MaL kap wrote:
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?

A1 would equate to 23 x 33 inches.  You mention that you want the work to look "perfectly clear when looking up close"...  no, absolutely not.  I would not use a Canon 6d (regardless of the lens or location) to generate a crisp looking A1 print.

In my opinion and going by my standards, it is just physically impossible to uprez such a file and get the result that I'd want from the 6d.

Can you make a "nice" A1 print?  Yes.

Can you make an excellent quality A1 print with only 20mp?  I say no, but only you can decide after you print that size and view the results.  The only opinion that counts is your own, and that of your client(s).   Be very leery of uprezzing files.  There's a reason why many stock agencies don't like it; often the results look great to the photographer, but to others it looks like a "soft" or "fuzzy" mess, as uprezzing is often over done.

MaL kap wrote:
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..

If someone asks you then you ask them "how big do you want" - you're good for any normal sized wall prints a residential client would ask for, and I wouldn't sweat for anything under 35 inches on the long side which is what A1 would be.

Remember, you're not selling these to other photographers who'd want to view it at an inch with a loupe.



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

JJMiller wrote:
Yeah, obviously optics/lighting are a factor, but I would say for "common" viewing even 100dpi is passable, 200 dpi is more than enough. I see a wide range of resolutions every day (we have a printer that can print 600+ dpi) and believe me, 100dpi is passable to 99% of viewers. I generally work at 200 dpi myself. As long as the pixels don't become blatant (around 80 dpi) there is nothing to worry about. It really depends on the audience. Trust me on this

  I want to say this is a photographic process I am talking about, which seems to be quite forgiving due to the nature of light hitting a chemically photosensitive surface. Plus we use a decent pro rendering app.

  You are saying "uprezzing," but that is not really the true meaning. To Up-res a file would be to take a small file, say 80x100, then using photoshop to scale it to 2400x3000 and think it's ok to print at 8"x10".

20MP is a pretty huge pixel size, you can max out most photo printers.

1.  yes, it (like everything) depends on the audience- but the OP gave an account of the image quality he/she was in search of, and straight from the camera cell phones are already substandard if ultimate image quality is a qualifier.  likewise, a Canon 6D is already huffing and puffing at A1 if high quality is your pursuit.  I'll put it this way-  if A1 size files were presented to stock photography enterprises (including micro stock), from a Canon 6D, I'm pretty sure most of those files would be rejected on the spot.

2.  I scan nearly daily at 600dpi, there's a big difference between 600, 300 and 200 dpi.  Just like there's a difference in using a 300, 240, 150 ppi file, and trying to print A1.

3.  uprez, upsize, up-the-bigness-of-the-photograph...  whatever you want to call taking a 5472 x 3648 size sensor and coaxing enough "quality" from it in order to print A1  (23 x 33 inches).  I can already see the loss of detail from here! 

JJMiller wrote:
This "up-resing" conversation has little to do with actual printing, unless you are trying to cheat as I've mentioned before. Take the camera's max resolution, divide both sides by 100, and that is the absolute minimum you want to print at (I recommend even testing at this size). All I can say is try out my advice- it's cheaper than buying new gear.

Once you've gained experience printing- it simply comes down to what your personal/professional limits are.  I don't stitch, I don't like uprezing, upsizing, etc... unless there's no other option (to include equipment).  There's only so much you can get out of a file, just like there's only so much you can get out of a jet turbine or engine from a motorcar.

What's ultimately acceptable comes down to the end user and his/her client.

MaL kap wrote:
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..

20 mp can print poster size prints and bigger. When 12 mp was the largest dslr during the Canon and Kodak f.f. years that was a lot. And still is enough to make very large clear prints.

JJMiller wrote:
"I scan nearly daily at 600dpi, there's a big difference between 600, 300 and 200 dpi"

Not at one size, an 8x10 at each of those resolutions would look the same to the naked eye. But whatever, if the OP wants to PM me I will discuss this in more detail.

Yes, at one size.  No different than the various outputs of a dot matrix printer. Whether it be text or photo content, the difference in the quality of the scan is evident.  If I scan an 8x10 photograph or page of text at 600 dpi, it does not look like a scan at 300 dpi of the same size.  Obviously the more resolution you have (camera or scanner) the larger you can re-size the file before it falls apart, however, when you read blogs, and posts about a 300 dpi scan being more than good enough, you really have to consider the source.

The difference in a 600 dpi text scan vs. a 300 dpi scan can be the difference between OCR being accurate or not when dealing with very fine/small print (some medical/pharmacology books).  The difference is obvious whether I view the resulting scan on a 27" Mac, iPad or notebook computer or 8.5 x 11inch print.

If I photograph you with a 4mp camera, and photograph you with a 12mp camera, and print both files at 8x10- the 12mp print looks better all else being equal (iso, lighting, etc.)

The difference will be very discernible (4 vs. 12mp) for 8x10 portraits to most professional portrait photographers.  The difference between 20mp and 40mp or more printed at A1 or 20x30 will also be discernible to most professional portrait photographers because the difference is well beyond being academic in nature.

Here's the real deal in the OP's situation:

1.  I would not recommend the OP purchase new equipment if printing A1 or larger isn't a common task.  Waste of money.

2.  If printing A1 or more is a common task, especially if some studio work requires the OP to shoot a bit wide and crop-to-size later... then the best *business* decision (based on capability and image/print quality) would be to upgrade the camera (D800) *if* the OP is looking for unmatched image/print quality at size A1 or larger, using a common dslr.  Another format if entry price isn't an issue and the ROI warrants the upgrade.

AJScalzitti wrote:
I am seriously LOL at some people saying you can print 20x30 ish from that.  Photographer have been making professional prints in those size for years.  You know when MDF backs were the only thing over 10MP and little 35mm bodies were only in the 6MP range.

Probably the same people who had to have the new D800 yet all their work is only ever seen online at 800-1024pix 72dpi jpg

+1

Legacys 7 wrote:
20 mp can print poster size prints and bigger. When 12 mp was the largest dslr during the Canon and Kodak f.f. years that was a lot. And still is enough to make very large clear prints.

It wasn't "a lot", it was just less pitiful for large prints.  Even in 2005, 12mp wasn't even close to being a reasonable large-print solution.  The D800 is the first common digital camera that allows for small format photographers to make compelling 20x30 or A1 prints (using 39/40mp MF as a standard)... the only solution for landscape shooters wanting more detail without spending over $10k for a medium format (MF) solution.

12mp never (and I repeat) n-e-v-e-r made "clear" poster size (20'ish x 30'ish) sized prints.  It just made a much better lackluster 20x30 which looked better than the same size print from a 6 or 8mp camera.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:

It wasn't "a lot", it was just less pitiful for large prints.  Even in 2005, 12mp wasn't even close to being a reasonable large-print solution.  The D800 is the first common digital camera that allows for small format photographers to make compelling 20x30 or A1 prints (using 39/40mp MF as a standard)... the only solution for landscape shooters wanting more detail without spending over $10k for a medium format (MF) solution.

12mp never (and I repeat) n-e-v-e-r made "clear" poster size (20'ish x 30'ish) sized prints.  It just made a much better lackluster 20x30 which looked better than the same size print from a 6 or 8mp camera.

Actually it was a lot and still is. I've seen enough prints during my school years, printing on Epson printers to know.

Legacys 7 wrote:

Actually it was a lot and still is. I've seen enough prints during my school years, printing on Epson printers to know.

Again, what's "great" depends on a particular photographer's requirement(s) and or expectations.  I was sorely disappointed in the Canon 1ds2 (16mp) for 20x30 prints after looking at commercial/art prints over the course of time looking for a large print solution-  the Canon wasn't it, and compared to what I saw being spat out of the printers from MF, I vowed not to even bother with sub-20mp camera bodies for studio/print work.

I've been using a 4mp dslr since early 2005.  I still hear people say that they've printed 20x30 with "great" results!  Which is fine for them.  4mp to make a 20x30 or even 8x10 (today) isn't fine to me.  That's not going by what I think, but rather hundreds of thousands of frames behind a low-res camera and hundreds of prints comparing 4, 6, 12, and 21mp cameras in house and those against MF bodies that we've used.  Sure, years ago we did 20x30 with a D100 (6mp) and D2x/D300/D3 (12mp) ... but they just don't compare to even our 5d2 (21mp) at that same size.

I'm not sure what you're seeing- but when I look at a 12mp 20x30 next to a 39 or 40mp shot of the subject/same size, they don't have the same quality.  But if you're getting 40mp type quality results from a 12mp camera printing  20x30 inches in real-world portrait work, then great! 

Halcyon Arts wrote:
While 300 pixels per inch of print is the gold standard.  That's not the only acceptable size.  100% on many monitors (not retina displays) is much closer to 70 or 100 pixels per inch to give a rough estimate.  Viewing distance is important.  Few people complain about a roughly 0.4 MP DVD image (granted it's moving which helps a lot) on even 30", 40" and 50" screens and almost everyone is very pleased at ~2 MP blu-ray (again motion really helps).

Yes, today the 300 ppi standard should serve as an initial guideline until a photographer has a working idea of the print equipment capabilities and considering the substrate, etc.. 

300ppi serves as a great guide from which one can meter back to find their own sweet spot (240ppi, 270ppi, etc..) and save ink in the process.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:

1.  yes, it (like everything) depends on the audience- but the OP gave an account of the image quality he/she was in search of, and straight from the camera cell phones are already substandard if ultimate image quality is a qualifier.  likewise, a Canon 6D is already huffing and puffing at A1 if high quality is your pursuit.  I'll put it this way-  if A1 size files were presented to stock photography enterprises (including micro stock), from a Canon 6D, I'm pretty sure most of those files would be rejected on the spot.

2.  I scan nearly daily at 600dpi, there's a big difference between 600, 300 and 200 dpi.  Just like there's a difference in using a 300, 240, 150 ppi file, and trying to print A1.

3.  uprez, upsize, up-the-bigness-of-the-photograph...  whatever you want to call taking a 5472 x 3648 size sensor and coaxing enough "quality" from it in order to print A1  (23 x 33 inches).  I can already see the loss of detail from here! 

So, under these conditions, which highest size do you (approximately) recommend so that I can set a limit and warn the clients?
Does the quality of work of the ''printing services'' play a huge role even on an A4 print? I have gotten really bad prints from people a gave them to ,for printing, in the past..

JJMiller wrote:
I print stuff every day- tell me the pixel dimensions of a 20MP camera and I'll tell you what size you can print at. Someone sent me a pic from an 8MP iphone that was 2400x3200, that would actually look fine to most people at 20x30. 300dpi is more of a safe standard, if you need to blow it up. An eyeball looking at 150 vs 300 can't tell the difference- and most people view big pics from a few feet away, not from a loupe!

[/quote

The think is that if it is them that the pic shows- they like to look at double the detail and really up close.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:

Again, what's "great" depends on a particular photographer's requirement(s) and or expectations.  I was sorely disappointed in the Canon 1ds2 (16mp) for 20x30 prints after looking at commercial/art prints over the course of time looking for a large print solution-  the Canon wasn't it, and compared to what I saw being spat out of the printers from MF, I vowed not to even bother with sub-20mp camera bodies for studio/print work.

I've been using a 4mp dslr since early 2005.  I still hear people say that they've printed 20x30 with "great" results!  Which is fine for them.  4mp to make a 20x30 or even 8x10 (today) isn't fine to me.  That's not going by what I think, but rather hundreds of thousands of frames behind a low-res camera and hundreds of prints comparing 4, 6, 12, and 21mp cameras in house and those against MF bodies that we've used.  Sure, years ago we did 20x30 with a D100 (6mp) and D2x/D300/D3 (12mp) ... but they just don't compare to even our 5d2 (21mp) at that same size.

I'm not sure what you're seeing- but when I look at a 12mp 20x30 next to a 39 or 40mp shot of the subject/same size, they don't have the same quality.  But if you're getting 40mp type quality results from a 12mp camera printing  20x30 inches in real-world portrait work, then great! 

Well shit, if you're comparing a 12 megapixel print to 40 megapixel print then of course it's not going to compare. But that isn't point here, nor is it the point that I'm making. Let me repeat it again to you. A 12 map f.f. print can and is enough to give you an excellent print at that size.

Going to depends on the person is right. But isn't that subjective than have to do with the quality of the print? Regarding the 6 megapixel point, that's irrelevant to me because I know that something that small is going to look bad at that size. Knowing this myself when I use to take a class on this topic some years ago. Part of my major. The class is called digital productions.

Me personally, my largest megapixel camera is over 20. 24 megapixels.

MaL kap wrote:

So, under these conditions, which highest size do you (approximately) recommend so that I can set a limit and warn the clients?
Does the quality of work of the ''printing services'' play a huge role even on an A4 print? I have gotten really bad prints from people a gave them to ,for printing, in the past..

Yes the quality at a printing service plays a factor. But so does the person who's having the print made. If you don't assign the proper icc profile, it can give you a totally different look.

Legacys 7 wrote:
Yes the quality at a printing service plays a factor. But so does the person who's having the print made. If you don't assign the proper icc profile, it can give you a totally different look.

.. what is the best icc profile to be used?

MaL kap wrote:

.. what is the best icc profile to be used?

The one required by the printer.

Legacys 7 wrote:
Well shit, if you're comparing a 12 megapixel print to 40 megapixel print then of course it's not going to compare. But that isn't point here, nor is it the point that I'm making. Let me repeat it again to you. A 12 map f.f. print can and is enough to give you an excellent print at that size.

Going to depends on the person is right. But isn't that subjective than have to do with the quality of the print? Regarding the 6 megapixel point, that's irrelevant to me because I know that something that small is going to look bad at that size. Knowing this myself when I use to take a class on this topic some years ago. Part of my major. The class is called digital productions.

Me personally, my largest megapixel camera is over 20. 24 megapixels.

I had compared 1ds2 (16mp) prints to 40mp prints and was very disappointed; in previous posts I mentioned that one can easily discern the difference between 4 and 12mp at 8x10.  One can also discern the difference between 12 and 20 at 8x10. The difference is more discernible at A1 or 20x30.

What makes 12 and 40mp relevant is because today at least one common dslr offers nearly 40mp giving those wanting to print 20x30 and larger more wiggle room than ever before at a palatable price.

You might think 12mp is "enough" for "poster" size prints, but others (like myself) will not agree with you when printing 20x30 and larger for clients.  20+ mp starts to fall apart at that size let alone 12mp.   It might look fine to *you*, but to *me* it's like using a teleconverter on a 70-200 f/2.8 lens...  it might do the trick, but it isn't an optimum solution if high quality is your pursuit.

You can ICC profile and pull out your favorite RIPS till the cows come home- but the bottom line is that you can only do so much with a finite amount of resolution, and at 20x30 12mp is a dog (comparatively speaking), and 20mp is starting to huff and puff, especially if you compare such prints to what many other professionals are outputting.

I do not own a D800 so I'm not pumping it as an owner.  I am keen to what latitude various resolutions give because I've spent a lot of time looking at the difference between 4, 12, 20+, and 40+mp work from behind the camera and resulting output from professional print bureaus.

20x30 or A1 starts to really separate the higher res from the lower res bodies regardless of RIPS, Profiles, magical upsizing, and endless print shop fiddling trying to get prints perfect, etc..

You might want to spend time fiddling in order to still have an end product inferior to that of a higher starting resolution, but just as many others do not.  If you're printing for fun, then have at it.  If you're printing and shooting to eat, then the higher resolutions give considerably more latitude across many facets of photography to include your prints.   

I agree to just disagree; you've the last word.

MaL kap wrote:

.. what is the best icc profile to be used?

Profiles are  a source to destination connection. I strongly recommend against converting to output specific profiles.

Leaving the image with it's embedded working space is always best , always except for idiotic printers that cannot respect workflow.

These would be any mass market print makers that by default expect sRGB as a default colour space.

Some labs will say if you can leave the images in source space, or it they should be converted to a specific working space before sending.

All of this has nothing to do with whether or not a 20 mpx camera can produce a good print. The print will be bad though if there is not an agreement between colour spaces or profiles, fi the colour management practices are poorly adhered to.

WMcK wrote:

The one required by the printer.

I have read that before printing- ;they; convert it in cmyk which I do not use, and I know most people do not..

MaL kap wrote:
I have read that before printing- ;they; convert it in cmyk which I do not use, and I know most people do not..

Yes, printers all print in CMYK, i.e. use CMYK inks, but many or most of them require an RGB input and do the conversion internally. They will often require a specific RGB input profile to give the required results.

Neil Snape wrote:

Profiles are  a source to destination connection. I strongly recommend against converting to output specific profiles.

Leaving the image with it's embedded working space is always best , always except for idiotic printers that cannot respect workflow.

These would be any mass market print makers that by default expect sRGB as a default colour space.

Some labs will say if you can leave the images in source space, or it they should be converted to a specific working space before sending.

All of this has nothing to do with whether or not a 20 mpx camera can produce a good print. The print will be bad though if there is not an agreement between colour spaces or profiles, fi the colour management practices are poorly adhered to.

Hi there! What colour space should I use? I use sRGB as I saw in tha Natalia Taffarel video.. Online, I have read that rgb1998 is best for printing? What do most people use? And what colour space do printing services use?

MaL kap wrote:

Hi there! What colour space should I use? I use sRGB as I saw in tha Natalia Taffarel video.. Online, I have read that rgb1998 is best for printing? What do most people use? And what colour space do printing services use?

If you shot into sRGB there is no way to recreate or add color by simply converting. If you edit images and apply curves etc then you might want to have a larger working space to fit the new expanded and created color into. Adobe RGB working space is just slightly larger in the greens and cyans than sRGB. Most modern inkjet printers can still exceed certain colors outside of even Adobe RGB.

IF you have to ask though, sRGB is likely your best bet for now until you have time to understand color policies in Photoshop or LightRoom. There should be some great tutorials on Adobe TV on this.

WMcK wrote:

Yes, printers all print in CMYK, i.e. use CMYK inks, but many or most of them require an RGB input and do the conversion internally. They will often require a specific RGB input profile to give the required results.

Simplified yes, but the Epson and HP, and Canon top end inkjets are printing in CMYKOGV, or CMYKRGB.

The conversions internally in the driver are complex.

MaL kap wrote:

So, do you suggest that I should uprez my pics - if they are to be printed on large prints?
Which way do you use? Oneone Genuine fractals (resize)?
Doesn't this destroy the info in the pic? Is it safe?

It depends on how large and at what rez your image is. I just use Photoshop to enlarge. CS6 does a good job of it and I haven't had any issues. Always save the original file so you don't have to worry about destroying the image.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
I had compared 1ds2 (16mp) prints to 40mp prints and was very disappointed; in previous posts I mentioned that one can easily discern the difference between 4 and 12mp at 8x10.  One can also discern the difference between 12 and 20 at 8x10. The difference is more discernible at A1 or 20x30.

What makes 12 and 40mp relevant is because today at least one common dslr offers nearly 40mp giving those wanting to print 20x30 and larger more wiggle room than ever before at a palatable price.

You might think 12mp is "enough" for "poster" size prints, but others (like myself) will not agree with you when printing 20x30 and larger for clients.  20+ mp starts to fall apart at that size let alone 12mp.   It might look fine to *you*, but to *me* it's like using a teleconverter on a 70-200 f/2.8 lens...  it might do the trick, but it isn't an optimum solution if high quality is your pursuit.

You can ICC profile and pull out your favorite RIPS till the cows come home- but the bottom line is that you can only do so much with a finite amount of resolution, and at 20x30 12mp is a dog (comparatively speaking), and 20mp is starting to huff and puff, especially if you compare such prints to what many other professionals are outputting.

I do not own a D800 so I'm not pumping it as an owner.  I am keen to what latitude various resolutions give because I've spent a lot of time looking at the difference between 4, 12, 20+, and 40+mp work from behind the camera and resulting output from professional print bureaus.

20x30 or A1 starts to really separate the higher res from the lower res bodies regardless of RIPS, Profiles, magical upsizing, and endless print shop fiddling trying to get prints perfect, etc..

You might want to spend time fiddling in order to still have an end product inferior to that of a higher starting resolution, but just as many others do not.  If you're printing for fun, then have at it.  If you're printing and shooting to eat, then the higher resolutions give considerably more latitude across many facets of photography to include your prints.   

I agree to just disagree; you've the last word.

I guess that I will have the last word. The o.p. asked if 20 mp can make a good large print. My answer to that question is yes. He wasn't specific on what he wanted to do with it. Nor did he asked if a medium format sensor with more megapixels is superior when it comes to printing. You added that input in there. now if the o.p. was asking that particular/specific question relating to your point, then yes, your point would be valid. But valid to a degree.

What one client will see as inferior another will see as excellent. And it will depend on what are the demands of the client(s) vs the generalizing, no client will like it. There are people that are printing nice size prints with 12 mp and up for clients in that size.

Those not agreeing with me. Never debated that point. Nor did I even debated what's good and not good for *you*. I was addressing the o.p. Like I'd said, a lot of this is subjective. No one is debating that a medium format larger megapixel print isn't better. I think that many of us know this. That said, again, a 12 mp/20 mp can make a nice print at that size. I'm very sure that many have printed that size for a paid client with those megapixels figures where they're eating good.