Very large prints : pixelation, iterpolation, bigger sensor/format

[marco_landini]

<p>Hi guys.<br>

I' m going to plain a trip during which I would take a lot of landscape pics. I usualy print not larger than 36x24 cm, sometimes 40x30 cm. My prints come from a lab, they use a contone laser printer at 254 ppi. So, my Nikon D90 ( 12 Mpixels) produces a Tiff of enough MB to print that sizes without the need of software interpolation, and I'm pretty happy for the results.<br>

Anyway, in my next trip, I would like to take some scenary and landscape pics to be printed very large, some of them at 80x50 cm, and some others at 1,2 x 2 meters...<br>

The question is : how large can I push my D90 Tiff without pixelation ? Do you suggest me to interpolate the file, by PS resizing algorithm ( bicubic), or by another software ? To print that large ( 80x50 cm and 1,2 x 2 meters ) do I have to get better investing in a 6x7 film equipment ( mamiya 7, as I want to travel light) and have the film scanned for those few poster prints ? Nowadays, I don' t want to invest in a 24 Mpixels camera, for all my work my D90 is good enough. If I buy an used Mamiya 7, I guess I will have no problem to resell it without money loss.<br>

In your opinion, such large prints are crazy for the D90 and interpolation , so you suggest me to use 6x7 film camera scans for those enlargements ?<br>

Thanks, Marco.</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>And, for the 6x7 scans...my lab offers Coolscan 9000 at 4000 ppi , a Imacon X5, and a Kodak Creo IqSmart 3.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[Do you suggest me to interpolate the file]]</p>

<p>I suggest that, whenever possible, you shoot multiple photos and stitch them together. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Extremely large prints can do with lower resolutions, as you won't stand as close to it - billboards hitting resolutions as low as 5 dpi. It mostly depends on what you want - does a huge metre-wide print have to look unpixelated from ~30 cm viewing distance (which is pixel-peeping, basically), or will you look at that image from a normal distance to be able to see the whole image?<br>

I'd first discuss with the printer to see what their requirements are in terms of resolution, and then see whether you can work with single D90 shots, or whether stitching is better.</p>

<p>Buying a second-hand camera system that you are not used to yet for a single trip - not a great idea, in my view. Not so much for the cost (indeed you can sell without money loss), but for your own familiarity with how everything works and for the peace of mind of working with gear you know well.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>First of all, if you are sending your files to a lab to have them make the prints, I would not do any upsizing / interpolation. Instead, let that lab's RIP do it--you will probably get equally good quality, and maybe better quality, and neither you nor the lab has to handle the larger files. At least call or e-mail the lab and ask them for advice.</p>

<p>Second, much depends on your own personal standards and taste. I have had 24x30-inch (about 61 x 76 cm) prints made from both a 6 MP DSLR and a 16 MP DSLR. Most people thought the big prints from the 6 MP DSLR looked good; I thought they looked okay. Most people thought the big prints from the 16 MP DSLR looked great; I thought they looked good. But of course, these are prints of action shots, not landscapes.</p>

<p>Third, to me most prints from film start getting visibly worse in quality at more than about a 10x or at most 12x enlargement. So a nominal 6x7 camera--with a good scan--should produce very good prints up to about 56 x 70 cm or 67 x 83 cm. You can maintain the quality for somewhat larger prints by using a film like Kodak T-Max 100 (black and white), or maybe even Kodak Portra 160 (color), but don't expect miracles. How you rate the quality of prints larger than that will again depend on your own personal standards and taste.</p>

<p>With either a D90 or a Mamiya 7, you may be reasonably happy with even the largest prints, when you look at normal viewing distances. With either, no matter how you process the file or scan the film, if you get close to a 1.2 x 2 m print, it will look soft / un-detailed. If you really want a print that large that looks very sharp and detailed when you get close to it, you probably need to use at least an 8x10-inch view camera--so you could not travel light!</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>For stitching technique : I don' t like "panoramic" pics. Cause of the necessary rotation of the tripod head, they result rounded, and I don' t like the effect. And If I take a close subject, the technique is absolutely impossible. Let's consider that my only possibility is to stick only with D90 : do you think it would be accetable to print an upsized resampled interpolated file, at 254 dpi, cm 120x200 , or at least cm 50x80 ?</p>

[bruce_watson1]

<p>Making big prints isn't just telling your printer to make big prints. It's not anything like that simple, if you want good prints. It takes practice and effort, knowledge and experience. There's way more to it than just how many pixels you've got.</p>

<p>Printing big pushes your technique in all areas. Forget hand holding, and forget cheap lightweight tripods. Learn what your diffraction limit is and how to avoid it. Use the best glass. Use a cable release. Lock up that mirror. Learn what your software's limits are and how to use them. Learn what your printer's limits are and how to use them. Learn what your framer can do, and what your limits are in framing. And for these really big prints, how are you going to transport them? I'm serious. Measure some vans and trucks and try to visualize how you're going to get a print safely from the printer to the framer (who will only increase the dimensions) and back to where you want to display it. Without destroying it.</p>

<p>The only way to learn, really, is to do. Make some big prints. Learn from your mistakes. If you are anything like me, you'll make plenty of mistakes. The more experience you have, the more capable you become. Capable of capturing something worthy of a big print. An image that <strong>can</strong> be printed big. Set yourself up for success, so that you might bring something back from your trip that makes a good big print.</p>

<p>But printing 1.2 x 2 m from a single capture? I wouldn't do that with drum scans from my 5x4 film. Maximum I can pull is about 1.4 m wide before grain becomes too obtrusive from 160Portra film. This from a 1.5 GB file (no, that's not a typo) off my drum scanner. A 6x7 negative won't cut it. Your D90 will be woefully inadequate for a print that big, unless you view it from across a <strong>big</strong> room. Or you make a lot of image captures with it and stitch them together.</p>

<p>If you really want to go 2m wide, you need stitching, as Rob says. Which is yet another set of learning curves for you to master before you go.</p>

<p>Having said all that, if you'll do the work, a good big print is a thing of beauty when you've finally got one hanging on your wall. Well worth all the work. A good big print can stop people in their tracks. And that, is fun!</p>

[SCL]

<p>On the stitching issue for pano shots - depending on the subject matter and your distance from the nearest object in the photo, you might want to get a panoramic adapter to use on a tripod and practice a little before the big shoot. Essentially, the trick is to properly set it up to rotate not about the tripod socket, but rather the rear nodal point of the lens in use. My experience is that in spite of all sorts of tricks to easily set this adjustment, you need to try it out in real life with a variety of subject matter before going whole hog. Sometimes acceptable panos can be made shooting handheld and rotating one's body, but I wouldn't trust that for something important. If you're interested in following up on the use of these type of devices, send me an email & I'll send you a copy of some of the info I assembled on theory, use, and adjustments prior to buying one.</p>

[alan_cox3]

<p>I agree with Bruce's points. Also when the subject is holding VERY still, you can use superresolution techniques to nearly double your resolution. But absolutely no moving grass/waves etc. You need to use ALL the other things Bruce mentions to deliver the very best image to your focal plane and take multiple images of the same thing. But tap your tripod in between exposures with your foot so that images are not pixel-incident. I use 7-10 HDR triplets like this and run them through PhotoAcute. (21-30 images) But for 2m wide you'll also need stitching. Take plenty of exposures, even if you haven't mastered the technique. Then you stand the chance of getting lucky using them when you return. Plan on using the .psb file format, as .psd's top out around 2GB.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>D90 : do you think it would be accetable to print an upsized resampled interpolated file, at 254 dpi, cm 120x200 , or at least cm 50x80 ?</em></p>

<p>Yes for 50x80 cm at least (although I would probably send the lab the original-resolution file and let the lab's RIP do the upsizing). At that size the D90 would give you 5.36 ppmm (136 ppi), and the printer would print 10 ppmm (254 ppi). In other words, the upsampling is less that 2x in each linear dimension. My 24x30 prints from my 16 MP DSLR are the exact same 136 ppi (natively--the printer is also 254 ppi). So with good technique, I think your D90 can produce a very acceptable 50x80 cm print.</p>

<p> </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Its a big subject, and I doubt that any of the answers you'll get are complete. Regardless, everyone's standards are different so what looks just OK to you might be brilliant to someone else's eye. Here's a few thoughts</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Not every photograph you take with a given camera is equally enlargeable. Its going to be down to factors like have you nailed the focus/ depth of field; is your tripod /head holding the camera rock steady; what sort of subject; Is your exposure spot-on; how have you scanned a piece of film; what sort of film did you use; Is wind a factor at the shutter speed you'll be needing; what paper you're printing on; and so on. There's an essay behind each of these and more</li>

<li>Viewing distance is clearly very important, but its also very easy to persuade yourself that no-one will look at a print from less than two metres (or whatever). But whenever I see prints of work by people like Gursky or Burtynsky (for example) in galleries, I see people with their nose nearly up tho the picture seeing whether or not its sharp close-up. And sometimes they're actually pretty good. If there's a physical barrier that means its not possible to get closer than a couple of metres or so, great. Otherwise expect that some people will want to view from closer than you'd like, regardless of what that means .</li>

<li>I have experience of having large prints made from a Mamiya 7. I had a real issue getting a 1m x 80cm print from a full frame shot on TriX last year. The original seemed sharp enough through a loupe; I scanned on an Imacon ( OK a drum scan might well have been a little better). Bear in mind also that the Mamiya 7 is a rangefinder and you can't see depth of field in the finder. So whilst the lenses are indeed very sharp, you don't get maximum sharpness everywhere and your ability to understand what needs to be really sharp and how to reflect that in where you focus is very important. I'm not going to say that you couldn't get a 2 m long print out of a Mamiya 7 without stitching. But I am going to say that its not a given, and its certainly not every time. If you can optimise all the controllable factors then you'll have a print file to give you 140ppi without interpolationand thats enough if you're looking at it a few feet or more away. But you probably will not know at the point of taking a photo whether it is enlargeable to 2M or not. </li>

<li>The only way to be sure, from any given original, of whether 2m or 1m or whatever is feasible is to make test prints. You do this from a fraction of the image to keep the cost down so that the proportion of test print to final print is the same as the proportion of the image used. Be sure to view the test print from the same distance as you'd expect to view the finished article, and draw a conclusion-<em> for that original and produced exactly that way.</em></li>

<li>I don't think there's much chance that 12MP camera will beat a 67 film , scanned at a 2M print size. Unless the viewing distance is controlled and large I don't think thats worth thinking about unless you'r prepared to stitch. We all know that not all pixels are created equal but there's 11k + long-side pixels available from a 4000ppi film scan of a 67 film original, whereas your 14MP digital <em> </em>will provide about 4K or so. Thats a lot to make up . Personally I'd expect 1M from the Nikon to be pretty unsatisfactory and 80 x 50 to be marginal. But you don't have to buy anyone elses experience or theory- you can select your very best shots on the Nikon and make prints to see for yourself whether they would be good enough. Or proportionately equivalent test prints from a fraction of your 14MP original.</li>

</ul>

[john_houghton]

<p>Marco Landini wrote:"For stitching technique : I don' t like "panoramic" pics. Cause of the necessary rotation of the tripod head, they result rounded, and I don' t like the effect."<br>

Any rounded effects are nothing to do with the stitching or rotation of the camera on the tripod head. The general appearance of the result is the same regardless of what camera or lens is used or how many images were shot. If you want a standard rectilinear result in which all straight line features in the subject are rendered straight in the stitched output, then that is straightforwardly possible, but only up to moderate angles of view - say 100 to 120 degrees. Beyond that, nasty stretching effects at the edges become unacceptable. For wider angles of view, alternative projections must be used to render the image satisfactorily on a flat sheet of paper. However, you must then accept that certain straight lines become curved - as in cylindrical and equirectangular projections. This is the same whether you shoot one image with a super wide angle fisheye lens or cover the same angle of view with a large number of shots taken with a long focus rectilinear lens. See this illustration:<br>

http://www.johnhpanos.com/comp-8-105s.jpg<br>

Rotation of the camera using a properly setup panoramic head simply ensures that the images can be aligned accurately with each other without stitching errors caused by parallax effects. Note that the camera must be rotated about the entrance pupil of the lens - not the rear or front nodal points as was once commonly believed.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Reading David Henderson's as-always good comments and thinking again about what I wrote earlier, consider this: for photographers sharpness / resolution is usually a bigger limit on perceived overall photographic quality than grain / noise is, but for most people it tends to be the opposite. Which quality you consider more important may suggest one camera or the other.</p>

<p>The 24x30 inch print that I now have on the wall at home is from the 16 MP DSLR, I think at ISO 400. It shows very little noise / grain; that's just not an issue. To most people, a print that size from 6x7 Tri-X or Portra 400 would show noticeable grain; and if you printed much bigger, the grain would start to become objectionable. On the other hand, I don't doubt that if I had shot the picture with a Mamiya 7 and Portra 400, and had it drum scanned (or probably Imacon scanned), overall there would be twice as much real detail. So you as a photographer would probably like a large print from a well-made Mamiya 7 image better than a large print from a D90, but the average person <em>might</em> actually prefer the D90 image (due to less noise / grain).</p>

<p>If I were you, I would seriously consider selling the D90 and getting a D7100. I'm not saying that a D7100 is going to let you get a good 1.2x2 m print, but neither will a Mamiya 7, and the D7100 would give you a significant resolution advantage over your D90 at any print size larger than A3 (30x42 cm).</p>

[steve_johnston4]

<p>Gentlemen, thanks for sharing your expertice. I love big fine art prints and I hate it when a print falls apart as it gets bigger. I also am not a fan of filling in the blanks with interpolation etc. No matter how far away the viewer stands, if the print does not have enough guts to express its soul, I think all is lost. If you want to print big, and be appreciated, you need to be in the 350MB+ file size from the get-go. That is probably beyond the ability of most 35mm dslr's.</p>

[john_reynolds10]

<p>Definitely you can do it. Either by Photoshop one step Bicubic Sharper method or Bicubic Smoother and then sharpen manually or some printing machines Ex. Lightjet have a built in upsampling feature. I've personally printed large from a small sensor camera with good results and have seen images made with camera phones printed large in fine art galleries. Zero pixellation. A great image will overcome technical deficiencies.</p>

[brian_ellis19]

<p>Haven't read the entire thread, if this is a dupe my apologies.<br>

Re your plan to possibly buy a Mamiya 6x7. Do you really want a rangefinder camera? Have you ever used one before? Have you ever used any MF film camera before? I used 6x7 and larger formats up to 8x10 for many years. Film - from determining your film speed to properly loading the film in the camera, to the method used to determine your exposure, etc. - is a whole different deal than digital. I really can't imagine switching to a system with which you have no experience (assuming you don't) for an important trip like this. At a bare minimum if you end up doing that at least try to take some kind of digital camera along to make occasional backups of the more promising images. Even if it's just a P&S, something is better than nothing.</p>

[alan_cox3]

<p>BTW, if you do decide to shoot medium format and plan on using 220 film. If you've never loaded it, be VERY careful you align to the correct starting mark. It's not the first dotted line that comes up! (As others have said, if you haven't shot medium film, this probably is not the time to start. I'm SO GLAD I'm not travelling with heat and X-ray sensitive film any more!) My best advice is first learn to stitch.</p>

[mattb1]

IMO, forget film. If you are not seeking the film grain look, you should stick with digital. I have some nice MF cameras,

but they do not get out any more.

 

As several have already pointed out, printing large has a lot more to do with technique than total pixels. Mirror lock up,

delay timmer, f stop/DOF,focus, focus planes, composition, subject and so on are all going to play huge parts in the final

image. Something that looks good small can look like a train wreck when it is enlarged because of some flaw in

technique. Good gear is secondary, knowing how to get the most out of your gear is more important. Like, what are the

best f stops for your lens or what ISO's are best for your sensor.

 

Digital is a very clean tool when exposed well. It can appear very sharp, and be pleasing when enlarged.

 

IMO, skip up sampling. Capture all the pixels that your camera has, and give that to the printer. If it is a good shop they

will know exactly what their hardware needs. You will most likely not know. Now, if you use a kinkos or Costco, you will

need to experiment and maybe upsample. As they will not have knowledgable people working the printer.

[malcom_knight]

<p>It also depends on your digital darkroom skills. There are very talented digital darkroom gurus out there that can take a good DSLR image from 12mp and make a great large print. There are ways to do it. Since photography is an art, what is great to me, my be average to you. I do like my 24x36" prints from my 12mp cropsensor DSLR (Pentax KX). They have about the same resolution as my Mamyia 645 scanned on Nikon 9000 using Velvia 100. Just try it. If it doesn't satisfy you, you may need to buy a better camera.</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>I think such prints are crazy, to answer your question. However it depends on what you are after. I once printed some images that were 90 dpi for someone. They loved them, they weren't bothered by the pixels. Everyone has a different limit to the quality they are after.<br>

"The question is : how large can I push my D90 Tiff without pixelation ?" This has an easy answer. Blow something up to that size in Photoshop, then crop the image so you can fit it on an 8x10 and print it. You will see the effect, and decide whether it work for you</p>