How large can I go? First time making big prints...

[Gina Franco]

Friends,


First: I've been reading the community forums for months now and want to say thanks to all of you for so much help and good advice. I've learned a lot from you.


I've been invited to exhibit some of my photos at a small artisans' gallery, and I'm excited to do it, but I'm a little overwhelmed by the newness of preparing images for display. I'm going to use an online printing service and have the prints shipped to the gallery, so I really won't be able to see them before the show. Which is *very* tricky, I know, but it's the only option I seem to have.


I am shooting with a Rebel Xsi and the Canon 16-35L. Can anyone tell me how large I can blow up my images without losing sharpness and quality? I've never printed anything larger than an 8x10. Is 16x24 out of range for my camera and lens?


And any advice for a newbie?


Many thanks!


Gina

[crosbyharbison]

well i've printed on my 5d II at 24x36" with good results so I'd say with your sensor roughly 1/2 mine about 12x18

[crosbyharbison]

if you want to see how 16x24 would look try cropping one of your images by a factor of 4.8 times and print to a 8x10

[ShutterbugJohan]

In the local camera store, which is run by a professional photographer, hangs a 30x40 inch print of a close-up of a bride's and groom's hands. (I hope that's proper grammar?)


It was shot with a Canon EOS 10D and I'm not sure of the lens.


The 10D is 6.3 megapixels.


I'm not joking.


The point is, if you have a sharp, well-exposed shot with perfect DOF, you can print it at least that large.

[Gina Franco]

Crosbyharbison: thanks for this suggestion. I think I'll try this. --Also, I checked out your site (all too briefly). Your photos are gorgeous.


Gina

[Gina Franco]

Shutterbug: that's an exciting prospect. So, if the original size looks sharp corner to corner, can I use that as a gauge do you think?

[Sheiky]

I had really nice results printing from my 450D at 20*30 inches. No problem whatsoever. I wouldn't hesitate to go even larger if I had to. Problem is that my internetprintingservice doesn't go beyond 20*30 and I don't have the room to put any larger than that in my room [:P]


That's with a non-cropped picture by the way. I assume the more you crop, the smaller your maximum print will be. But 20*30 shouldn't be a problem.


Good luck





Edit: I see the 450D == XSi and you ask for "only" 16*24, you don't have to worry at all!


Unless the printingservice is real bad of course [6]

[Gina Franco]

Sheiky: I'm using Mpix.com which was highly recommended by someone I don't know well, but it looks like LensRentals.com thinks well enough of them to include them on their resource links list, so here's hoping. They offer 24x36 by the way, if you want to clear your walls and make room for something larger!


http://www.mpix.com/PrintPricing.aspx


I'm not cropping anything--good to know--and thanks for taking the edge off my nervousness.

[musickna]

I've printed dozens of 13" x 19" from a Rebel XT (only 8 megapixels) that look fabulous. I've even printed a 13" x 19" from a Canon G2 (4 megapixels) with only very close examination of that print revealing the pixel limitation. You should be fine.

[Bill W]

Gina; I really can't speak about your question, but for Mpix...they're superb.


I had them do a pano (made up of 7 pix) for me and I can't believe I took the pic that they sent me....10x30.


In fact you can email or talk to a representative that will give you the answer to your question on size and what would work best for you.....I found them to be very helpful, quick responses and they followed up to make sure I was satiisfied w/the final product.


You can feel confident they will do a nice job.


Good luck....and post some pix.


Bill

[Sheiky]

Haha yeah but I don't live in the States [;)] I can print bigger if I want, but not where I normally print my pictures. And frankly 20*30 inch is big enough for me [:P]Just ordered a best of 2009 album with 60 of my best photo's from 2009 all printed on A3 format. Can't wait to see it!!





Good luck and have fun with your exposition!

[jimr]

Given you are using the 450D (XSi) and good lens you should have absolutely no problems at all.


I have printed 30x40 with lower resolution cameras. I have printed tons of images at 8X10 and lots at 16X24. They all look good.


You might want to try a couple of test runs with your online service just to put your mind at ease.

[ShutterbugJohan]

So, if the original size looks sharp corner to corner, can I use that as a gauge do you think? Yes, but remember the viewing distance when making large prints. For example, a 30x40" print should be viewed from about 4 feet away. Good luck!

[Gina Franco]

Bill: thank you! I did email them with a few questions and you're right: lightning fast. Very helpful. Also, I'm impressed by the shipping policy. I've been loading the cart with mostly 16x24 prints, but I'm adding a few 12x18, and one 24x36. I think that's brave enough for me.


Thanks everyone for responding so quickly and for the great tips.


Happy shooting!

[clemmb]

I had one of mine from my XTi on a billboard. It looked great. I am not sure how big that was.


Mark

[Daniel Browning]

Can anyone tell me how large I can blow up my images without losing sharpness and quality?


I've seen 2 MP images printed at 20x30 and they look great. (Of course, they would have looked much better if they were 200 MP instead of 2 MP.)


I've also seen 0.9 MP blown up to 50-feet (takes up the whole field of view and then some), and that looked great (movie theater).


So you can definitely make large prints. For your camera, 16x24 (with no cropping in post) would be 180 ppi, which most would consider pretty sharp, even up close. But it would take more than quadruple the megapixels (over 50 MP) to maximize the resolution of a 16x24 print. For more information, check out this thread:


What is the ideal number of megapixels? ("/forums/t/2025.aspx)

[cian3307]

I've printed a few shots from my 10.2MP 400D up to A1 size (roughly 23 x 33 inches) and they have looked fine. Of course, this is assuming you're not squinting at them up close but standing back far enough to view the entire picture without having to roll your eyes around! Even close up, you need to look very closely to make out pixels. I suppose what different people consider acceptable is based on how close their eyes are to the picture. As Daniel says in his post, a movie theatre picture looks great, but thats because a viewer isn't going to be staring at a 1 foot square section of the screen from 18 inches away!

[SupraSonic]

Form Graphic Desinger people they always request RAW files.

[SupraSonic]

i.e. these file format is EXPANDABLE

[jks_photo]

Hello Gina!


Im in the photo finishing business [ you come to me to have prints made[:D] ]. I can tell you that you can safely go as to print as large as 24x36 prints .


I've done it with my Xti. Just make make sure you do your part i.e. proper exposure and focus and it will come out ok. One important thing to remember is to shoot RAW. Then use canon's DPP the when it's time to convert to jpeg set the jpeg output size on the DPP softwre to size 24x36 at 300DPI. If you have the maintain aspect ratio checked it will give you something like 22x36 or somewhere around the size of 24x36. the just crop the jpeg to the exact size say for example 24x36. You should be okay.





good luck!!

[Gina Franco]

Hi jks!


Now my ignorance will really show: it looks like the default output resolution on my DPP is set to 350DPI. Should I change that to 300?


And here's the part that really confuses me: I do always shoot in RAW. But when I convert to jpeg, I don't generally resize because I don't usually print anything. I just convert to jpeg with default settings and load the images to Flickr for my own enjoyment. So: the resize option at default settings currently says the image is converted at 4272 x 2848 in pixel units, or 12.206 x 8.137 in inches. Do I change that option in inches--that is, from 12.206 x 8.137 to 24 x 36?


Sorry to be slow about these things. And thank you so much for this advise!


Gina

[Gina Franco]

SupraSonic: I may look into this. Thank you!

[Gina Franco]

As always, DB, your post is enlightening and extremely helpful (though much is still over my head). I always appreciate your input. Thank you!

[Gina Franco]

cian: I *really* understood what DB meant when you pointed out that individual pixels will be visible at some point. Truth is, I haven't seen too many digital prints. Most of the prints I've made were film, not digital, so I'm starting to get it...


Thank you!

[Gina Franco]

Mark: WOW! That's very cool.

[Dave Johnston]

I have printed 24x36 with my 50D and 20x30 with the XSi you have... both turned out looking great. Hope yours turns out.

[jks_photo]

Hello gIna,


Most photo labs have machines that print at 300dpi. I for one have that. There are a new breed of machines coming out that print at 720dpi and images are really stunning.But for now 300dpi is the norm for most photo labs.


At 350 dpi you just get a file thats just too large for printing purposes. So setting it too 300dpi will help you save space on your hard disk. Second when converted to jpeg at 350dpi your supposedly 8x12 inchsize output as per Canon's DPP will read to something like 9x14 when read by the photo lab's printing machine which runs at a native 300dpi.


Asfor resizing, what I always do isto decide onwhat sizeI want the image to be printed. The I resize accordingly.Like I mentioned before with maintain aspect ratio checked sizes given by DPP won't always be exact to print sizes bu they will be close enough. Then just crop them asyou like them with photoshop or whatever software you use. The benefit of doing this process [ at least for me] is to save on hard disk space. YES , you need to change that option to inches then you need to specify what size you want to output to be.





Hope this helps you.

[Gina Franco]

jks: I'm very grateful for all this help. Thank you so much!! I'll let you know how they turn out, okay? Again, thank you!

[mbaltrusitis]

You would be surprised how big you can get that image with only 12MP. If you do a lot of work. Does the camera have razor sharp focus? Is your post-processing right where it needs to be? With my XS and 50mm f/1.8 I was able to crop an image so I was only using the top right quarter of the image and printed it out to 11x14 and it came out VERY nice. I am very particular and don't waste money on prints but the image was definitely of a very high quality.

[jimgarvie]

Gina,


I have 16X20 prints on the walls in my studio and some were taken with a 40D, a 30D and some go back to my D30 (3.4 mpx). They all look great at normal viewing distances. All were printed at White House Custom Color. I'd suggest you take a couple of your better images and send them to a lab like WHCC and order several different sizes. See what you think about "how big you can go". A lot depends on the amount of detail in the image, the lens you used and the technique you used. I've had some 20X30 images made from my 8 mpx 30D that were lovely.


Give it a try and see what you like,


Jim

[Gina Franco]

Just an update to everyone who helped me think about this question: the prints are in transit and will arrive at the gallery today! Unfortunately, I won't get to see them until August (the gallery is in Del Rio, TX, and I am in IL) when I can visit in the summer, but the support folks at Mpix were very helpful. Someone even offered to make sure to check the prints personally before they were shipped, so I have high hopes. You all helped me to rethink my post-processing, to look more closely at the the lens I used (16-35mmL--a great lens, but yes, even with a crop sensor the corner details are little muddy), to take the scary step of learning *something* about file conversion (not enough!), and to put "learn how to calibrate your monitor" on my to-do list. Thank you.


I'll give you a real update when I see the prints in person. The true success here is that the images exist in the real world now, for good or for bad.


I don't yet know how to load images that are an appropriate size for this site, so I'll leave a couple of links below to my blog where you might see one or two of the images I chose for the show, as I think someone asked to see some of my images. Please remember I'm a newbie--this show is small and I am still learning what a good image looks like!


Again: thank you all!


http://ghostword.blogspot.com/2010/02/blog-post_17.html


http://ghostword.blogspot.com/2010/02/blog-post_03.html


http://ghostword.blogspot.com/2010/02/blog-post_12.html

[Sheiky]

Gina those pictures are junk!





Oh no I meant...those pictures are pictures of junk [:P] Nice pictures, I think you have absolutely nothing to worry about, blowing these up to large format posters. I love the colors on your picture.


Your first picture would make a magnificent subject for an HDR photo I think, but I also like it this way.


What's the white rusty building next to it?


Good luck with your exposition Gina, I'm totally confident it will work out!


Jan





Ps: uploading a picture ain't that hard. While typing your picture you just click the Insert Media button and you upload a picture. Max 800pixels wide is preferred for this forum. You could also hyperlink to your pictures elsewhere on the interweb. Good luck

[Gina Franco]

Gina those pictures are junk!



<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I was quite ready to believe you!!









Oh no I meant...those pictures are pictures of junk /emoticons/emotion-4.gif Nice pictures, I think you have absolutely nothing to worry about, blowing these up to large format posters. I love the colors on your picture.


Your first picture would make a magnificent subject for an HDR photo I think, but I also like it this way.


What's the white rusty building next to it?


Good luck with your exposition Gina, I'm totally confident it will work out!


Jan
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








The "white rusty building" is a trailer behind the truck. These photos were taken at a sprawling 20-some acre recycling yard, so there are many mysteries in the backgrounds. As for HDR photography: I haven't the slightest idea how to make images that way. I don't use or own Photoshop--I'm relying entirely on Canon's DPP. It's called baby-stepping!


The gallery owner called last night to say that the images arrived and that they look great, so I'm feeling happy and excited. Thanks for your vote of confidence. I needed that yesterday a bunch.


(I like the colors in these images too! --Thanks.)

[Sheiky]

I was quite ready to believe you!!Sorry if I scared you [A]


I understand about the small area. That makes it hard to do a good shot, so in that case, you couldn't have done it any better!


About HDR...I've made a little comment on the following thread:http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/p/3132/25710.aspx#25710 ("/forums/p/3132/25710.aspx#25710)


&Iacute; just try to explain the basics of HDR there. Hope you could learn a bit from it. You could download a program like photomatix and use the free trial period. It's not even that expensive to buy. But first you could try out some shots.


With the car you could make the shadows more detailed and maybe even create a little more dramatic colors. If you like that of course.



(I like the colors in these images too! --Thanks.) No thanks for that, you made the picture! [:D][Y]

[Gina Franco]

http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/p/3132/25710.aspx#25710 ("/forums/p/3132/25710.aspx#25710)


THIS link to your thread on HDR is incredibly helpful. Thank you. Your sample images explain a great deal. It reminds me a lot of how strange and beautiful--and artificial--a print that has been made with a lot of dodging and burning in the darkroom can look. I don't know if you can achieve the equivalent of darkroom dodging and burning in Photoshop, somehow (as again, I only own and use DPP), but I know I'm always pointing the camera at high contrast light situations and I do miss being able to burn-in the highlight detail from a negative in order to preserve the detail in the shadows.

[Sheiky]

Thank you Gina. It was just a test-HDR of some pictures I had left. Maybe I'll post a better version some time. Pictures at that thread aren't really aligned good etc. But I'm glad that you got the idea now. Point is...you could also use the auto lighting optimizer in your camera, which does about the same, but with the cost of loss of detail. So I always turn it off and when I want more dynamic range, I'll just grab my tripod. By the way, it is a good option if you don't have a lot of time and want to take a fast picture. But you can do most of it during post-processing as well. ...if not all of it.


You could also make a HDR with only 1 image, but quality suffers from it. And yes you could do a lot with photoshop and lightroom etc, but you'll never get a high-resolution photo with all detail that is present in a good taken HDR image.


Have fun!