Printing bird photos

[BobGilbody]

I have next to no experience of printing photographs. I found this on the net https://www.picture-this.com/resources/fileSize.php

My guess is that most prints will be viewed from a distance of 300mm to 3m.

What size of print make sense? Does it make sense to have an image larger than life size?

[Manfred M]

The rule of thumb is that the viewing distance of a print should be no closer than the diagonal of the print, but that will never stop people from pixel peeping. When I sit on national photo competition juries, the judges are required to view the images from a distance between 2 and 3 diagonals; too close is not good but neither is being too far away.

Print size will be dictated by how much you are willing to spend on the photograph; the largest print of one of my images was around 3m x 8m / 10 ft x 26 ft (it was a panorama and printed at 150 dpi, so the resolution remained good). I've done a number of .9m x 1.2m / 3ft x 4ft and slightly smaller prints recently as well, using third party printers. Smaller sizes I do at home with my Epson P800 which can go 431mm / 17" wide and as long as I want as I do use roll papers. These were all shot with my 36MP Nikon D810 full-frame camera, so hardly the most up-to-date technology. Prints need a lot more post-processing than digital images; the dynamic range of papers are much lower than our computer screens.

I find the link you have attached 100% useless as it really seems to be targeting the advertising market, where poster sized prints to billboard sized prints are being produced. Graphic design can often get away with lower resolution as the idea is for people in motion (walking or driving by). Photographs are different (hopefully) as people should be spending more time looking at them.

Size is what you want to do; many of my prints of still life work at 2x or more than life size. Landscapes are much smaller than life size (the largest prints I have done are landscapes). The important element is that the images are believable and sharp enough. A large fuzzy print will not impress anyone, but I have seen plenty of those, even from high end photographers. If the image can be made super-sharp, you can go large. A slightly soft image will be much more effective if it is smaller.

Prints have to be displayed in some manner, so don't forget about matting and framing them. A high quality framing job will be the most expensive part of the final product. You can save money by buying pre-manufactured frames and mat boards. A good rule of thumb is that the frame needs to be at least one size larger than the print; and A4 print needs to be framed in a A3 frame or even better an A2 frame.

A lot of printers want images submitted as 8-bit JPEG images using the sRGB colour space; depending on the image that can be very problematic, especially if the image has a lot of saturated colours.

I hope this all makes sense to you...

[BobGilbody]

Thanks for the reply Manfred. I could understand it other than this bit:

"A lot of printers want images submitted as 8-bit JPEG images using the sRGB colour space; depending on the image that can be very problematic, especially if the image has a lot of saturated colours."


The photographs I would want to print are mostly taken with a Canon R7 and 20Meg or slightly more. Is 300dpi the maximum that it is practicable to print or is it possible to go higher?

I was thinking that the maximum size print I would do is 20x16 inch. A local printer advertises that they do high quality prints. This is their web site https://www.photopro.com.au/

It says they do GICLÉE prints. Can you comment on this please.

Just spoke to the guy on the phone and he quoted Aus. $80 per print giclee, bit less if I do a few of them.

[Manfred M]

Thanks for the reply Manfred. I could understand it other than this bit:

"A lot of printers want images submitted as 8-bit JPEG images using the sRGB colour space; depending on the image that can be very problematic, especially if the image has a lot of saturated colours."

The sRGB colour space is viewed as a narrow-gamut colour space. Modern photo inkjet printers are Adobe RGB capable and even can reproduce colours well into the ProPhoto RGB colour space, so sRGB is generally not what high quality photographers look for in a printer. If your image is 100% contained in the sRGB colour space (soft proofing helps a lot here), you will be okay, but I tend to stay away from printers that tell me which colour profiles and bit depth to use.

The problem with 8-bit can be an issue with saturated colours. If you have a bird in flight image with a dominant sky, you can end up with artifacts in the conversion and in the print.

The photographs I would want to print are mostly taken with a Canon R7 and 20Meg or slightly more. Is 300dpi the maximum that it is practicable to print or is it possible to go higher?

The dpi is dictated by the print head design. Most chromogenic printers (also called C-Prints) tend to be 300 dpi. These are just modern versions of the old colour papers used in the film days that are digitally exposed. Life span of these papers is NOT archival. Kodak makes these papers so when I see their name on the website, it suggests that is their default process.

Canon and HP ink jet printers are 300dpi and Epson printers are 360 dpi. Frankly, the math I've seen suggests that 270 dpi is the limit of what the human visual system can resolve, so I would not worry about the dpi too much. I've seen some print makers put high quality print mode and suggest 600 / 720 dpi and they use some software tricks to achieve this, but I cannot see the difference between the two processes (and I have tried them).

I was thinking that the maximum size print I would do is 20x16 inch. A local printer advertises that they do high quality prints. This is their web site https://www.photopro.com.au/

It says they do GICLÉE prints. Can you comment on this please.

Just spoke to the guy on the phone and he quoted Aus. $80 per print giclee, bit less if I do a few of them.

Giclée is "marketing speak" from the early days of photo quality ink jet printers. In those days, most ink jet printers were quite low quality and the view was people would not pay reasonable prices for ink jet prints. That terminology is a couple of decades out of date and is often a danger sign when you see print makers advertise this process. These are pigment ink jet prints and on the right paper, these can be archival quality prints. There are also dye based photo printers, but they are not used to make archival quality prints.

I can't tell you how my prices compare to yours; I just paid $AUS 88 for a 24" x 29" pigment print on Canon Pro Luster paper (I will not use that paper again, too flimsy) and paid $AUS 110 for a 24" x 36" print on Canson Baryta Photographique II paper (a decent high grade paper). The price sounds reasonable, but perhaps leaning to a tad high, but I don't know the quality of paper that they are quoting, but I suspect these are on lower end papers. They don't tell you which papers they use on the website, unfortunately.

I print up to 17" wide on my Epson P800 and only go to outside sources when I need wider prints.

Ask them which papers they use (and have quoted you) and ask if they will supply you with the ICC profile so that you can soft proof your work before turning it over to them.


I hope that this helps / makes sense.

[BobGilbody]

Thanks Manfred. Appreciate you taking the time to help me with this. I was thinking of giving prints as Christmas presents so I have time to check things out. I will check out the printers in Brisbane. Once I have the photos and am happy with a printer I will ask your opinion on what to do next.
I might put a couple of prints into the art exhibition held at the school where my eldest daughter works. It is in mid September. Still lots of time.

Thanks again.

[BobGilbody]

Hello Manfred,
I found this place in Brisbane. https://www.prolab.com.au/ It seems ok. I'm not too sure about all the options.
The prices seem reasonable.

A lot of the prints I would do of birds would be quite small.

Bob

[DanK]

I'll add a few suggestions.

First, simply ignore the dpi setting. As Manfred said, this is just the native resolution of the print head. Modern software will upsize or downsize your image as needed to fit the native print resolution of the printer.

Second, and related to the first, you don't need anything close to as many pixels as there will be dots in the print. Again, one reason is the software increasing the resolution to match the native print resolution. I have hanging on my wall an 11 x 19 inch print (28 x 48 cm) printed from an 8 MP crop from a 12 MP sensor. That print was in a gallery for over a year, and one visitor told me it was his favorite of the 14 prints I had there. If I look closely, standing very close, I can tell that it's not quite the quality of some prints I have made from higher-resolution files, but the number of people other than me who have noticed this seems to be zero. Your R7 is higher resolution than all but one of the cameras I have ever used, so forget about resolution. You have plenty.

Third, with respect to size: it's different when you are preparing for an exhibit than when you are hanging at home or giving photos away. In homes, people rarely stand a given distance from the print. (An exception is hallways.) What matters more, in my experience, is how they are hung. Several small photos in a large space can be fine, whereas a single small print in a large space often doesn't look good. One friend of mine is a very accomplished artist (pastels for the most part), and her walls are a mix of all sorts of sizes. I've given away a lot of prints, both framed and unframed, in various sizes. People put them where they like them, given the size.

That said, I can tell you my own preferences for hanging photos in my own home. I use mostly 8 x 10, 11 x 14, and 13 x 19. (That's the size of the stock; the actual photo is often smaller because of cropping.) Once framed, a 13 x 19 print is quite large, say roughly 19 x 25 inches. I have a few 17 x 22, but only for very large spaces. When I exhibit, which I don't do often, my default is 13 x 19, but I've been in a few exhibits where print size was limited to 11 x 14. I've exhibited 17 x 22 only a few times.

Re color space and ICC profiles: I use labs very infrequently, but in my limited experience, all but the high quality ones want sRGB files to keep their workflow simple. Some accept Adobe RGB as well, which is a better option if they offer it. However, this only helps if you are shooting in raw or shooting JPEGs in Adobe RGB. If you start with sRGB, there is no point in providing an Adobe RGB file. I've had poor luck requesting ICC profiles. One lab I used offered a single profile, which I assume was for their default paper, not a different ICC profile for each paper. Another, which I've used for books, stopped offering any ICC profile at all. But ask.

One final consideration: for my own use, I usually let the image determine the aspect ratio. Standard frame dimensions are completely arbitrary conventions, and they don't always fit the image well. However, sometimes it's worth compromising and cropping to fit a standard size. I have a bunch of frames for 8 x 10 and 11 x 14 prints, so for hanging on my own walls, I often crop to fit them. If you are giving unframed prints away, using a standard size and aspect ratio makes it easier and cheaper for the recipient to frame them. For example, people often want 8 x 10 prints of photos of kids, which they put into 8 x 10 frames with no mat border. You can buy decent 8 x 10 faux-nickel (plastic) frames from Amazon for US$ 13. A disassembled metal frame for a 13 x 19 print with mat around it can run more than 10 times that.

Dan

[BobGilbody]

Thanks Dank.
It seems I have plenty of room for cropping and still have enough left for a descent print.

Bob

[Manfred M]

One area that often goes wrong for first time printers or people that print rarely is that their prints come out far too dark.

Most people work with their computer screens turned up far too bright and work in a lit up too brightly. Ideally the screen should be set in the 80 - 120 cd/sq m range and the work room should have subdued lighting (below 70 lux for sure and even better below 30 lux at the workstation). Before you go ahead and make large prints, get a small print done (5"x7" or so) to make sure that the print density is appropriate.

As prints are viewed under reflected light, the place you need to "read" the output is in a place where the light levels are the same as where they will be displayed.

In an ideal world, your computer screen will be at least 100% sRGB compliant (check the spec sheet of the screen), otherwise it is safe to assume it is not. Dan and I both work with calibrated and profiled screens to maximize colour fidelity. Your commercial print maker does this with their own equipment.

[BobGilbody]

Thanks for all the help. I might visit the people in Brisbane. The number of prints I would do does not justify buying a printer and learning how to use it.
One last question:
Other than providing the ability to crop images what is the benefit of high MP camera bodies? [ I have a Canon 5Ds and R7 at present ]

[DanK]

Other than providing the ability to crop images what is the benefit of high MP camera bodies? [ I have a Canon 5Ds and R7 at present ]

IMHO, unless you are either printing very large, cropping substantially, or doing some types of macro photography, there is no advantage to high-resolution cameras. I just splurged on a new camera: a Canon R6 mark II, which is only 24 megapixels. Because i do print large and sometimes crop substantially, I would have preferred around 30 MPX, which is what my old 5D Mark IV was, but the fact is that apart from macro work, I don't think I'll ever notice the difference. I considered the R5, which is 45 MPX, but I decided that it isn't worth the extra cost, and I'd rather have the better AF of the R6 II.

I'll remind you of the example above: I got a very nice 11 x 19 print from an 8 MPX (after cropping) file.

You might find this old post from Smugmug about minimum file sizes helpful: https://www.smugmughelp.com/en/artic...s-for-printing.

The bottom line in my opinion is that for most people and most uses, the R7 is more than adequate.

[BobGilbody]

Thanks Dan.
I expect to get more into macro work over the coming years. I'm also feeling more confident now about cropping. Recently I tested a Sigma 150-600 C with 2x extender on the R7. The following is an image I got:

Rainbow 13 05 23 -4776-DeNoiseAI-standard by Bob Gilbody, on Flickr

26 MB 300 DPI 24 bit f22 1/80 sec. ISO 3200

I used a monopod and denoised the image using Topaz Denoise AI

I'm happy with the R7 for what I do.

Bob

[DanK]

Nice image.

If you get into macro, the R7 is an excellent camera for field macro (bugs, etc.)--better than the R6 II I bought. The reason is that for very close up photos of bugs and the like, higher pixel density helps. This is one of the rare cases where more resolution helps. Suppose you are taking a shot of an 8mm bug at maximum magnification, which is 1:1 with most macro lenses. the image on the sensor will be 8mm long, regardless of the sensor size. So, your R7 will have many more pixels on the bug than my R6, which has fewer pixels spread over a much larger area. So, when you crop down to 8 mm, you will have much more detail than I will.

This doesn't matter so much with big bugs, but with little ones, it can. And some are very little. I couldn't measure this native bee, but my guess is that it was only about 5 mm long.

[Manfred M]

Thanks for all the help. I might visit the people in Brisbane. The number of prints I would do does not justify buying a printer and learning how to use it.
One last question:
Other than providing the ability to crop images what is the benefit of high MP camera bodies? [ I have a Canon 5Ds and R7 at present ]

Making very large prints is the main reason.

I have a project that I'm looking at later on this year where I will be making a couple of prints that will be 44" x 60" (about 16,000 x 22,000 pixels). The largest sensor camera I can easily get hold of would be 11648×8736 pixels (Fujifilm GFX 100s), so upsampling should give me a very crisp result. If someone in town gets the Epson 20000 printer (that goes to 64" on the smallest dimension) I might go with a single 64" x 88" print instead. I'm not sure how I would get that to the gallery yet.

[BobGilbody]

Hello Dan,
I have an old Sinar that I have used for macro. I can attach a Canon body to the Sinar but as yet have to use the 'Sinar' Lenses. Recently I experimented with the R7 using its focus stacking option. In order to do that with the Sinar I need to use Canon lens and need to establish electrical connection between the camera and the lens. Still trying to figure out how to that.

Bob

[BobGilbody]

Hello Manfred,
I just had a chat with the man at ProLab in Brisbane. He was very helpful. He suggested I start off using satin lustre or smooth pearl type paper. He rekons sRGB should give good colours, but that I can discuss that after seeing a few prints.
The prices seem reasonable and I can do everything by internet and postal service, so I'm all set.
Thanks for the help. Hope all goes well with your 'very' big print.

Bob