Is 10mp enough for gallery prints?

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>Hi,<br>

I have a number of images shot with 10mp Panasonic LX3.<br>

I want to hold an exhibition so i need to print them...<br>

What realistic sizes can i make with these files?<br>

You can take a look at some of them here:<br>

http://www.fluidr.com/photos/agnihot<br>

(I also have a few 40D images)<br>

help...<br>

regards,<br>

anurag</p>

 

[leicaglow]

<p>It depends a lot on how you process them, but for a 12 MP camera, shooting RAW, I usually keep them in the no-larger-than 16x20" range. With special anti-pixelation handling, I've got as big as 40x60". I would say if you shoot JPEG, you're probably going to want to stay in the 8x12" range.</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>I shoot JPEGs, does that mean i can't go beyond 8x12...isn't that too small for a gallery?<br>

Any solution to this?</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Shooting JPGs does not change the resolution of the camera (unless you set the camera to a lower resolution) but it may limit you post processing and you <strong>may</strong> find JPG artifacts become visible if you start to make large prints from JPG files. Why not get some sample prints made and decide for yourself how big you would like to print.</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>This is to the experienced photographers on photo.net...what is the optimum size one can put up in a gallery? Do you think something like 8 by 10 is a non starter?<br>

Sorry, i've never done that before...and i see these huge prints in the galleries i've visited, don't recall smaller sizes at all.</p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>I don't do gallery stuff, but of those people I know who do typically print to around A3 (about 16 x 12 inches) minus a bit of a border and mount in a 16 x 20 inch frame. If using the full frame from an LX3, you'll be looking at 3600 x 2700 pixels which at 300dpi is 12 x 9 inches. At 254 dpi you are up to about 14 x 11 inches and at 200dpi 18 x 13.5 inches. With minimal cropping, it would seem that you will just about be OK printing to 16 x 12 with around a half inch border before framing. FWIW, I've printed to 10 x 15 from a 6mp camera and it looked fine!</p>

[cwphoto]

<p>I exibit in galleries. Recently made a very good 20x30 from 12mp Nikon D700. Shot from tripod. That is important-shot from tripod. For any individual camera/lens the best anyone can do is to print same photo at ever increasing size & examine the finished product.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>People tend not to stand as close to a large print as they do to a smaller one. Because of this, the source resolution requirement for large prints is not as daunting as one might think. However, so that individual pixels are not seen as square patches when printed that large, it is critically important that the source image be up-sized properly. Firms which produce large prints routinely do this for their customers, but if you want to retain full control over the up-sizing process, you can use a dedicated program such as Genuine Fractals, and do it yourself.</p>

<p>For example, starting with images I shot on my d700 (12 megapixels), I just produced a series of 4 different posters for a theater company. Each was 3 foot by 4 foot (ie, 36 x 48 inches) photographically printed (ie, not inkjet or halftone). Each contained lots of full color photographic detail. Because each poster included text and effects overlaid on the base image, I had to know exactly how these would look at the full size. Accordingly, I up-sized the base images myself and then added the text and effects once at full size. </p>

<p>Because of very severe time constraints (I was called in at the last minute), there was no time to make any test prints. I uploaded my files to my printer, and he couriered them to the producer as soon as they were done, ie, without me ever having a chance to preview them before delivery. I met them at the theater and inspected them alongside the producer and director. My clients were utterly delighted with the results, commented on the "incredible resolution", and never knew that I shot every image on a 12 mpixel d700, not some PhaseOne system.</p>

<p>HTH,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

[mukul_dube]

<p>"...what is the optimum size one can put up in a gallery? Do you think something like 8 by 10 is a non starter?"</p>

<p>There is no optimal size, nor even a graven in stone smallest size. Prints of 8" by 10" should be quite acceptable. That is, a picture of that size is large enough to show all of its content to a serious viewer. If your resources are limited, you should work within them. <em>Good</em> pictures speak, while gigantic ones may leave the viewer unmoved.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>People tend not to stand as close to a large print as they do to a smaller one. Because of this, the source resolution requirement for large prints is not as daunting as one might think. However, so that individual pixels are not seen as square patches when printed that large, it is critically important that the source image be up-sized properly. Firms which produce large prints routinely do this for their customers, but if you want to retain full control over the up-sizing process, you can use a dedicated program such as Genuine Fractals, and do it yourself.</p>

<p>For example, starting with images I shot on my d700 (12 megapixels), I just produced a series of 4 different posters for a theater company. Each was 3 foot by 4 foot (ie, 36 x 48 inches) photographically printed (ie, not inkjet or halftone). Each contained lots of full color photographic detail. Because each poster included text and effects overlaid on the base image, I had to know exactly how these would look at the full size. Accordingly, I up-sized the base images myself and then added the text and effects once at full size. </p>

<p>Because of very severe time constraints (I was called in at the last minute), there was no time to make any test prints. I uploaded my files to my printer, and he couriered them to the producer as soon as they were done, ie, without me ever having a chance to preview them before delivery. I met them at the theater and inspected them alongside the producer and director. My clients were utterly delighted with the results, commented on the "incredible resolution", and never knew that I shot every image on a 12 mpixel d700, not some PhaseOne system.</p>

<p>HTH,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>In addition to excellent points already made, another variable is the size and "intimacy" of the gallery. The St Louis Art Museum recently had an Ansel Adams original prints exhibit, and many of the images were fairly small, but the gallery they were in was a small room probably no more than 15x30 feet, with a low ceiling besides. I had no consciousness of the pictures looking small.</p>

<p>The pictures were well matted, but most prints were roughly 8x10 inches, as I recall. On the other hand, there has been a tendency for exhibits to have larger and larger prints from the 1970s on.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>IMO, gallery prints have a lot to do with the framing. i'm not sure if i would go beyond 16x20 with a LX3, but just get some good frames and you should be ok.</p>

 

[david_henderson]

<p>There are lots of serious photographers who limit their work to 8x8 or 10" x 10". People like Michael Kenna spring to mind, and i think most would say that he does OK in galleries. </p>

<p> Two words of warning though. First is that all wall art tends to look its best at or near a certain size. Kenna's work would not impress so much at a metre across. Gursky's work would look pretty inconsequential at 10" x 8". Think about your work- how big do you want people to see it? If you're serious about your prints- and you'll need to be to get gallery space - you'll match your camera to the print sizes you want to make and not the other way around. </p>

<p>Second, this stuff about viewing distance. There's an element of truth in it but unless people are physically constrained from approaching too close ( as with a poster, or ad on a bus side for example) there's a natural and common tendency to look close to see how sharp the work is as well as from a distance that permits the perception of the whole image. Go to a few photographic galleries and watch the way people look at things. I did this at a Gursky exhibit in London. The stuff was enormous with plenty of fine detail. I and many of the other viewers just couldn't resist getting close to these enormous pictures just to see what was really in that fine detail. </p>

<p>I think you need to decide how big you want to print, get some test prints made at that size and see whether they pass muster. If they don't you need to think about a bigger camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Looking at your gallery I doubt if you used a tripod but I shouldn't let that bother you since your pictures will grab the viewers attention and they will pass some by. I see plenty of exhibitions with 15x12 or 16x12 prints mounted on 20x16 boards. The originality of your work will hold attention and photographic quality comes second. Maintain the 300dpi/ppi with interpolating and you should be OK even at 20x16. Photographic quality is the backstop of the mundane.<br>

Print size I suspect depends on what your clients want for their homes unless your exhibition is purely a 'brag' and sales are unimportant. Experience will give you this knowledge after this and other exhibitions.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I got myself side-tracked, but I meant to add that I am personally happy with 13x19" prints (the limit of my printer) from even an 8MP image. 10 or 12 MP should do even better.<br>

Of course, as noted, you don't want to view these with your nose touching the print. :)</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>I personally don't like going beyond 13x19 with a 10-12mp camera--the resolution starts breaking up at that size. But it does depend on taste. As for optimum gallery size, that can be anything you want. I've seen everything from 4x6s hung up with large white mats around them to 30x40s made from 8x10 view cameras. You're the artist so you get to decide. The key is what size generates the emotional impact you're wanting.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Yes.</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>Thanks, great feedback. <br>

Will start printing to see upto what sizes i can go...but its great to hear that whatever the size, its perfectly doable...<br>

anurag</p>

[m_tt_donuts]

<p>Here's some things about MP. </p>

<p>1st you have to quadruple the MP to double the quality... so take for example the Canon 5DmkII at 21MP vs. any number of 12MP cameras. Many people think 21MP vs. 12MP must mean almost twice the quality... but because you have to quad the MP to double the results it is impossible for the mkii to achieve more than 22% over a 12MP and that's only on paper. Factor in lenses, aperture, tripod used, mirror lockup then real world results should be little difference between a 21MP vs. 12MP. </p>

<p>2nd Some with a high MP camera like to take pictures of a chart or newspaper with the camera on a heavy tripod, mirror lockup, sharpest lens they have, at the sharpest aperture, blow up an area 100% and post the results to show how sharp it is then they pop it off the tripod and walk around handholding and shooting with a convenient zoom lens at unsharp apertures. If you want to take pictures of charts & newspapers, MP will matter and show the results but when it comes to actually walking around using the camera the difference becomes more & more marginal.</p>

<p>3rd MP's make less sense on crop factor cameras. The more the crop factor, the less the MP's make a difference. There's a 18MP 1.6x crop factor camera out there that I don't really get. A lens can't resolve that much detail on such a small sensor leaving one paying for an 18MP sensor, having to deal with the larger file sizes, noise, slowness, and more processing power it creates, and in the end that person is getting the same detail as someone with less MP but more noise.</p>

<p>Don't worry about MP, worry about the picture. On a crop factor camera about 12MP is all one can expect and as stated the difference between 10MP and 12MP is almost nothing. A 40MP camera would only d be 2x better than a 10MP. What matters more, is the lighting, the picture, and post-processin (the more it's post processed the less quality the print typically).</p>

[m_dawg]

<p>I've seen plenty of 12 megapixel images (from the 5D) blown up to huge sizes (four by five feet almost) satisfactorily. Assuming normal viewing distances, you can print as large as you want.</p>

<p>If you're obsessed with everything looking perfect (I kind of am), 8''x10'' is about as big as you're likely to get without seeing some very minor degradation in quality.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>If both in camera and out of camera techniques are good, you're mounting and presentation is good - they can be inspiring. But that goes for just about any digital camera on the market today. I wouldn't hesitate making big prints from my EX1/TL500 now that I've seen it's output first hand, I see little between it and my SLR.</p>

[fredscal]

<p>Anurag,</p>

<p>to answer your title question in brief: yes, 10MP can be enough. It may limit you some, but then again you might not even feel the limitation, depending on circonstaces...</p>

<p>There are many factors :</p>

<p>The desirable size for your prints will depend on the place. In general, big halls call for big prints and smaller rooms for smaller prints. This being said, it is not an absolute rule.</p>

<p>Then there is the size the quality of your files will allow you to print to. This also is relative: printing professionals may be able to nicely enlarge your picture more than you would by toying with printers yourself (as Michael said is his first response).</p>

<p>And then there is also the size you feel your subjects call for.</p>

<p>A combination of the previous factors will tell the distance visitors are likely to stand from your prints. That's another point to take into consideration. (For example, people are not likely to put their nose right on giant portraits in a large hall: they would be more like to watch them from a distance of say 5 feet.)</p>

<p>Turning all these considerations into your head will only drive you crazy, and won't help making the right decision. <strong>The only thing to do is, make some prints, at different sizes, bring them to the gallery, and see how each feels on location.</strong> No amount of thinking and/or discussion can replace that !</p>

<p>If you can't go to the gallery, then just print your pictures and compare sizes at home. If you can't do test prints of the regarded pictures, then at least bring differently sized prints of other pictures to the gallery. But do something. Submit something to your eyes, it's the only way to move on toward decision.</p>

<p>I wish you best of luck with your exhibition</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>Thanks fred, richard, and everybody...whos names i can't see on this page...<br>

Thans for taking some time off and answering...it can't get more comprehensive for me. <br>

anurag</p>