Large prints

Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 20

How high of a megapixel camera should you use to get great (non-pixelated) prints of up to 20x30? Where is the best place to have prints of this size made?

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:36 am

If fine details are not important, and the viewing distance will be a few meters, then your 300D can pull it off, but only if you use interpolation software. The interpolation will take care of the jagged, pixelated appearance. It will not, of course, fill in any new information between the existing pixels; rather, it will only smooth things out for you.

If you need good detail, then I would think that a 1ds Mk2 or similar would be able to pull it off, but the mamiya ZD or hassie h2d would be the pro-level choices. But these are expensive cameras and it all depends what quality and level of detail you want. You could rent one of these if it's a one-off project for which you really need the detail.

Bear in mind that at those kinds of enlargements, you're really stepping into medium and large format film territory. If this is going to be a regular thing for you, then I would suggest you forget the $8000+ digitals and get yourself a pro level 6x7 cm medium format film camera and lenses for under $2000. With that you can confidently print poster size enlargements without sacrificing detail and without interpolation.

To see how a $2000 6x7 camera stacks up to a $5000 digital, have a look here.

:) keithwms

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

keithwms wrote:

If you need good detail, then I would think that a 1ds Mk2 or similar would be able to pull it off, but the mamiya ZD or hassie h2d would be the pro-level choices.

Keith -- I know your opinion on this matter, but the fact remains that it is NOT generally agreed upon that medium format (esp color) exceeds the capabilities of the 1Ds Mark II. You should see the viciousness of the debates on this subject on other forums. Furthermore, many professionals routinely sell 24x36 prints made from their 1Ds Mark II (and I'd bet there are many now selling them from their 5D and D2X). And if you look into it you'll find that many of these moved to these cameras from film medium format, rather than going to digital medium format.

I mean, you're a scientist, so I know you value evidence; and to the degree that we can measure the differences between MF and high end small format digitals, there is certainly no concensus that the 1Ds Mk II is inferior to MF in any practical way.

If you want to get into IR photography etc etc then you're talking about a whole different ball of wax -- I'm just referring to detail capture and ability to enlarge.

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:10 pm

Maybe we should just stipulate that reasonable people compare the 1ds to 6x7 medium format. Fine. But don't forget that we're talking about $8000 versus $2000.

Anyway our member here has a 300D. So I stand by my explanation of the need to interpolate. Look, even the 1ds or h2d or ZD images will all need to be interpolated for a poster size enlargement. And interpolation is not adding information, it is merely smoothing the transitions between pixels. So you just have to decide how much detail you want in your big enlargements. And how much you want to pay for it.

Here's a fun example of an enlargement from medium format 6x6, on the dantestella website. First the big image, taken with a normal lens.

And then the crop:

The camera that did this will run you about $1500 right now. You decide.

:) keithwms

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

I had no arguments with the capabilities of large format film or with the price differential, whose financial significance may or may not be overcome by revenue and expenditures. My point was only with respect to quality of enlargements.

The other thing is that there's a difference between the huge crop and zoom (like in the 6x6 you've shown) and making a decent size enlargment. If you made a 30x30 enlargement of that picture, it would still be hard to discern much detail in the batter, because it's such a small part of the picture. I've no doubt that if you looked very close the detail would blow away the detail from a 300D's enlargement (seeing 8x10 Ansel Adams prints from an 8x10 camera has proven that to me), but it's seldom that a picture would face that much scrutiny.

So in sum I'd say that with a good quality photograph and meticulous post-processing, one should feel comfortable making enlargements up to around 16x20 or maybe even a bit larger using a 300D. But again this requires a good photo to start (including good glass in front of the camera), good post-processing, and good interpolation, all of which may be beyond the majority of amateur photographers. I think the flaws in a picture are much more likely to show up if an enlargement is truly pushing the technical bounds of the image.

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:50 pm

By the way, this is 6x6cm medium format, not large format. This is a camera that you can fit in your jacket pocket.

:) keithwms

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:32 pm

tyexpo wrote:

How high of a megapixel camera should you use to get great (non-pixelated) prints of up to 20x30? Where is the best place to have prints of this size made?

Here's my take. You can enlarge a technically good photos as much as 200%. By "technically" good I mean sharp, low noise photos.

I was floored when I heard the likes of Greg Gorman, Jeff Schewe, Mac Holbert & Vincent Versace mention enlargements on the order of 300 to 400%

Simple math. If you shoot a 6MP camera that is, roughly, a 2000x3000 image. A 200% increase would be 6000x9000. In inches, with a 300 dpi output, that would be 20x30.

Proof is in the pudding. I've done it. I do it now. I sell them. So given I've never been called with a complaint about the quality, I'd figure they're fine.

Let's assume my clients are "not qualified". Gorman (Canon) & Versace (Nikon) had images displayed at the last Epson event I attended. They had 20x30 shots there and all were awesome viewed from 2 feet away. And trust me when I tell you, I LOOKED CLOSELY. Nobody would ever say that these are digital.....sorry. All printed on Epson stylue pros. At $2000 a pop...... those clients better get good prints.

Enlargement of digital images is not taboo....

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

keithwms wrote:

By the way, this is 6x6cm medium format, not large format.

I mistyped -- I meant to type larger format (reffering to both LF and MF), not large format per se. A fairly immaterial point for this discussion, though.

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:04 pm

luisv wrote:

Proof is in the pudding. I've done it. I do it now. I sell them. So given I've never been called with a complaint about the quality, I'd figure they're fine.

Enlargement of digital images is not taboo....

I would like to add on to this. I agree with you guys about the technical side of things, but luis here has a very important point. When it comes to actually doing it, enlarging a full size (uncropped) RAW file from a 300D for a 20X30 inch format actually gives good results. Don't spread the word, but I actually printed some 36X40 inches pictures that I took with my 300D and I LOVE them, interpolation or not. So let's not discourage amateurs such as (I assume) the person who wrote this thread. Yes, pro photographer may be very picky about the quality of their prints and their level of detail, and yes, they may even argue years about the merits of one technic to the next. But the truth is that the entry level camera in the DSLR lineup does a fine job at printing large files if handled properly, and no, it's not that complicated. So no need to buy a 20'000 dollars system if you just want to print a nice shot for your home, take a high resolution (preferably RAW) shot, print it in large format (20X30 or 36X40), and enjoy the great view that you forever froze in time during your last vacation.

Getting more details and being able to crop 15% of the shot and still print a decent 16X20 is a different thing, but it comes at a cost that some of us are not yet ready to put down...

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:13 pm

tyexpo wrote:

Where is the best place to have prints of this size made?

I have used mpix in the past and been quite pleased.

:) keithwms

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:23 pm

Viewed from a distance a large print from digital and a large print from film might look exactly the same.

Up close, the rigid pattern of the pixels is much less appealing than the random grain of the film, especially on skin tone.

I have frequently gone to 30" x 40" prints from my Hasselblad. In effect a 40" x 40" blowup since the format is square. At a close viewing distance (18"), the skin tones were still very acceptable. I've seen much smaller images from 10MP cameras that were much less acceptable.

As I said, it is not just the amount of the enlargement as much as the tin-soldier alignment of the pixels that knocks it down for me.

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:30 pm

luisv wrote:

Simple math. If you shoot a 6MP camera that is, roughly, a 2000x3000 image. A 200% increase would be 6000x9000. In inches, with a 300 dpi output, that would be 20x30.

No. If you enlarge 2000x3000 pixel image by 200% you do not get a 6000x9000 pixel image. You get a 2000x3000 pixel image with pixels that have been enlarged by 200%. And at 20x30 that would be 100 dpi output.

:) keithwms

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:54 pm

keithwms wrote:

luisv wrote:

Simple math. If you shoot a 6MP camera that is, roughly, a 2000x3000 image. A 200% increase would be 6000x9000. In inches, with a 300 dpi output, that would be 20x30.

No. If you enlarge 2000x3000 pixel image by 200% you do not get a 6000x9000 pixel image. You get a 2000x3000 pixel image with pixels that have been enlarged by 200%. And at 20x30 that would be 100 dpi output.

:) keithwms

Keith....you know what it was that I meant.

Fine. Interpolate... add pixels..... fake it..... paint it..... mimic film.... call it what ever you want.

A 2000x3000 pixel image shot from a 6MP (approximate) camera, when resampled, using the BiCubic algorithm in Photoshop CS2, to a 6000x9000 pixel image with a dpi set to 300, will print a fantastic image on my personal Epson 7800 when viewed from, approximately, two feet. In my arcane math, that's 200%.

Discalimer: The results of other photographers may vary. ;-)

Joined: 01 Feb 2004 Posts: 1814

keithwms wrote:

luisv wrote:

Simple math. If you shoot a 6MP camera that is, roughly, a 2000x3000 image. A 200% increase would be 6000x9000. In inches, with a 300 dpi output, that would be 20x30.

No. If you enlarge 2000x3000 pixel image by 200% you do not get a 6000x9000 pixel image. You get a 2000x3000 pixel image with pixels that have been enlarged by 200%. And at 20x30 that would be 100 dpi output.

:) keithwms

Not wanting to split hairs but it does create more pixels and the new pixels are not the same pixels in a larger number. I agree that no new detail is created but the print quality of an interpolated file far exceeds that of a file were the physical dimensions were increased merely by reducing the DPI of the print.

Gerhard

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:30 pm

Okay gentlemen, I just wanted to distinguish between enlargement and interpolation. Enlargement does not create more pixels, but interpolation does. (albeit not more information, but indeed it does create a far better appearance)

Alright, I have a proposal, why don't we end this amusing but circular banter and let our new member interpolate his 300D shots up to 200% and then send away for some 20x30" prints and report back to us on the results!

;) keithwms