Large prints

[fish]

How large of a print can you make from a 6.3mp 10D photo (large/fine), and still have it look good?

[Shay Stephens]

How large of a print can you make from a 6.3mp 10D photo (large/fine), and still have it look good?

That depends entirely on the viewing distance. You can get a great looking sharp image from a 2mp camera and put it on a billboard, and as the cars pass by they would be amazed at the sharpness and clarity. Or you can have an 11mp image and view it on screen at 400% and it will look terrible ;-)

I find though that for normal to close viewing distances, 150ppi (pixels per inch) and higher looks very good. The farther away you get, the lower the resolution can be. A formula that may or may not be of interest:

target ppi = 3500 / viewing distance in inches

If you had an 11x14 made from a 10D for example, it would print at 186 ppi. It could be viewed from 19 inches away and look great.

If that image were blown up to 6 ppi, or an image 36x28 feet (still assuming the 11x4 aspect ratio here) you could view it from 48 feet away and it would look just as wonderful in its sharpness and clarity.

For critical work that will be viewed very close, I try to stick as close to 300ppi for prints as I can, so that would put it in the 8x10 and smaller arena.

[wxwax]

Or you could put it on TV at 75 dpi and get an enormous monitor. :D

Great answer Shay, that's tremendously informative.

[fish]

Good answer...my pea brain is still trying to grok it. :confused I understand the viewing distance issue, but...

A large image from my 10D is 3072 x 2048. How do I get PPI from that?

[pathfinder]

Or you could put it on TV at 75 dpi and get an enormous monitor. :D

Great answer Shay, that's tremendously informative.
How large of a print can you make from a 6.3mp 10D photo (large/fine), and still have it look good? Fish - you should be able to make nice 13 by 19 inch prints with a good inkjet printer from a D10 6 Mgpx files. I make nice 11 by 14s from cropped D10 files. Pictures taken at ISO 100 will look better than taken at 1600ISO of course.
Go to http://www.normankoren.com/ and look at the art gallery prints he has for sale that were shot with a D10 and printed on an Epson Stylus Photo 2200. The Epson 2200 prints nicer pictures for me than I ever was able to print in a darkroom with color negative material or black and white.
The picture below I can spread across my desktop of two 18 inch monitors and the image is sharp and almost grain free and almost 25 inches across.
One trick to rezzing up images in Photoshop is not to do it all at once but to record an action that enlarges your image size by 10% and repeat this several times. This seems to give better enlargements in Photoshop than rezzing up all at once. Page 68 in Kelby's book PhotShop for digital Photographers describes the technique in detail - but by enlarging the image size 10% at a time with resampling on, time after time - he does in 12 times in a row - you can create quite large images with much less degradation than you might think.
http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/1666535-M.jpg
Pathfinder

[Shay Stephens]

A large image from my 10D is 3072 x 2048. How do I get PPI from that?
No tricks to that one ;-) it all depends on how big you print it.

if you have an image 3072x2048 and you print it without cropping at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) then the image would be:
3072 / 300 = 10.24 inches
2048 / 300 = 6.82 inches

if you print it at 30x20 inches then you would wind up with a ppi of:
3072 / 30 = 102.4 ppi
2048 / 20 = 102.4 ppi

Remember that ppi, or pixels per inch is not the same thing as dpi, or dots per inch when it comes to inkjet printers. Each pixel of the image printed on an inkjet printer is made of multiple "dots". The terms ppi and dpi are used quite often interchangeably, but for accuracy when dealing with math, I like to separate their meanings.

[fish]

No tricks to that one ;-) it all depends on how big you print it.

if you have an image 3072x2048 and you print it without cropping at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) then the image would be:
3072 / 300 = 10.24 inches
2048 / 300 = 6.82 inches

if you print it at 30x20 inches then you would wind up with a ppi of:
3072 / 30 = 102.4 ppi
2048 / 20 = 102.4 ppi

Remember that ppi, or pixels per inch is not the same thing as dpi, or dots per inch when it comes to inkjet printers. Each pixel of the image printed on an inkjet printer is made of multiple "dots". The terms ppi and dpi are used quite often interchangeably, but for accuracy when dealing with math, I like to separate their meanings.
Excellent. Got it. Thanks Shay. :thumb

[Mike Werner]

You can also bring it to a commercial service (Fuji spring to mind) that can print out almost any size. They use photographic process, ie, the electronically photograph your pic, and then develop it/print. I've seen some amazing results.

[Andy]

i'm off on vacation and asked shay to watch my back here. of course, he answered beautifully... shay you are awesome!

i'm filing that answer away for future ref

:clap :clap :clap :clap :clap

[Baldy]

Yeah, that answer goes down as one of the best I've ever heard on the subject.

I made a point to see Star Wars Episode II in digital and was astonished that they could project it at 1920 x 1040 and have it look so good. The screen was big and your instincts tell you it's gonna look bad that big, but no.

http://www.padawansguide.com/art/episode_ii-yoda.jpg

[garymercer]

You can also bring it to a commercial service (Fuji spring to mind) that can print out almost any size. They use photographic process, ie, the electronically photograph your pic, and then develop it/print. I've seen some amazing results.

Mike,

I specialize in very large prints for clients. I've recently moved from medium format to digital and am looking for the best way to enlarge my prints to as large as 50x35 inches for frames photographic art. I've tried bicubic and genuine fractals with good success, but the quality still isn't up to my medium format enlargement standards. Can you tell me specifically who I need to contact to find out more about Fuji's commercial service for super enlargements? Thanks Gary

http://www.garymercerphoto.com

[mercphoto]

One trick to rezzing up images in Photoshop is not to do it all at once but to record an action that enlarges your image size by 10% and repeat this several times. This seems to give better enlargements in Photoshop than rezzing up all at once.

By this, you mean going into Image Size, and increasing the pixel count and the dot per inch fields, correct?

[wxwax]

:wave hi Gary, welcome aboard. If Mike doesn't see your post, try sending him a PM, if you haven't already. And please post the answer! :nod

[wxwax]

By this, you mean going into Image Size, and increasing the pixel count and the dot per inch fields, correct?
According to Kelby, do the following:

* Go to Image/Image Size
* Check Resample Image
* Change Resample image Interpolation Method to Bicubic Smoother
* In the Document Size box, change the unit of measurement to Percent.
* Type in 110
* Click OK

Kelby claims that by doing a series of 10% increases, you get a clean resized image. Obviously, you have to repeat this step many times depending on how large you want to make your image. He has a sample image in his CS book that's been enlarged from 4.75" x 4.75" up to 20" x 20", and he claims there's a negligible loss of quality.

He suggests creating an Action, so that it takes little time to do the upsizing. I've done so, and resized images for broadcast, and not noticed any degradation. I have not tried it for a large print.

[mercphoto]

Kelby claims that by doing a series of 10% increases, you get a clean resized image. Obviously, you have to repeat this step many times depending on how large you want to make your image. He has a sample image in his CS book that's been enlarged from 4.75" x 4.75" up to 20" x 20", and he claims there's a negligible loss of quality.

Thanks! Obviously, if you start from a RAW image the results will be better than if you start from a JPG. But I would imagine you could still take a JPG image and do the same thing and get favorable results. I'm thinking I'm going to risk the $$$ for two 20x30 posters, a before print and one after doubling the pixel count by repeating that method, and see what difference I see.

[Baldy]

Hi Gary,

Welcome! :D

I was reading several threads on imagingreview.com (cost $120/year to subscribe...bummer) and some photographers were comparing large prints from 4x5 cameras to 11-megapixel 1Ds, 14 and 22-megapixel medium-format back images.

The concensus was digital has four big advantages and one disadvantage. It was shaper with 14 and 22-megapixel backs, had more accurate color fidelity, less noise (smoother images) and an easier workflow.

The disadvantage is it didn't have as much range between highlight and shadow as film, particularly negative film, so they were complaining of either blown highlights or lost shadow detail in high-contrast lighting.

There was some chatter about upsizing via interpolation from lower-res images and the concensus was nothing beats original pixels.

One thing I very frequently see photographers do is upsize to something like 300 dpi, not knowing that large format printers are frequently in the range of 200 dpi, so you upsize and the lab downsizes, losing fidelity.

Here's more about that: http://www.smugmug.com/help/print-quality

Thanks,
Baldy

[mercphoto]

There was some chatter about upsizing via interpolation from lower-res images and the concensus was nothing beats original pixels.

One thing I very frequently see photographers do is upsize to something like 300 dpi, not knowing that large format printers are frequently in the range of 200 dpi, so you upsize and the lab downsizes, losing fidelity.

Makes perfect sense. Upsizing create pixels by "guessing". The models that perform the guess might be pretty good, though, but its still a guess. It would seem if you want to go through the trouble of guessing new pixels, determine the dpi of the target printer and make your new image match that exactly. That way the printer isn't re-sampling your re-sampled image yet again.

[pathfinder]

According to Kelby, do the following:

* Go to Image/Image Size
* Check Resample Image
* Change Resample image Interpolation Method to Bicubic Smoother
* In the Document Size box, change the unit of measurement to Percent.
* Type in 110
* Click OK

Kelby claims that by doing a series of 10% increases, you get a clean resized image. Obviously, you have to repeat this step many times depending on how large you want to make your image. He has a sample image in his CS book that's been enlarged from 4.75" x 4.75" up to 20" x 20", and he claims there's a negligible loss of quality.

He suggests creating an Action, so that it takes little time to do the upsizing. I've done so, and resized images for broadcast, and not noticed any degradation. I have not tried it for a large print.
I have used Kelby's incremental repeated 10% enlargement ACTION in PS for some time and it works well for substantial poster size enlargements - but there are artists now who recommend NOT using it in PS, but using Bicubic Smoother and increasing the size all at once and the resolution to that needed by the printer - for images to be 50 inches I doubt you need any more than 200dpi and probably could get by with 150dpi for prints that large unless they are going to be inspected at a 1 foot distance.

[pathfinder]

Thanks! Obviously, if you start from a RAW image the results will be better than if you start from a JPG. But I would imagine you could still take a JPG image and do the same thing and get favorable results. I'm thinking I'm going to risk the $$$ for two 20x30 posters, a before print and one after doubling the pixel count by repeating that method, and see what difference I see.

You would not have to print them to see - just enlarge them and look at them in the PROOF view in PS - right?

[pathfinder]

Mike,

I specialize in very large prints for clients. I've recently moved from medium format to digital and am looking for the best way to enlarge my prints to as large as 50x35 inches for frames photographic art. I've tried bicubic and genuine fractals with good success, but the quality still isn't up to my medium format enlargement standards. Can you tell me specifically who I need to contact to find out more about Fuji's commercial service for super enlargements? Thanks Gary

http://www.garymercerphoto.com (http://www.garymercerphoto.com/)Welcome aboard Gary -- Interesting topic large scale enlargement -


I looked at the portion of the yellow flower of the 53 inch image on your smugmug site, and the there is a yellow band next to the petals of the flower - is this due to camera movement or chromatic aberration or errors in upsizing or what?

My images have been limited to 19 inches due to my printer, but I will try looking at some images in the proof view in PS and see what they might look like printed at 3 x 5 feet. Interesting discussion.

[mercphoto]

You would not have to print them to see - just enlarge them and look at them in the PROOF view in PS - right?

Yes, but I'm strange, I like to see paper. :) For example, I love the concept of the electronic book, but I find I always gravitate back to a real book for serious reading. And if I want to really see a photo, I print it.

[pathfinder]

Yes, but I'm strange, I like to see paper. :) For example, I love the concept of the electronic book, but I find I always gravitate back to a real book for serious reading. And if I want to really see a photo, I print it. I agree that electronic books are not ergonomically satisfying like real paper at all - altho the ability of ebooks to allow links and sorts and digital manipulation real time would be intriguing.

I have a project that I am interested in and need a suggestion. I want to print my own books consisting of 5 x7 or 8x12 images on the right hand side of a landscape oriented paper that is bound down the left side to open like a book. I am interested in a service or something that does the binding and front and back covers. Have you heard of anything like this?

[mercphoto]

I have a project that I am interested in and need a suggestion. I want to print my own books consisting of 5 x7 or 8x12 images on the right hand side of a landscape oriented paper that is bound down the left side to open like a book. I am interested in a service or something that does the binding and front and back covers. Have you heard of anything like this?

Its easy to find places that will spiral or comb bind in this manner. Think Kinkos, Office Max, etc. You should be able to find a local vendor that can do a more traditional binding, either paper or hard cover. I would scan the local yellow pages for book binding. Or look for a "real" print place (one that does offset printing, not just photocopying). Also, ask Kinkos, they might know who in town does the things that they cannot. Ask the Chamber of Commerce, or a local university.

A quick google came across this: http://www.trixiepixgraphics.com/books/book_binding.html
That was only the first hit, I'm not endorsing them, just pointing you a direction. I searched for "book binding service".

[pathfinder]

Its easy to find places that will spiral or comb bind in this manner. Think Kinkos, Office Max, etc. You should be able to find a local vendor that can do a more traditional binding, either paper or hard cover. I would scan the local yellow pages for book binding. Or look for a "real" print place (one that does offset printing, not just photocopying). Also, ask Kinkos, they might know who in town does the things that they cannot. Ask the Chamber of Commerce, or a local university.

A quick google came across this: http://www.trixiepixgraphics.com/books/book_binding.html
That was only the first hit, I'm not endorsing them, just pointing you a direction. I searched for "book binding service".
Duh, that was too easy and too obvious.:huh I guess I was looking for more difficulty - Thanks for pointing my in the right direction even if it is in the yellow pages Hah!! Too funny:wink

[PerezDesignGroup]

I agree that electronic books are not ergonomically satisfying like real paper at all - altho the ability of ebooks to allow links and sorts and digital manipulation real time would be intriguing.

I have a project that I am interested in and need a suggestion. I want to print my own books consisting of 5 x7 or 8x12 images on the right hand side of a landscape oriented paper that is bound down the left side to open like a book. I am interested in a service or something that does the binding and front and back covers. Have you heard of anything like this?
this forum postmay be of help...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/122037

[pathfinder]

this forum postmay be of help...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/122037
Thank you for your suggestions- seems like there are a number of people who are interested in making their own Photo type books Cool!

[digismile]

Here's another site that I've been looking at for albums ...

http://www.albumsinc.com/products/ztra.php

Regards,
Brad

[Baldy]

My daughter wanted a photo book to display at her open house after her wedding. We made one through mypublisher and one from Shutterfly.

It took awhile to figure out mypublisher's software but it was pretty powerful because you could put multiple photos of different sizes on a page, whereas with Shutterfly you only got one per page.

Shutterfly's was about twice the cost and the cover was really nice. There's a window cut in the cover to see part of the 1st page photo, which looked better in our opinion than having a cover photo glued to the outside like mypublisher did.

I thought Shutterfly's printing was pretty good, but my daughter puckered when she saw it and said, "Dad, they're so yellow! Can't you see that? I look like I have jaundice." So she took the mypublisher book to the reception and wouldn't let anyone see the book from Shutterfly.

I thought it was yellow, but not that yellow. :huh

[landrum]

Try contacting White Glove First Edition Books at http://www.wgbooks.com/

I don't have pricing information, but I know they have a beautiful product.

Laurie

[Baldy]

Try contacting White Glove First Edition Books at http://www.wgbooks.com/

I don't have pricing information, but I know they have a beautiful product.

LaurieWow, nice find. I'm gonna order one from them and try it. Their site certainly makes them look good.

[gneufeld]

This not totally related to the above. How do I reduce the size of my image to post it without losing image quality for viewing? 150k or 800 max one side. It seems to be a trial and error method in photoshop and in digital photo pro. Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks, Glenn

[arroyoshark]

Photoshop>file>save for web

change image size to 640 x 480 pixels, apply; then select jpeg quality to give you the needed file size; then save.

[gneufeld]

Photoshop>file>save for web

change image size to 640 x 480 pixels, apply; then select jpeg quality to give you the needed file size; then save.

Thanks, got it.

[ScottMcLeod]

You can also bring it to a commercial service (Fuji spring to mind) that can print out almost any size. They use photographic process, ie, the electronically photograph your pic, and then develop it/print. I've seen some amazing results.

Fuji Frontier systems use an optical printing system which emulates ~600dpi quality, from a 300dpi file.

[com3]

This not totally related to the above. How do I reduce the size of my image to post it without losing image quality for viewing? 150k or 800 max one side. It seems to be a trial and error method in photoshop and in digital photo pro. Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks, Glenn


i do that so frequently that i've reassigned my F1 key to "save for web."

i must say, this thread is AWESOME! thanks for all the great info, guys!

[Bob&Glennie]

No tricks to that one ;-) it all depends on how big you print it.

if you have an image 3072x2048 and you print it without cropping at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) then the image would be:
3072 / 300 = 10.24 inches
2048 / 300 = 6.82 inches

if you print it at 30x20 inches then you would wind up with a ppi of:
3072 / 30 = 102.4 ppi
2048 / 20 = 102.4 ppi

Remember that ppi, or pixels per inch is not the same thing as dpi, or dots per inch when it comes to inkjet printers. Each pixel of the image printed on an inkjet printer is made of multiple "dots". The terms ppi and dpi are used quite often interchangeably, but for accuracy when dealing with math, I like to separate their meanings.

The Terminology for dpi is taken from the printing industry and indicates the number of lines per inch, vertical and horizontal, that an offset press can print and still keep the resulting dot structure open. Most good presses are capable of 200-250 dpi. When you see a poster in a bus stop Or your favorite photog magazine, for example, it is likely that it was printed on an offset press at 200-250 dpi. Even a good sharp 4 color halftone at 150 dpi looks good. An Inkjet, on the other hand, can print a much smaller dot size and so it can print more of those small dots to the inch than the offset process. Your ink jet is not looking at your native file resolution but rather it takes the available pixel count and and breaks it down into much smaller dot sizes. That means that a native file which is simply upsized by reducing the pixel count to as low as 150 ppi should print well on a good ink jet.

Now I have a question for Mr. Stephens if he's still with this thread. What does a fellow with a D70 or any decent 6mp camera do with a publication that demands that you submit an 11x17 inch spread at 300dpi. How can this poor guy (or anyone short of a full frame camera) do that without interpolating up to an excess and resulting in loss of sharpness and "blockiness"?

Thanks
Bob

[ziggy53]

...

Now I have a question for Mr. Stephens if he's still with this thread. What does a fellow with a D70 or any decent 6mp camera do with a publication that demands that you submit an 11x17 inch spread at 300dpi. How can this poor guy (or anyone short of a full frame camera) do that without interpolating up to an excess and resulting in loss of sharpness and "blockiness"?

Thanks
Bob

Bob,

I bet you already have a clue to your own answer. The short answer is that interpolation, by itself, does not increase actual detail. If the requirements are "11x17 inch spread at 300dpi", then you need an imager capable of that native resolution.

Of course, depending on the publication and the nature of "your" image, the publishers might be more flexible for true, once-in-a-lifetime type images.

If a full two-page spread in one of the leading publications is your goal, I suggest you need to invest in equipment that publication deems worthy of the process.

The least expensive method is film based and then drum scan, at least from an initial purchase perspective. Ultimately processing and scanning fees will drive you broke, but there is something truly special about a good large format view camera, a great set of lenses and transparency film.

[Bob&Glennie]

Bob,

I bet you already have a clue to your own answer. The short answer is that interpolation, by itself, does not increase actual detail. If the requirements are "11x17 inch spread at 300dpi", then you need an imager capable of that native resolution.

Of course, depending on the publication and the nature of "your" image, the publishers might be more flexible for true, once-in-a-lifetime type images.

If a full two-page spread in one of the leading publications is your goal, I suggest you need to invest in equipment that publication deems worthy of the process.

The least expensive method is film based and then drum scan, at least from an initial purchase perspective. Ultimately processing and scanning fees will drive you broke, but there is something truly special about a good large format view camera, a great set of lenses and transparency film.




Hi Ziggy, actually you are right; I do have a clue to my own answer. I just wanted to see what solutions someone else might come up with.

The senario I mentioned here is not my problem, but a hypethetical one based on a photo contest run by a Canadian photo mag. I have 8,000,000 wonderful pixels on a Full Frame Transfer nMos CCD and even that would not have met the requirements had I chosen to enter the contest. As it was, I was so digusted with the ridiculous requirements that virtually guaranteed that nobody except the "Pro's" could enter that I declined to even try.

Thanks
Bob

[pathfinder]

Does it say that these need to me native, original pixels?


11 x 300 = 3300
17 x 300 = 5100

3300 x 5100 = 16,830,000 Pixels

This means that even a 1DsMkll with 4992 x 3328 pixels = 16,613,376 pixels cannot submit a file large enough... :scratch And yet, numerous pro photographers routinely create 24 x 36 in lustrous prints from this camera that rival 2 1/4 sq inch film cameras. (The 2 1/4 film market is dying due to digital photography, and these are not 2 1/4 digital film backs that are killing film, but 35mm and APS sensored DSLRs.)



I would just uprez with Genuine Fractals, or Blow Up or any of the other uprzzing programs available if it were me.:dunno

I have many images printed at 16 x 20 inches on an Epson 4000 inkjet printer that put doublepage offset printed magazine spreads into the ditch.

[pathfinder]

Fuji Frontier systems use an optical printing system which emulates ~600dpi quality, from a 300dpi file.


The file should be 300 Pixels per Inch - that willl easily print at 1400 dots per inc on on Epson wide bed printer like the Epson 4800, or several others. But for prints not viewed closer than 2 or 3 feet, they can be easily be printed at 200 pixels per inch.

[Phyxius]

I understand what Bob was asking about the 300 dpi for submission to publications. Most of the magazines that've printed my pictures have asked for 300 dpi files.

I think it's silly to rezz up to 300 dpi creating a 30 MB file which I then have to resize down and send.

So, what's the "easier" way to get a 300 dpi file sent to them? Most e-mails won't take attachments over 10MB.

:dunno

[ziggy53]

I understand what Bob was asking about the 300 dpi for submission to publications. Most of the magazines that've printed my pictures have asked for 300 dpi files.

I think it's silly to rezz up to 300 dpi creating a 30 MB file which I then have to resize down and send.

So, what's the "easier" way to get a 300 dpi file sent to them? Most e-mails won't take attachments over 10MB.

:dunno

The "easiest" of all is to post the file on a site like SmugMug.com, and then provide a link to the photo so that they can download from the site.

Each publication and/or contest has its own set of rules for submissions. You really have to research "their" preferences and methodology prior to any submissions.