Which one should I get printed?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Buschmaster, Dec 7, 2006.

  1. Buschmaster macrumors 65816

    Buschmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #1
    So, I'm going to be getting a few pictures ordered from mpix as Christmas gifts and figured why not treat myself? I want to get a somewhat big print of one of my pictures for myself. Here are the ones I have it narrowed down to:
    http://www.nickelback-forum.com/images/frets/

    I can give you guys any type (B&W, Sepia, Color) of any of those shots if you'd like a comparison, just let me know and I'll upload it!

    Also, as far as these pictures looking good big... They were taken with my Cybershot DSC-W50, and you can see the resolution and everything through the link. Do you guys think I would be able to print a 10x20, 16x24, etc. with these pics? What size would be ideal? I don't want to pay money to have it printed if it won't look nice. I may speak directly with mpix about this as well. Thanks!
     
  2. Buschmaster thread starter macrumors 65816

    Buschmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #2
    Well, I talked to the mpix support and they helped me decide from the technical side of things... I have a 16x24 on it's way of this picture:
    ttp://www.nickelback-forum.com/images/frets/fully.jpg

    Warning: It's friggin' giant.


    I am so excited! Also, it's coming with two 8x10's. I'll let you guys know about the service and everything!
     
  3. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #3
    Yeah, I would have chosen that one as well. :)

    I'm thinking about getting one of my photos printed on canvas. I don't know if there's any benefit of printing on canvas other than that you can probably get nice great looking LARGE prints at 200-250 ppi because of the texture of the canvas (only a guess). Not sure about getting prints on traditional colour paper with my 6 MP Nikon D50.
     
  4. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #4
    As would have I. and now after xmas it'll be my wallpaper! hope you don't mind!
     
  5. Buschmaster thread starter macrumors 65816

    Buschmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #5
    Awesome. :) My mom got 11x14's of each of myself and my siblings on canvas of our senior pictures. They look pretty nice, but they were darn spendy for us to get from the people who took them.

    Abstract, why do I get the idea you're not far from me? Well, actually, I get the feeling you're from somewhere around here, or Canada...:confused:

    Mind? That's awesome! If you want me to crop it at certain dimensions for you, let me know!:)
     
  6. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #6
    Why do you say that? I mean, if you ignore the fact that I'm from Toronto, what gives it away. Is it because I spell "colour" instead of "color"?

    Anyway, I'm in Oz for uni, which is why my photos will look a bit more like "summer" than yours for the next few months. :p

    (Erm....other than during my 3 week trip to Japan)
     
  7. Buschmaster thread starter macrumors 65816

    Buschmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #7
    I'm not really quite sure... I'm from Minnesota so Canada isn't far off, so I guess I was right... twice? I don't really know.

    Japan for 3 weeks? I'm sure we will see plenty of pictures from that! :) And if we don't... I'll beat you up.
     
  8. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #8
    The D50 does just fine. Don't think "MP". That's a marketing number what matters is the number of pixels across the long edge. On the D50 that is 3000. So if you want 300DPI you can go to 10 inches wide. for best results you want to do 300dpi if the viewing distance is arm's length but for a larger print you may look at it from 3 or more feet away and can go to 250 or 200 DPI. At 200 DPI you can go up to 15 inches wide.

    You cam experiment for cheap if you print crops to 4x6 size. Print a 1200x800 file to 4x6 and see what 200 DPI looks like. It will cost you like 25 cents to find out.

    But you know what? Even a 12MP camera is not much better. Given the same DPI limits a 12MP camera allows only 41% larger prints. Thats 14 inches rather than 10 inches at 300DPI. My 70's vintage F2 can make good 20" prints if I'm careful.

    Lately I've been scanning some of my old film. I've got a collection of 35mm and medium format. You can't believe the details on a 6x7 cm Fuji velvia. I've got enough pixels in those scans for three foot wide prints at 300DPI. Digital has a long ways to go to catch up with film
     
  9. xrays macrumors member

    xrays

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #9
    If your original image is of good quality, you should be able to go quite large with your prints. I have already made up a number of 16x20" prints from my 8MP 20D photos, most of which were original JPGs and now RAW files. At that size, I can't see any pixelization without putting my face inches from the print. To make things even better, I've framed them behind glass ($20 for IKEA frames is a steal and a great way to increase viewing pleasure), which makes the images look very impressive.

    I did try a couple of prints at 20x30, and I was able to spot the JPG artifacts instantly, so I won't be printing that large again unless my source is a composite of more than 2-3 images (i.e. panoramics).

    My suggestion for 6MP cameras is to not exceed 16x20, and only go to that size if your source is very sharp, or very artistic in nature (i.e. after applying PSHP effects or something).

    As for the original post in this thread, I was going to print up a few 16x20's of similar material for my studio. I'm almost finished building my own Fender Telecaster Deluxe copy, and here's a few snaps of details (I'm a macro buff, so I tend to get in close)... But I also have a few ful-body shots of other guitars I've built, all of which will adorn the walls of my mixed-media studio eventually.

    x.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #10
    ^^No, I would never get a 20x30 print from my 6 MP camera, regardless of how sharp the original photo is. ;)

    And in your 1st photo, the focus is in a weird place in the photo.

    Yeah I realize that, but if I get it printed on typical photo paper, it would be best to print at 300 ppi, and the largest I can do is around 10 inches, like you said. I just meant that if I ever wanted a larger print (say 16"x20") that still looks great at that size, I would do it on canvas (not photo paper) because I could probably get away with 200 DPI on a surface like canvas.

    Anyway, I won't buy another DSLR unless it is more than 12 MP. That would be a minimum requirement. I'm looking for 16 MP, though.

    And I have a general question about prints. Why do people want 16"x20" prints when the dimensions have such an odd ratio? Why not 10"x15" or similar? A 16" x 20" photo would cut out a lot of the original photo, no? I've never tried doing a print at such a ratio. I tend to go for photos with proportions at a 1.6 ratio.

    And I may as well contribute a guitar photo of some sort. ;)
     

    Attached Files:

  11. Buschmaster thread starter macrumors 65816

    Buschmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #11
    While you are right about losing a lot of the original, you may WANT to lose those parts. There are pictures that I crop in iPhoto with no intention of printing, but if I did, it would be something like a 16x20. And what is a 16x20 but a bigger 8x10? ;) 8x10's are very popular, at least around my house.
     
  12. xrays macrumors member

    xrays

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #12
    The only reason I resort to 16x20 instead of something closer to the frame ratio of my camera (1:1.5) is because it's a standardized print size, and store-bought frames are easily found for that size. I picked up a few basic frames at IKEA for $20 each, and they fit 16x20 perfectly... Of course, if I had taller photos, I could just as easily cut back the matte, but it's hard to add matte on the short side :)

    I don't know when/where all the different print sizes were created, but here's a rundown of the more common sizes found today with traditional and digital printing and their relative aspect ratios:

    3.5" x 5" -> 1:1.4 (approx.)
    4" x 6" -> 1:1.5
    5" x 7" -> 1:1.4
    8" x 10" -> 1:1.25
    11" x 14" -> 1:1.3 (approx.)
    16" x 20" -> 1:1.25
    20" x 30" -> 1:1.5

    As you can see, there's a lot of variation in aspect ratios among the most common print sizes. I wonder if it was simply because of different aspect cameras over the years and the sizes of prints that were generally commissioned from each one?

    Regardless, if you want to work with standard frames and prints, you have to either crop your image slightly or make do with a different size that better suits the actual frame size of the original.

    I'd say that the biggest problem in print sizes comes when you're trying to reproduce panoramic images, as there's no real set standard for these frame sizes, and even harder to find printing services that will handle the ultra-wide images. I ended up placing two such panoramics on one frame and printing it at 20"x30" and then simply slicing the printed picture in half, but I have yet to frame them. And at 10"x30" print size, I'd still like to see a larger format for such panoramics, something in the order of 12"x48", which would be spectacular for a printed panoramic hanging framed behind a couch or on a brick wall.

    x.
     

Share This Page