login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > How big can I print with a 20mpx camera? Search   Reply
first12
Artist/Painter
JJMiller
Posts: 510
Buffalo, New York, US


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!
Jan 02 13 04:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,929
Richmond, Indiana, US


I can't think of one cell phone on earth that would generate a 20x30 print that would look "fine" to me unless it was a print for industrial use or a print where image quality wasn't the main thrust of the print in the first place.  Judging from the latest iPhone and Galaxy...  20 x 30 just isn't happening for any professional standard.

"art" gives always gives leeway, but traditional portraiture printed at 20 x 30 from a 8mp cell phone today?  Forget it.  smile

Post:  You've beautiful paintings
Jan 02 13 04:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,929
Richmond, Indiana, US


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.

Jan 02 13 04:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Artist/Painter
JJMiller
Posts: 510
Buffalo, New York, US


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 wink

  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.
Jan 02 13 04:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24,078
Toulon, Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur, France


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

Jan 02 13 04:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,929
Richmond, Indiana, US


RECOMMENDATION:

Always go from higher to lower when judging what level of quality you can live with or would like to have.

It's easy for a photographer to say "Oh, I get great A1 prints from my 6mp camera" if that photographer doesn't have anything else better to compare it to.

How many photographers using 40, 50, 60, 80mp are jumping up and down to print A0, or A1 size studio portraits with a Nikon D800(36mp)?  This should tell you something, especially since the D800 is highly competent.

Rent *at least* a D800 if you can and compare it to your 6D printing both at A1. If you can rent or borrow a 40mp digital back from a local university, etc.. for a few hours, that would be even better!  Then compare.

Bottom line-  if you're going to print regularly at A1, and optimum quality is your concern, then I would highly recommend using a camera with a considerably higher resolution and uprez your files as little as possible.
Jan 02 13 04:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Artist/Painter
JJMiller
Posts: 510
Buffalo, New York, US


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.
Jan 02 13 05:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,929
Richmond, Indiana, US


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 wink

  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!  wink

Jan 02 13 05:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,929
Richmond, Indiana, US


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.

Jan 02 13 05:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Artist/Painter
JJMiller
Posts: 510
Buffalo, New York, US


"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.
Jan 02 13 06:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,788
San Francisco, California, US


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.

Jan 02 13 07:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AJ_In_Atlanta
Posts: 12,542
Atlanta, Georgia, US


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
Jan 02 13 07:45 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,929
Richmond, Indiana, US


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.

Jan 02 13 08:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
TA Craft Photography
Posts: 2,875
Bristol, England, United Kingdom


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

Jan 02 13 08:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,929
Richmond, Indiana, US


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. smile

Jan 02 13 08:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photos by Lorrin
Posts: 6,946
Eugene, Oregon, US


Some things need to be talked over with a printer.  The printer you choose.

Every printer is different.

Let them help you - it will save time and trouble.

They may want raw files, tiff, or something else.

they may have software they use to help a image -

Then give them what they want
Jan 02 13 09:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,788
San Francisco, California, US


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. smile

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

Jan 02 13 09:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Halcyon Arts
Posts: 173
Washington, District of Columbia, US


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).

If you really want to print large, aim for the biggest sensor/film size you can afford/use.  I don't think lower magnification between sensor/film and final print ever hurts.
Jan 02 13 10:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,929
Richmond, Indiana, US


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!  wink

Jan 02 13 10:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,929
Richmond, Indiana, US


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.

Jan 02 13 10:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M K
Posts: 251
Athens, Attikí, Greece


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!  wink

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..

Jan 03 13 04:50 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M K
Posts: 251
Athens, Attikí, Greece


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.
Jan 03 13 04:54 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Josh Yu Photography
Posts: 206
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


Like already mentioned, quality of the pixels is important in detail of the print. I've had my photo at about 6mp enlarged for a full length shop front of about 3m. A good quality 20mp file you can pretty much print at any size, because the bigger you print, the further someone will stand to look at it properly anyway.

Anyway, if only printing up to about A1 size, you will have no problem at all!
Jan 03 13 05:20 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,788
San Francisco, California, US


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!  wink

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.

Jan 03 13 07:26 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,788
San Francisco, California, US


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.

Jan 03 13 07:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M K
Posts: 251
Athens, Attikí, Greece


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?

Jan 03 13 08:14 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WMcK
Posts: 5,264
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom


MaL kap wrote:

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

The one required by the printer.

Jan 03 13 09:54 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,929
Richmond, Indiana, US


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.

Jan 03 13 09:56 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Neil Snape
Posts: 9,453
Paris, Île-de-France, France


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.

Jan 03 13 10:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M K
Posts: 251
Athens, Attikí, Greece


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..

Jan 03 13 11:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WMcK
Posts: 5,264
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom


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.

Jan 03 13 11:36 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M K
Posts: 251
Athens, Attikí, Greece


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?

Jan 03 13 11:40 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Neil Snape
Posts: 9,453
Paris, Île-de-France, France


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.

Jan 03 13 11:48 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Neil Snape
Posts: 9,453
Paris, Île-de-France, France


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.

Jan 03 13 11:51 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M K
Posts: 251
Athens, Attikí, Greece


Jan 03 13 12:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jon Winkleman Photo
Posts: 89
New York, New York, US


sensor megapixels aren't everything. How large you can print an image depends on other factors as well. The sensor low pass filter on that llama camera also has an effect on overall resolution.

a huge factor is the quality of lenses you use. If you use a crappy soft lens on a 33 megapixel Nikon D800E, an image might not look as nice as an image made on a 12 megapixel camera with a quality hi res lens.
In general pro-level primes have better resolution than zooms. Look for lenses that have been reviewed for exceptionally high resolution.

Shoot Raw: You have more latitude to enlarge and play with the image size in Lightroom and Photoshop along with making adjustments with a Raw image. JPEGS out of the camera have already lost a lot of info and will lose more than raw in post thereby degrading image quality and the ability to print larger. There is software and photoshop techniques to expand the raw size printability of images.

Of course technique. Tripod and remote shutter release. Fast strobes or shutter speed faster than 1/250 will create sharper images. Camera shake
Jan 03 13 12:45 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
o k u t a k e
Posts: 4,660
New York, New York, US


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.

Jan 03 13 01:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,788
San Francisco, California, US


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. wink

Jan 03 13 05:17 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
IMAGINE IT IMAGING
Posts: 10
Akron, Ohio, US


IN scanning the previous posts, I see several good points and the usual back and forth. I see people advocating resolutions down to 100 dpi, which is just above screen shot level and even lower than newsprint; therefore not acceptable for high quality prints, which seems to be the goal. I see a lot of argument about pixel size, which is valid; and lens quality, which is valid; and viewing distance, which is valid; and up sizing, which is a limited technique and requires very good craft and software to expand the print area by 400%. It is also prone to quantization errors (calculations and rounding errors by the software) creating less sharpness and color tone accuracy.

So, ALL of it is important. Kodak and the labs use numbers as low as 200 DPI to calculate the native print size of a file 2000x3000 equals a 10 x 15" printed output without up rezzing. I am more conservative using 300 dpi personally.

So much more than just the sensor is important, from capture craft (tripod, aperture,etc.) to the dynamic range w/o noise regulated by the sensor and software; to the "personal adjustments" to the file for saturation, contrast,  sharpness and the like, that no good answer can be given to such a generalized question other than "if you do everything else right, the equipment you have will produce the following, probably.."
Jan 04 13 08:25 am  Link  Quote 
first12   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers