maximum size this or that person has printed for this or that purpose still don't really provide a concrete answer for the OP. Again, the only way to know for sure - until you perhaps do your own printing and start to be able to anticipate what will and won't work - is to either print a small section of the larger full print (my approach) or simply try it.</p>

<p>I've licensed the use of 8 MP DSLR photos for reproduction at 48" along the larger dimension... but the were part of a panel of images used in a new hospital in a situation where they were likely to be viewed more as "decor" than as fine art. On the other hand, I've strongly discouraged other clients from using simiilar images at similar sizes when it was apparent that they were imagining a different level of image quality at those sizes.</p>

<p>I'm sure that everyone who says they are happy or pleased or satisfied or stunned by such a 24", 36", 48" or whatever print from a cropped sensor original is telling us the truth. But what we don't know is how we would react to it.</p>

<p>Time for a test print. Even if you are going to send the photo out for printing, at least use a decent small photo printer to produce a small letter-sized section from the large image. Tack it to the wall. Take a look. Decide if it holds up in the way you expect.</p>

<p>The process is pretty straightforward:</p>

<ol>

<li>Go through the full workflow to prepare your 20 x 30 or larger print to be sent to the printer. Completely finalize the image.</li>

<li>Save this version and make a duplicate copy.</li>

<li>Using this copy, crop a small section out of the middle of this very large image - you want to end up with a letter-size bit of the full print that includes elements that allow you to visualize what the quality of the full print might be.</li>

<li>Print this.</li>

<li>Tack/tape it to the way and inspect - from typical viewing distances and from whatever distance you typically might inspect when you look at photos. If you move in close, do the same here.</li>

</ol>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[jonass]

<p>I've done 70x100cm from 350D and 40D. I've done a lot of 50x70cm from 350D. Nothing fancy done i Photoshop. Looks great.</p>

 

[dmcgphoto]

<p>So for all those who state that "no bigger than...x" may I ask you quite simply if only 8x10's were printed prior to the advent of larger camera sensors, I've seen many collector items produced, and sold by the Smithsonian, shot on a D70's.<br>

I'm also certain that a 24"x36" print is not being viewed at the same angle as a 4x6 or even an 8x10.<br>

I've been searching online for an article that discussed the relativity of image size to viewing angle.<br>

Ever been up close to a billboard? Ever been up close to an Annie Liebowitz 30x40?<br>

Would I prefer an immense sensor..sure, would I automatically rule out certain images? of course not.<br>

My suggestion, a cost effective one I think..though several days after the question might be whistling in the graveyard, but here it is:<br>

create the image 24x36"<br>

then crop out an 8x10" section of a particularly important section...print that<br>

is the detail/resolution acceptable?<br>

there's your answer</p>

 

[mattb1]

<p>IMO just use what you have. Upsizing IMO gives a false sense of security, IMO a lot of people do it because they think they have to do something. The act its self can cause image quality issues. If the printing shop you have make the print thinks they need to re-size, let them do it. IMO your only asking for at least a PIA if not IQ problems by just up-resing with out knowing exactly why and for what device. And 300 dpi is not a great reason.</p>

<p>Use a low ISO to keep noise low, as fast of a shutter speed as you can, use a tripod and very good lighting. Dark shadows will have noise in them that will not look good in a large print.</p>

<p>You are doing a portrait, not a grand canyon landscape that begs for detail. As long as the composition is good, lighting is good, and they don't blink I think you should be able to get them something they like. I have a 24x36 in front of me shot with a XTI at ISO 800 1/50 F5 with flash, and it looks good. I think the flash saved it. While I used Qimage to print it, I did not do any up-resing myself. Qimage is a RIP program, a kind of print driver. Pro print shops should have something similar. You should not really have to do anything.</p>

<p>Think about it, the print will be on the wall, not the table top (at least I hope so). So, the viewing distance will be decent. I.e. no need for 300+ dpi as no human would be able to see that at 6+ feet. So, the real factors for success is the composition, your interaction with the subject, and shutter speed and lighting, basically your technique.</p>

<p>The 300 dpi came from film days, with pure digital you can get great prints with a lot less. Which is very true with portraits, the images are clean and good contrast which make them pleasant. What they want to see is the person in the photo, they reall don't want to see all that much detail. That said, I do love detail and would love to have a P65 MF digital camera LOL, and would love to have a true 600 dpi large format printer. </p>

[panorama333]

<p>Try a sample 24x36 at www.fullsizeposters.com for $9.99 (new accounts). I've had them do a couple this size from a D70 (6 megapixel) file and a D200 (10 megapixel) file and was quite impressed. These are inkjet prints. For 24x36 photos, try Elcocolor.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Yes, the print will likely be viewed from "typical viewing distance" - which, for the typical photographer is limited only by the length of his/her nose... :-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[chrisjb]

<p>One addition to the thread, I found many clients ask for enlargements without realizing how big they really are, especially wedding couples. By printing various sizes and hanging on the studio wall, a few come down to earth. eg 24x36 with just a 4in border and mat + 2 inch frame = app 36 x 48in. quite large on an average normal wall (here an average ceilling hgt is about 8 feet) and much more to frame in $. most come down to a more reasonable 16x20, a lot less taxing on the camera system. And more savin for the client, bit less $ for us:( but less work :)</p>

[terencekearns_com]

<p>You can blow it up as big as ya like. The better the image, the better it will look!<br>

If you blow up a polished turd, then it will look like a BIG polished turd.<br>

If it's big, then they must have a big enough house to stand back when looking at it. Otherwise, they are just silly.<br>

:)<br>

I have a 400D, and I manage to get by... Of course, I'd rather a 5D MkII, but I don't have one, I have a 400D, and I can still make billboards, posters etc... just like I could if I had a 350D or a 300D...<br>

If you are really stressed about it, go get a film camera!<br>

Simple!</p>

[keith_green1]

<p>Take a look at:<br>

<a href="http://gadgetshow.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3">http://gadgetshow.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3</a><br>

They used a Nikon D700, so 12.1 MP and Fullframe.<br>

But a lot bigger than 24" x 36" - 17 Metres on the long side :-)<br>

Keith</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>As has been suggested, crop a couple of 8 x 10 areas of the sizes you are thinking and have them printed actual size and see what you think. At mini lab prices it's crazy not to do it and get the answer yourself. </p>

<p>For me, viewed very close (nose to print), 18 or so inches in the long direction is about the limit on that sensor. So from a few feet away (which would be quite close for a print of 36 inches) the print would probably look good if good technique were used.</p>

<p>If it's an available light shot, at this size being on a tripod would probably be more important than sensor size unless a very high shutter speed were used. </p>

[Marvin]

<p>The shop that I use for giclees of my 20D images has printed 20 X 30 inches, on canvas, and they are supurb. He even takes my 300 pixels/inch and converts them to 200 pixels/inch. I don't know why - he just says that's all he needs/wants.</p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>

<p>

Take a look at:<br>

http://gadgetshow.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3<br>

They used a Nikon D700, so 12.1 MP and Fullframe.<br>

But a lot bigger than 24" x 36" - 17 Metres on the long side :-)<br>

Keith

</p>

<p>Well, not really. It all depends on your workflow, that means if you use negative film (as in the movie) or slides, how they are scanned, how they are post processed and how meticulous you transport the image quality from step to step to the final level. Also - which RIP did they use - was it optimized for film or digital? </p>

<p>It is obvious that Nikon wants to promote their new cameras (the 'old' ones are no longer produced).</p>

<p>It is obvious that if I would have used a Fuji Provia 100 F the result would have looked different. But anyway, it's up to you to believe those 'third party tests'. I am a professional analog photographer for a very good reason.</p>

<p>To the OP: just do it. Large format printing is - among others - a craftsmanship based on experience and the gadgets used. A large format HP printer with a good RIP (Raster Image Processor) will give you stunning results. And don't 'blow up' your image with any software or PhotoSoup - the RIP algorithms are far better than those of any software for a PC or Mac.</p>

<p> </p>

</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>jens, my impression is that you are engaged in a bit of wishful thinking if you believe that analog (at least 35mm) is better than FF DSLR IQ or that you cannot get the highest possible results by using the right software on a PC or Mac.</p>

[joe_gunter]

<p>I teach photoshop at the college level, and recently did a series of prints to compare dpi for my class. I printed a close-up image of a butterfly at 300, 150 and 72 ppi on photo-pro paper with a Canon Pixma iP6000d. Of course the 72 was bad, but viewed from >6 ft away even it looked okay. The surprise was that we had to comb over the 150 ppi image to find an area where it looked different. Only extremely fine detail -- like the fuzz on the back of the butterfly was slightly diff. <br /> I guess the short answer is print one and see.<br /> For the best upsizing in Photoshop - go to Image>Image Size.. and then in the lower box change the "inches" to "percent". Then type in 110. Make sure that the "Resample Image" is checked and that box at the bottom reads "bicubic smoother." This will upsize your picture 10 percent at a time - which is supposed to result in much cleaner enlargements. Keep going 10 percent at a time until you get to the size you need. I record these steps as an action so that I only have to press "play" repeatedly.</p>