|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
How big can I print with a 20mpx camera?
Hi there, I was wondering how big I can print with my 20mpx camera. My settings are set to 300dpi, sRGB colour space, calibrated screen. What should I answer when the people I photograph ask me? I do not have a printer and do not want to be involved in printing at all.. Jan 02 13 05:25 am Link MaL kap wrote: Print size calculator Jan 02 13 05:32 am Link I get a pretty good 20" x 30" image on an A1 print from my 5D2 using a 35mm/1.4L at its better apertures. You have to up the resolution to 300 ppi x how many inches you want the print to be. Quality of the pixels matters as much as the quantity. Jan 02 13 05:44 am Link MaL kap wrote: That depends mostly on what you and/or your clients expect. Jan 02 13 05:44 am Link Ive gotten good results printing 20"x30"/24"x36" on an 8MP camera and on my 21MP I do 40"x60"/44"x66" with great results too. It depends on viewing distance and media. Textured art media and canvas generally work better then glossy photographic papers as the image resolution goes down. I generally use this as a guide. 300-400dpi 8"x12 and smaller - 200dpi for 12x18 then 100-180dpi for anything larger Jan 02 13 08:38 am Link There are other factors to consider besides the raw MP count. Lens selection and technique really come into play when printing large. As others have said, I have also made exhibition quality prints up to 40" on the long side from cameras using roughly half the resolution that you are working with (12mp), but it took some work. The larger the print, the more the flaws in the photograph get magnified. An image that seems sharp at 8x10, even though critical sharpness wasn't actually achieved, will fall apart at 20x30. First, make sure to use a very sharp lens with lots of resolving power. Second, use a strong, heavy tripod that can be weighted down. Third, if you can (this depends on subject matter) use the mirror lockup function. Fourth, always use a cable release. If you do all of this, and you make sure to achieve critical focus, you will be able to print very large. Now, having said all of this, not all images need to be tack sharp, nor should they be. Many aren't designed to be. Some of my favorite photographs are not sharp - they're in focus, but not razor sharp. So a lot also depends on what the subject matter is. But as far as plain numbers go, I'm working with a 22mp digital back right now and the quality coming out of this back is simply stunning (leaf). I have no doubt I could print 50x60 beautifully from it, without worry, assuming good technique. I'm considering moving up to the 33mp back, but honestly the 22 is fantastic. Of course, all things being equal, I'd prefer 40mp back, but that's a bit out of my price range right now and, honestly, based on the quality I'm getting from the 22, I don't need it. Jan 02 13 09:09 am Link I like using one of these just for a general idea. Obviously there are variables and "what ifs" but these are good guideline. http://www.owlsweb.info/ce/past/bestsho … lchart.pdf Edit: I just noticed this one was from 2006 and only goes up to 16mp lol. You get the idea though...there are newer ones...just Google. Jan 02 13 09:13 am Link Paramour Productions wrote: Only if you hold the print touching the end of your nose. Normally the bigger the print the greater the viewing distance, so after a certain amount the pixel count is irrelevant. Jan 02 13 10:12 am Link WMcK wrote: Well, there is a middle ground where it's subjective. I'm talking about gallery prints. In my experience as an exhibiting artist as well as art patron, most will view at both a "normal viewing distance" as well as "get close." What does "get close" mean? Depends on the viewer, but many I observe viewing prints get within a foot to really examine the detail. Again though, it depends on what you're shooting. No one would do that for a portrait, but if you're shooting highly detailed landscapes, they very well might. Jan 02 13 11:20 am Link thank you for answering, what do you mean by cable release? Let me note that I shoot in the studio mainly moving subjects and I have a bit of problem with the focus. I get a curtain over 1/125 so i have to shoot this way, on a tripod of course.. Jan 02 13 11:22 am Link MaL kap wrote: If you are using strobes synced to the camera (typical studio stuff), the effective shutter speed is the duration of the flash from the strobe. Also, tack-sharp images aren't needed for all expressions of creativity. Of course, not all art-buyers realize that! Jan 02 13 11:45 am Link MaL kap wrote: you can print a billboard. Jan 02 13 11:53 am Link I've printed and sold (or rather sold then printed) my sports images on A0 canvasses which equates to: The A0 size print measures 84.1 x 118.4cm, or 33.11 x 46.61 inches. Jan 02 13 11:59 am Link Mark Laubenheimer wrote: But only if you've taken a picture of a billboard. Jan 02 13 11:59 am Link MaL kap wrote: cable release plugs into the shutter so you can click without touching the camera. This is what they look like: Jan 02 13 12:05 pm Link Mark Laubenheimer wrote: Bingo! Jan 02 13 12:06 pm Link Drew Smith Photography wrote: Thank you. And so it goes with God. Jan 02 13 12:12 pm Link Mark Laubenheimer wrote: This Jan 02 13 12:20 pm Link Michael DBA Expressions wrote: I have tried every method available (up until about three years ago) for uprezzing images. After working with Duggal, in NYC, I have concluded, as they have, that the best way to uprez is using Perfect Resize (it was called Genuine Fractals when I did the evaluation) by OnOne. Jan 02 13 12:24 pm Link Quality of the file is more important but you can print a 20mpx at A3+ easily and A2 with some degradation depending on how good the original file is. A1> is going to have some artifacts if viewed close up. Jan 02 13 12:25 pm Link MaL kap wrote: Cable release is a tool for the camera that you don't see often now. It is a cable that was used to take the pictures without you having to touch the shutter release. I have one sitting around here somewhere for my 4x5 camera. More popular on the film cameras. One of my cameras have a remote control that work on two of my cameras. That's a modern shutter release cable. Minus the cable. More like a television remote. Jan 02 13 12:34 pm Link Legacys 7 wrote: I'm old before my time. LMAO! I have quite a few different cable releases for all my cameras. My DSLR uses one - although it is electronic. I do, amusingly enough, have a remote (as well as a cable release) for my RZ67 ProIID. Jan 02 13 12:39 pm Link Ok thank you for answering. Pixel quality is the most important I guess.. Getting it right from the beginning.. Jan 02 13 02:05 pm Link I have 20x30s printed from my 15mp camera all the time. Remember it isn't necessarily the quality of the photo put the printer used. I have used 190ppi-300ppi and the photos come out just as well from the printer I use. For my 8x10 and smaller stuff I always use 280ppi-300ppi but with the bigger stuff you have a little wiggle room because people will not be right up on the print. Same idea as a billboard, they are like 120-200 I think, but because no one views the, from 10' it is ok... Just my experience. Jan 02 13 02:17 pm Link Thomas Sellberg wrote: Yeah. Get too close to your big TV (flat screens) and the image looks like crap. Sit back 10 feet or so and it looks awesome. Jan 02 13 02:21 pm Link KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote: This Jan 02 13 02:25 pm Link MaL kap wrote: Most printers nowadays have a color rendition that is superior to sRGB, so RGB colorspace for print output would be more adequate. Jan 02 13 02:29 pm Link He says he doesn't want to be involved in the actual printing. Therefore, one of the high quality commercial printing services such as BlueCubeImaging will help him achieve photo quality enlargements. If his camera (he doesn't tell us what he's using) will do RAW, he should be shooting in RAW. Having a 21 MPxl camera and shooting only 5MB JPEG's is sort of like taking a shower while wearing a raincoat. Also, there is a program originally called "Genuine Fractals" that is now integrated into a program called "Perfect Resize 7.5" that allows enlargements up to 1000% with amazing sharpness and clarity. Jan 02 13 03:33 pm Link we've printed our 5D MK II files at 16x24 no problem. i'm guessing the files would continue to look good much larger. you don't always need a full 300ppi to have it be acceptable especially if it's something meant to be viewed at a distance. if you're wondering about it do some tests and see what happens. people used to make large prints long before we had 20MP cameras. i remember when i started the cameras were at 5-6 MP. and as others have mentioned there are uprezzing utilities available. Jan 02 13 03:38 pm Link My comment assumes that you're shooting digital from a pro/semi pro dslr from a major player (manufacturer) built within the last 8 years or so. You asked a great question. Unfortunately absolutely no one can give you an answer because people like to use adjectives to describe what they think is adequate, "good", "great" or "crummy" or an "awesome" print. ... all of that tells you absolutely nothing. People should use numbers not words to describe bad, good, or great prints. If I tell you that I printed a 20x30 that was AWESOME!!... what does that tell you? Nothing is what. If I tell you that I can print a 20x30 straight from the camera or straight from a 300 ppi file, then that tells you a better story of what quality to expect. *** YOU *** have to establish your own mental standard *** FIRST*** and only then will you be armed with a realistic idea of how much resolution you need to obtain whatever print size that you're going for. I wanted a camera that would print at least 20x30 at what I considered stellar quality. I was told that 16mp was more than enough. When I compared the then 16mp Canon prints to 39mp medium format prints- I was more than just disappointed and quickly learned that (for me), anything less than 40mp for large prints would be a waste of my time and money. 1. take one of YOUR own photographs on disk, thumb drive, etc, to your local print shop, and have them show you the difference in a print from a 100 to 300 ppi file. This is the nitty-gritty of it all. This is the part where you'll learn that one person's opinion of an "awesome" print, will look like rats to another photographer. 2. Do the math. Use 300 ppi as your guide until you get an idea of how much ink you can pull back, and or until you get experience with a particular printer/manufacturer being used to make your prints (Epson 9600, etc..) 300 is a great number to start from because it cuts through the BS really fast: If I'm using a 4mp camera (Nikon D2hs) with a 2,464 × 1,632 sensor. Then I divide both sides by 300. That yields an 8 (inch) x 5 (inch) print. Let's do the reverse; say I figured out that for my purposes, less than a 250 ppi file equated to a crummy large print. How many megapixels or how much sensor "Ooomph!" do I need to generate a 20 x 30 print? Let's see: 20 x 250 ppi = 5000 and 30 x 250 ppi = 7500 so a 5000x7500 sensor will fit the need. That equates to not shooting with anything less than (say) a Nikon D800 with a 7,360 × 4,912 sensor. Once you consider how ink droplets are being smooshed across the paper during the making of a print, it, and other considerations (such as substrates) often give a bit of wiggle room. What about my 21mp, 5d2? 5,616 × 3,744 pixels a) / each side by 300 and you get a 19 x 12 inch print b) / each side by 250 and you get a 22 x 14 inch print c) / each side by 200 and you get a 28 x 18 inch print. This is what I encourage you to do. Make your own chart. Once you do, you know immediately what type of camera will or will not stand up to your large print needs. Remember this is a basic guideline. Once you know basically what a 250ppi print looks like, then you can do your own interpretation of what's bad, good, and great. I know from experience that an 8x10 inch print from a professional 4mp camera (Nikon D2hs) doesn't look as nice as an 8x10 from a 12mp camera (Nikon D2x, D300, etc.) let alone one from a 21mp camera (Canon 5d2). I also know from experience that a 20 x 30 from a 16mp Canon 1ds2 is noticeably fuzzier when compared to a 39mp medium format digital back. No comparison. Billboards: Why o' why do people continue to mention billboards of all things. Yes, you can print a bill board with my 4mp Nikon. So what? When people pass by a billboard do they care about image quality? No, they only care whether or not you're offering a product cheaper than the next guy. No one on this planet cares what a freaking billboard looks like. A 3 year old can draw it with a Crayon for all I care- If you're advertising a good product (that I want or need) then I'm going to bite no matter what your silly billboard looks like. However (39mp vs. 16mp) - a 20 x 30 print of a bride and groom cutting cake (studio print) or a 20 x 30 portrait of a child viewed from 3 ft. away... do not look the same. period. All the talk about viewing distance gets ridiculous really fast. When people sit in front of me looking at samples, those from a 6mp camera at 1-2 ft. viewing distance do not look as well as those from a 21mp camera at the same distance. Now, think about all I've said above... then think about whether or not you have to crop (which sucks up your image quality like an elephant drinking water if you don't reduce the size of the print respectively). Now you can see how at a distance (shooting a water skier from boat) + judicious cropping, makes an 80mp camera sound less crazy once you do the math. Don't be fooled: 1. even the difference between 18 and 21mp means a useable amount of cropping room. 2. The difference between 16 and 12mp (Nikon) is very noticeable, especially in macro work. 3. What often sounds like a lot of resolution, usually isn't (50, 60 and 80mp) and if you're sincerely into large portrait-type-prints (what I consider 20 x 30 and larger), then life * starts * at 40mp. My opinion of course. Do this: Go to a local portrait studio that's using a Canon 5d2, 7D, Nikon D2x, D4, etc.. and view their samples of 20x30 'ish size prints. Then rent a 40mp MF camera and have them take a portrait under the same lighting with it. View the resulting print... I won't even have to say "I told you so..."  I'm only mentioning MF (medium format) because I'm making a point about resolution, as opposed to how better MF is over the common dslr which is a moot point for any professional photographer who has used both. 4. YES! Do use the old 300dpi print standard for your figuring (300ppi) because it quickly tells you (based on your own personal/professional definition of "quality") whether or not you're dealing with cake or crumb! 5. Today ppi and dpi are often used interchangeably. They don't mean the same thing, but for figuring out a quality print, using "300" as a baseline- the semantics isn't worth babbling over. Once you get used to figuring things using "300", you'll find that such a print standard today for most applications, is a bit absurd. Experience will be your guide in such cases... whether or not you can, or how much you can uprez a file, depending on what substrate, ink, RIP you're using, etc... Best of the new year to everyone!  Jan 02 13 03:57 pm Link There are tons of billboards printed with source files from 12mp bodies... people forget that billboards are meant to be viewed at great distances...nobody goes right up close. Jan 02 13 03:57 pm Link Paramour Productions wrote: When looking at my own prints or those of others I get inches away with my reading glasses on looking for defects, details and the general print quality. Then I step back to the to see the entire image. But the close up inspection is alway there unless the image just doesn't make me care. Jan 02 13 03:58 pm Link printed pretty good at 8x4 feet so far with 21 ... Jan 02 13 03:59 pm Link o k u t a k e wrote: So, do you suggest that I should uprez my pics - if they are to be printed on large prints? Jan 02 13 04:03 pm Link i've shot billboards at 4mp.  Jan 02 13 04:04 pm Link I've printed a few 5mp files at 20x30. It depends on subject matter and viewing distance, really. Assuming the picture is sharp to begin with, too. Jan 02 13 04:06 pm Link MaL kap wrote: I'd say, as big as you want. If you print something 10 feet tall, nobody's going to expect to see microscopic details. The bigger the print, the further away the viewer will be to see it, so a 20mpx camera should be able to produce a good print at any size. Jan 02 13 04:06 pm Link S W I N S K E Y wrote: that's pro Jan 02 13 04:07 pm Link MaL kap wrote: You can't adequately answer them before you have a mental baseline of what quality you'd be generating on whatever print substrate they want. You have far more latitude with "quality" when printing on canvas compared to photo matte. Jan 02 13 04:11 pm Link Yes, I m sorry, I use the Canon 6d wth a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS, I 'm mostly interested in image sizes not larger than A1, but need to be sure they are perfectly clear when looking up close. I shoot in the studio. Maybe I will start upsizing then.. What size should I aim for? Jan 02 13 04:14 pm Link |
