How do quality large prints get made?

[terrib]

Everything I'm finding on the internet says that to get a good quality print, you need between 240-300ppi and that's the standard I've used so far for the limited printing that I've done. So given that my files for the 7d are a max of 5472x3648, the largest quality print I could make at 240 would be about 15x22. Given that the 7d has a comparatively high megapixel count, especially compared to cameras from several years ago, how do large prints get made that you see hanging in galleries or for sale?

This has come up because a friend wants to use one of my photos to create a 25x45 print to hang over her fireplace and it doesn't look to me like this is possible.

thanks, as always, for the expertise in this forum!

[Shadowman]

Hi Terri,

Was there any mention of viewing distances in the information you gathered? A good quality print starts with a good quality capture, you didn't state what your subject matter was, time of day it was captured, or settings used to capture the image. Al of these factors matter in order to get a good quality capture, another factor will be the amount of sharpening applied to the image.

[pnodrog]

The viewing distance from the final print needs to be taken into consideration. I have had prints done from effectively 72 DPI sourced images (printed at 300DPI) that from 3 or 4 feet away are totally acceptable. If you peer at them they are a little soft but from a distance they are fine.

A 25x45" print sourced from a 3648x5472 still has about 120DPI of image detail and scaled up properly to 300+DPI for printing should be fine. Just remember the sharpening will need to be modified and should be applied after scaling up.

[mikesan]

Terri,
One simply needs to manufacture more pixels. There are a variety of software methods to accomplish this, some better than others. One of the more common techniques is Photoshop-Image size. To produce a 25x45 print you first need to crop the image to that aspect ratio (1.8:1.0).

[rpcrowe]

This seems like an oxymoron but the larger the image, the less sharp it needs to be. That is because we will view the larger image from a greater distance.

While 8x10 inch images are usually viewed from arm's length distance, an image the size you are talking about will be viewed from several feet or more away.

Although, this image looks unsharp because of the oil painting filter that I applied, It was originally an 18 MP image from a Canon 7D. I have had no problems enlarging this image to 24x40 inches especially on canvas. At that size, up on my wall. it looks plenty sharp. This is an extreme example



When I want to enlarge an image greatly; I will enlarge the image using On1 Perfect Resize. This is the latest edition of a program that was once named Perfect Fractals. I will enter the size I want and what type of material it will be printed on. Perfect Resize will do the rest.

Do a Google Search using the search parameters "What size can I print my digital images?" There are lots of hits and some quite good information...

[Manfred M]

Teri - most software does a pretty decent job upsampling images. I print 17" x 22" prints quite often at 360 dpi (the native resolution of my Epson 3880 printer). I remember seeing a stunningly sharp 36" x 54" print done from a shot of a full frame D800.

For all intents and purposes, if you have a good and sharp image, you should not be too concerned about creating a great print. At normal viewing distances the image should look great, but pixel peepers might be able to complain about the image quality, but who cares...

[Mike Buckley]

To put Manfred's comments in perspective, the printing company I used to work for successfully made several 30" x 20" prints for display in their offices from my electronic files produced by my Nikon D80. The largest file that camera produces is 3,872 × 2,592 pixels. At 200 dpi, that's about 19" x 13". I always provided files at the proper size using no less than 200 dpi and using my own sharpening.

In fact, the printing company specialized in a very small niche of the printing business that does not include printing photographs. Even so, the photos always turned out great.

[george013]

I think there're 2 main items with printing large prints. And both are viewing distance related.
First the picture. Is the picture of that quality that it can stand the wanted magnification on the viewing distance?
Second the print. are there enough pixels in the image to print on the wanted print resolution.

I searched the internet for a table . I found this one, See it as a start. http://www.photokaboom.com/photograp...g_distance.htm

George

[Dave Humphries]

This has come up because a friend wants to use one of my photos to create a 25x45 print to hang over her fireplace and it doesn't look to me like this is possible.

The intended location implies that an element of casual pixel peeping may well occur (if the 'fireplace' is in a typical domestic household) because viewers will be able to easily approach it, indeed the furniture in the room may even preclude viewing at what we would calculate to be the ideal viewing distance for that size of print.

Just something to consider (of relevance to this occasion) that may have been overlooked.



I have a (long) question for those that print:

I rarely print and even less so large (my home max. is A4), but I've never understood the need to up size to a certain resolution (dpi) - I just take the file at whatever pixel size it is after artistic (or frame aspect fitting) cropping and print that, letting the printer driver sort it out. However, I will sharpen far more aggressively (at least doubling the amount and radius and lowering threshold, over what I'd use for on line display) for print.

Now this may be because I only print on A4 and even after cropping, I'm likely to exceed 300 dpi anyway and always be north of 200 dpi.

I have also printed low resolution sources (e.g. cell phone snaps) and after processing, I only print to a minimum of about 150 dpi., limiting print size as appropriate.

So, my question is: Is it worth up sizing and sharpening to always maintain say; 200 dpi, when a large print size is predetermined?
(rather than rely on printer driver to do it 'magic')

I think, in formulating the question, I have decided it must be, after all, I get quite animated about output sharpening for screen display after downsizing, so the reverse is probably true - up size, then sharpen is almost certainly going to be better (when "going large").

TIA, Dave
PS Apologies to Terri if this diverts the thread.

[MrB]

I rarely print and even less so large (my home max. is A4), but I've never understood the need to up size to a certain resolution (dpi) - I just take the file at whatever pixel size it is after artistic (or frame aspect fitting) cropping and print that, letting the printer driver sort it out. However, I will sharpen far more aggressively (at least doubling the amount and radius and lowering threshold, over what I'd use for on line display) for print.

Now this may be because I only print on A4 and even after cropping, I'm likely to exceed 300 dpi anyway and always be north of 200 dpi.

I have also printed low resolution sources (e.g. cell phone snaps) and after processing, I only print to a minimum of about 150 dpi., limiting print size as appropriate.

Dave, that is also my practice and experience of printing. Even modern home printers, and their attendant driver software, appear to cope well with the job of producing a good image of any size that fits on their paper from any image of any pixel dimensions.

Only yesterday I printed out a set of 6 inch prints on a sub-£100 HP inkjet printer, for a friend who sent files that were only 640x480 pixels, and they are surprisingly good - even though that equates to around only 100 PPI.

Your experience and mine would seem to imply that a printing company, using their professional grade printers and software, should have no problem in taking our high-res DSLR (etc.) images, processed by us as we want them to appear and without us needing to resize them, and return high quality large prints to us.

Cheers.
Philip

[Shadowman]

Dave,

There were two bits of information that made me feel that my gear was limited on producing large prints, my manual has a table shows largest print jpeg size based on camera pixels and mine stated for a 6000x4000 size image I could only print quality at 50.8 x 33.9/20.0 x 13.3 cm/in.) at dpi. This didn't mean I couldn't print larger just that the output would suffer. Also, most labs only accepted jpeg images. I remember once needing to upsize an image to fit the profile provided by one particular lab.

What provided me with the incentive to shoot for my goal, I wanted to create a large print of some of my work; was doing a lot of research, purchasing the text "Fine Art Printing for Photographers" by Steinmueller and Gulbins; and utilizing this little program to do test prints at home to see high large I could really go. The program requires a bit of patience on the part of the photographer, but I'll bet if you have some young one's in the house or someone with a joy of art and projects they'll be glad to assemble the final product for you.


http://posterazor.sourceforge.net/

[Donald]

Nothing to add to the responses already made to Terri's question. My summation of them and the principle to which I operate is - Print and be damned.

[Mike Buckley]

Your experience and mine would seem to imply that a printing company, using their professional grade printers and software, should have no problem in taking our high-res DSLR (etc.) images, processed by us as we want them to appear and without us needing to resize them, and return high quality large prints to us.

That's true, though of course there are limitations. Some if not all online printers' websites automatically determine the resolution of the image file and compare that with the size it is to be printed. If the resolution is too small, the website automatically informs the person attempting to place the online order that indeed the resolution is too small.

[terrib]

Thanks everyone for your responses. I had forgotten the viewing distance factor. I am trying to digest everything you've said and may very well come back with questions regarding "upsizing" that software does after I do a bit more research. It sounds like some of you don't feel upsizing is necessarily needed. Since I don't sell my photos, I'm not really interested in purchasing additional software for this purpose but I already have Photoshop CC. And I should talk to my lab to see what they do in this regard. I do realize the quality of the photo is the base from which everything else starts. I am a bit nervous about the sharpening needed. Given the cost associated with printing that size, it's not like I'm going to be able to do any testing.

Again, since I am not selling, the photos on my website vary greatly in extent of cropping so I was just trying to give her a general guideline of pixel dimensions required so she didn't choose a photo that wouldn't work. Of course most of my photos have far different aspect ratios so that will also be a factor - whether or not the ratio she desires meets my artistic ideas for a particular photo. People think its a simple matter to just get a print of your work but it is far from that!

Thanks again. Y'all have given me a lot to go on.

[george013]

Thanks everyone for your responses. I had forgotten the viewing distance factor. I am trying to digest everything you've said and may very well come back with questions regarding "upsizing" that software does after I do a bit more research. It sounds like some of you don't feel upsizing is necessarily needed. Since I don't sell my photos, I'm not really interested in purchasing additional software for this purpose but I already have Photoshop CC. And I should talk to my lab to see what they do in this regard. I do realize the quality of the photo is the base from which everything else starts. I am a bit nervous about the sharpening needed. Given the cost associated with printing that size, it's not like I'm going to be able to do any testing.

Again, since I am not selling, the photos on my website vary greatly in extent of cropping so I was just trying to give her a general guideline of pixel dimensions required so she didn't choose a photo that wouldn't work. Of course most of my photos have far different aspect ratios so that will also be a factor - whether or not the ratio she desires meets my artistic ideas for a particular photo. People think its a simple matter to just get a print of your work but it is far from that!

Thanks again. Y'all have given me a lot to go on.

I don't know what photo's you want to print but if you consider canvas too, the needed print resolution is much less then a normal print. And I think they fit better in many rooms.
George

[Manfred M]

Terri - at one point - around and before Photoshop CS4, the upsizing algorithms in that software were terrible and quality dropped of after around 30% enlargement, so software like Perfect Resize made a lot of sense. Adobe totally re-wrote their upsizing algorithm with the release of CS5, if I remember correctly, and the results are indistinguishable from what Perfect Resize does, so you no longer need to consider any external program if you have CC. I did my own testing to confirm this.

The only thing to remember is that you need to sharpen it for print output when you upsize.

[Mike Buckley]

When it comes to sharpening for ink jet printing on paper, the guideline that I use is that I increase the sharpening to the point that it just starts to look crunchy when the entire image is displayed on my 1920 x 1080 monitor. It's not a scientific method, but it has worked effectively the few times I have outsourced the printing of an image.

[chauncey]

I take a somewhat different viewpoint toward larger prints than merely upsizing...it starts at the shoot.
My technique is to take numerous images using a longer lens, a 180 macro in my case, then
photomerge the results.

[Stagecoach]

I take a somewhat different viewpoint toward larger prints than merely upsizing...it starts at the shoot.
My technique is to take numerous images using a longer lens, a 180 macro in my case, then
photomerge the results.

But don't you find that limits you somewhat in what subjects you can shoot?

[Manfred M]

When it comes to sharpening for ink jet printing on paper, the guideline that I use is that I increase the sharpening to the point that it just starts to look crunchy when the entire image is displayed on my 1920 x 1080 monitor. It's not a scientific method, but it has worked effectively the few times I have outsourced the printing of an image.

I use a similar approach, but vary the technique based on the finish of the paper I am printing on. I'll go a bit crunchy on a matte paper, I'll turn things back a bit on glossy paper and pick a mid position between these extremes on a luster paper.