Making quality 16x20 print from jpeg images

[comperry]

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I am going to enter a photo contest that my workplace is sponsoring..I am supposed to submit my digital photos in jpeg format( no raw files allowed). I use a Macbook Pro laptop and I have I-photo to make minor adjustments on my digital photos.. The camera I use to shoot my photos is a Canon Xsi, 12.3 megapixel DSLR..<br>

Is there a foolproof way that I can tell if my files will make good quality 16x 20 prints without spending money to have them test printed? Having this information will guide me in which photos I select for submission.<br>

Thank you<br>

Lisa</p>

[shawngibson]

<p>Are you shooting RAW or JPEG?</p>

<p>It's an upsize, but if you're shooting RAW you have a much better chance:) But if you nailed focus and exposure and no movement JPEG should work:)</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Not so much difference between fine jpeg and RAW, except RAW gives you more post capture control of the image.</p>

<p>Is 16x20 necessary (I presume it may be)? It is getting to be a rather large size for many digital cameras of that pixel density and sensor size, even with images at maximum pixel density and lowest jpeg compression. 10 x 125 might be better if that is permitted. You say you are submitting digital files. Is that for preliminary evaluation only?</p>

<p>In any case, if you are going to make 16x20 prints from your files from a Macbook Pro you should be aware that although the computer is excellent, the viewing of the screen yields varying presentations (color balance, degree of illumination) depending on your viewing position. I assume you are going to have the prints made by someone else. Apart from the quality of that support, which can be important, you might want to make test prints of smaller size to hone in on the best balance for your image on your monitor and the efect of varying brightness and color balances on the file that will go to the 3rd party printer. Once you are satisfied with these test prints and your related image preparation, you could submit the same imagefor a 16x20 trial print for evaluation. Then you could decide how many additional photos you want to do at 16x20 size. You should check hothey want the photos to be presented (mounted or not) and some exhibitions require a framing matte cardboard of a certain tone or size.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Lisa, you should have no problem getting a good 16x20 from your 12.3 megs.....If it is in focus, not shaken, and exposed and white balanced close to correctly, then raw will add nothing. Your attention will be much better served by attention to composition, design, and careful editing, if any.</p>

<p>The 16x20 below won a judges award at a juried art show. It was taken with a 4mp Canon,(all I had within reach), Regards, Robert</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>OOPS....here is the image....</p><div></div>

[Jerry_]

<p>You will also have to keep in mind what is going to be cropped from the digital image to get a 16x20 print. The Nikon D3 allows a 5:4 ratio digital 'crop' in the camera: going to 16x20 in a print is somewhat painless. On a smaller sensor, some cropping would be required.</p>

<p> </p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>I regularly print 13"x19" borderless prints from my XSi. These are printed at 240dpi. I am very happy with the quality.</p>

<p>It is important to insure that your images are very sharp. This means viewing them at 100% on your monitor. How well do the details hold up when viewed like this? The judges are probably going to view them up close.</p>

<p>Jerry has a good point concerning cropping to get a 16x20 print. View your images with that in mind.</p>

 

[bobcossar]

<p>Not all images are <em><strong>supposed</strong></em> to be sharp. <strong>Content</strong> wins awards. Not sharpness, fuzziness, raw, cooked, boiled....whatever. <strong>Content</strong> wins awards. And if the images require to be sharp, fuzzy, or anything else, then they better be.</p>

<p>But sharp garbage, raw garbage...... never won anything.....Concentrate on the image design and content....it is everything.....Regards, Robert</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>To answer the OP's original question, in general 200 DPI should yield a nice sharp print, so a JPEG file measuring 3200x4000 pixels should be pretty close to optimal. RAW will give a little more wiggle room during editing, so I suppose you could shoot RAW, edit, resize to 3200x4000, apply output sharpening, and save as JPEG without compression.</p>

[markdeneen]

<p>I make a lot of 16 x 20 prints. I make them all from JPG files. Most are from film scans, a few from a 12MP digital camera. I try to get between 200 and 220 pixels per inch of print size. They come out very nice. I have gotten many rave comments from fellow photographers. I have also put many of them in exhibitions. Mine have almost all been printed on an Epson 7880.</p>

[comperry]

<p>Thank you to everybody for the comments and help..I learned a lot! I am still a fairly inexperienced photographer but I enjoy learning new things about photography..It is fun and informative to come to you guys through a forum like this, and seek information and opinions ! I love the extra benefit of getting to see your photos:) I ended up having a test print made of my image( from epson printer) I loved the quality of the paper and print, but I think I will wait and shoot more photos before I make my final choice of which images to submit to the contest..I still have a little time..Dec 30th deadline:)<br>

Lisa</p>