6, 10, 18 MP. How big can you blow up a pic with any of these resolutions ??

[gødspeed]

For ultra high-end commercial shoots, a medium-format digital camera (~40MP, typically) might be desirable. But that's for when something needs to look tack sharp on a 7'x4' poster, and even so is arguably overkill for all but the highest end applications.

In reality, a 5Dmk2's 21MP 35mm sensor is more than adequate for any reasonable enlargement at the professional level, for reasons already mentioned several times in this thread.

Same with 18MP, but on an ASP-C sensor (e.g Canon 550D, 7D), it's actually suboptimal; fitting so many pixels on a smaller sensor means that each pixel gets proportionately less light. This can be remediated by tweaking ISO / shutter speed / f-stop ratios, made possible by using a better lens, but it is a limitation to be aware of.

I don't have much experience printing from lower resolutions, so I can't really comment on that. I'm inclined to think that 10mp is sufficient for semi-pro to lower-end pro prints up to 24", and 6mp up to 16". A well lit and well composed picture should look fine at those enlargements, although a trained eye could probably tell that it was shot at a lower resolution.

 

[Ruahrc]

The problem I had with Genuine Fractals is that it is most effective at extreme upsizing. But, if you're upsizing to those extremes (400%+), the quality is going to suffer regardless because you can only interpolate in so much extra data. At smaller enlargements, alternatives like Lanzcos3 upsizing or even just Photoshop's bicubic upsizing are virtually indistinguishable from GF. Personally I would not upsize anything beyond 150, maybe 200% anyways because of the decrease in image quality.

Ruahrc

 

[TheStrudel]

I have found that my 10 MP D80 makes satisfactory (at least to other people) 24x36" prints, and have done larger-than life prints for viewing from a distance that were also well-received (though certainly not intended to be fine art).

It is, as everybody has said, all about perspective. I find that they're very marginal in terms of my standards, but most other people, who aren't trained photographically (or have worse vision than I do) think they look great.

Printing technique matters too.

As others have stated, Fractals and similar software can make a difference. Shooting RAW helps.

 

[El Cabong]

Lots of good discussion. In case anyone cares at this point, Thom Hogan wrote an article addressing this a while back: http://www.bythom.com/printsizes.htm

Obviously not definitive, but worth a look, at least.

 

[maeman]

Same with 18MP, but on an ASP-C sensor (e.g Canon 550D, 7D), it's actually suboptimal; fitting so many pixels on a smaller sensor means that each pixel gets proportionately less light. This can be remediated by tweaking ISO / shutter speed / f-stop ratios, made possible by using a better lens, but it is a limitation to be aware of.

Technology also increases the per-pixel light capture to help make up for the potential loss in light-gathering that comes with higher-density sensors. The 7D seems to have equal, if not better (with the resolution downsizing advantage taken into account) high-ISO capabilities than the D300s.

 

[OreoCookie]

Its funny that sharpness and resolution are usually discussed in such subjective ways. Some say it is unimportant, even when vast fortunes have been spent trying to achieve sharpness perfection. Others say "nobody complained" about their photos. Some merely say to step back and look at it that way.

I think you have misunderstood something: it's not about sharpness and resolution, to me the first thing is artistic expression. If you're content with that, getting other things right is the gravy.

Choosing a print size and a material to print on to me is intimately connected to the photo itself: it's an extension of taking the picture. And of course, it depends on the quality of the RAW (sic!) material.

If someone shoots in medium or large format, that photographer typically aims for something very different than, say, someone who uses a Leica rangefinder and does available light photography. In the latter case, grain and also `lack of sharpness' can be an artistic asset.

So, at least I haven't said `sharpness is not important,' but that the most important thing in a picture is the idea of the picture, the lighting and the composition rather than things like `sharpness' (whatever that exactly is in your mind). Things may be different if you're a commercial photographer, though.

 

[compuwar]

Its funny that sharpness and resolution are usually discussed in such subjective ways. Some say it is unimportant, even when vast fortunes have been spent trying to achieve sharpness perfection. Others say "nobody complained" about their photos. Some merely say to step back and look at it that way.

A lot depends on usage and venue though- and truthfully, there's more subjectiveness than objectivitiy when it comes to an image looking pleasing with or without sharpness and detail- a silhouetted tree in the evening light against a blazing sunset is going to look pretty good without a bunch of detail, but an intricate bead pattern on a native costume in some remote corner of the world is going to shine with sharpness and high resolution. All images don't need the same amount, and while you could probably quantify it, it's much easier to qualify it.

If I'm hanging it on my wall, the requirements are less stringent than if it's going into a gallery next to someone who's obsessive about IQ- because while the image makes the sale, the IQ must be in the same ballpark or your image won't look "worth" the price of a similarly priced item.

Everyone should try to go see some contact prints someday. They are pretty rare and really need to be seen in person rather than on a monitor. You can also see them in publications catering to large format photographers (if those publications still exist), and in some galleries now and then.

The last ones I saw were color separations and were shockingly sharp, a whole new world to me. Vastly sharper than what most of us see today. Of course there are other advantages in big film, tonality and all sorts of things I am not an expert in, but they certainly are visible.

After that, while I like some of my photos, they all seem pretty tame in comparison. Maybe I need to get an 11X14 view camera and some porters...

Making contact prints is pretty easy- and you can do it at 4x5 and up- though 8x10 and up shine. I've done it at 4x5 and 5x7 both in B&W and Ilfochrome. Frankly though, if you're going as small as 11x14 in a print, the detail from any 4x5 or larger negative/positive is going to give you enough to gaze at endlessly if the image has sufficient detail in the subject, even enlarged.

Paul

 

[ecvphotography]

I was looking through the postings but couldn't find the answer. What is the biggest photo that I can print taken with a 16 megapixel camera

 

[Prodo123]

I was looking through the postings but couldn't find the answer. What is the biggest photo that I can print taken with a 16 megapixel camera

It depends on the distance.
If you're shooting magazine or any close-viewing material, 300ppi is your limit. Then 16"x10" is your limit.
Find your photo's resolution. Divide the values by the ppi value. A 5184x3456 photo at 300ppi would give you a roughly 18"x12" spread.

Your maximum size all depends on the viewing distance. Since your eye's resolution drops as the material is further away, you can get away with lesser resolutions. For example, you'll view a gallery spread further away than a magazine, so you can get away with a lower ppi and a bigger spread. As mentioned by previous posts, 200ppi is ok-good for gallery purposes. You can get away with lower if your photos are good enough.

Billboards are viewed from very far away; I can spot and read one a football field away. These things can get away with photos as low-resolution as 6MP because the human eye cannot distinguish pixels at those distances.

If push comes to shove, you can use an enlargement software, which has specifically designed algorithms to preserve image quality while upscaling.

 

[snberk103]

I was looking through the postings but couldn't find the answer. What is the biggest photo that I can print taken with a 16 megapixel camera

You must have skimmed through the postings....because the answer is - it depends. The many factors, which are discussed in (sometimes) mind-numbing detail, can be found in this thread. There is no 'easy' answer, unfortunately. So - go back and read away. There is some really good advice here. Yes they sometimes it may seem it's contradictory, but that's because different circumstances mean different answers.

 

[-hh]

Genuine Fractals http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=7

Never used but it might be quite good. Anyone here have experience with it?

I've used an older copy with good results.

The problem I had with Genuine Fractals is that it is most effective at extreme upsizing. But, if you're upsizing to those extremes (400%+), the quality is going to suffer regardless because you can only interpolate in so much extra data. At smaller enlargements, alternatives like Lanzcos3 upsizing or even just Photoshop's bicubic upsizing are virtually indistinguishable from GF. Personally I would not upsize anything beyond 150, maybe 200% anyways because of the decrease in image quality.

Ruahrc

Good observation. What my application was was an 8MP image from a Canon 20D that I 'Fractal-ized' up to be around 25MP, which was then used for a "Quality Assurances Test" print off of one of our big HP printers at work, resulting in an image around 24" x 36". It was on matte paper (not glossy), but it did look good and got a lot of positive comments ... however, from a very pedantic and critical examination, if one got close and examined it, it definitely was pixelated...I don't recall the exact numbers, but with the original 8MP image being 3504 x 2336, the (before fractal) "original data" was at only 100dpi or so...


In related news, I later took some of these same 8MP images and had 12"x18" color glossies printed - they looked quite good. Unfortunately, I can't recall if I bumped the resolution up using Genuine Fractals or Photoshop; I suspect I might have done so to 'force' it to be a 300dpi print.

-hh

 

[wilfbraun]

18 mp to picture size

what size of picture (resolutions) can I print from 18 mp and how do calculate this ratio?
thank
Wilf

----------

I forgot: I'm planning to buy a canon 60D and like scenic photography