Reading mode: Light Dark

need to print 20x30 enlargements, 8 MP enough?

Go to last post
It depends on the image. You'll take many that'll be fine at 20x30, but some won't be. I have some from my 10D that'll go to 24x36 with no problem--others from my 1DMkII I wouldn't feel comfortable pushing beyond 12x18 (don't misunderstand--I'm not saying my 10D images are better than my MkII's). If you're shooting something with lots of fine detail, you should consider stitching.

Much also depends on your (or more importantly, your customer's) definition of "reasonable quality."
Gary Hart
http://www.eloquentimages.com
FLAP said:
I am moving up from the Canon Camedia 4MP, which took this photo,to
a digital SLR this year. Will 8MP, like the Canon 20D produce a
reasonable quality 20x30 inch print?
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/383897/1/15375221/Large
Click to expand...
 
Flap,

There's no reason to expect that they won't. Depends a lot on the type printer you use, viewing distance, etc.

I've printed several 20x30's and even some 4ftx8ft prints taken with an Olympus E20 and they all look great.

Neil
 
then image you posted looks like it has a lot of fine detail. if the customer is going to hold the print in their hand, then i'd say 8Mp isn't enough. (if it were a portrait image, with more smooth tones than fine detail, then it would be.). a lot has to do with the expectations of the final customer.

jim
FLAP said:
I am moving up from the Canon Camedia 4MP, which took this photo,to
a digital SLR this year. Will 8MP, like the Canon 20D produce a
reasonable quality 20x30 inch print?
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/383897/1/15375221/Large
Click to expand...
 
What type of Images do you plan on blowing up ? We shoot portrait and sell 20x30 and even 30x40 with no problem on quality with the 10D and 20D. We also do a lot of environmental Family Portraiture and even with the 8.2 20D we find ourselves wishing we had the new 16mp flagship to capture the fine detail. guess it depends on the subject matter.
Marc
http://www.heckbertstudio.com
FLAP said:
I am moving up from the Canon Camedia 4MP, which took this photo,to
a digital SLR this year. Will 8MP, like the Canon 20D produce a
reasonable quality 20x30 inch print?
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/383897/1/15375221/Large
Click to expand...
 
digiman30,

All my photos are aerials taken from my helicopters...100 to 200 foot hover. The 20x30s will be for a golf course club house and some of their course. I don't think any of my clients have the expectation that the photos will have the detail quality of a portrait with the fine detail. Where do you have your large prints done.
Thanks
digiman30 said:
FLAP said:
I am moving up from the Canon Camedia 4MP, which took this photo,to
a digital SLR this year. Will 8MP, like the Canon 20D produce a
reasonable quality 20x30 inch print?
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/383897/1/15375221/Large
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
We use a local lab in our area. They use a CRT based system on Kodak digital papers. i have had good results from LED printers as well.
Good luck
Marc
http://www.heckbertstudio.com
FLAP said:
digiman30 said:
FLAP said:
I am moving up from the Canon Camedia 4MP, which took this photo,to
a digital SLR this year. Will 8MP, like the Canon 20D produce a
reasonable quality 20x30 inch print?
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/383897/1/15375221/Large
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
For landscape fine art work to go on walls, I would say that you are really pushing things with a 20D. I use a 1ds and personally I feel like I am pushing that to the limit all the time with these larger prints.

And forget the phrase 'It depends how close you look at it' As far as I am concerned a professionally produced print should look good real close up, not just from a foot away.
FLAP said:
I am moving up from the Canon Camedia 4MP, which took this photo,to
a digital SLR this year. Will 8MP, like the Canon 20D produce a
reasonable quality 20x30 inch print?
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/383897/1/15375221/Large
Click to expand...
 
The math would tell you that to make a 20 inch wide, by 30 inch long print you would need a lot more than 8 million pixels.

A printer (such as the Fuji Frontier) prints 300 pixels per inch. To make a 4x6 that means mathmatically you need at least a 1200px by 1800px image. Or about 2,160,000 pixels.

To make a 20 by 30 inch print you would 6000px by 9000px image. or about 54,000,000 pixels. That's a lot of pixels!

But since photoshop is pretty good about upsampling (make sure you crop your image to 20 x 30 @300dpi, then sharpen, burn and take to Printer.) and since likely you won't stand as close to a poster as you will a postcard then you'll likely get away with it.

I've made some nice 10x15s from good 3meg DSLRs, and had poor luck getting decent 8x12s from a 5mp point and shoot.

You shouldn't have any problem with pixels from that camera for that purpose though.

Travis
http://www.travishaughton.com
 
When I saw what I could get out of this camera, I went out and bought an Epson 7600. I have produced many stunningly beatiful images mostly portraits and figure skating (at 1600 ISO) and many look incredibly good.

I haven't shot aerials though, so I would know what one would get. I think many of the aerials I have seen have been done by people who like to fly that have consumer photo equipment. I would guess a pro Canon or Nikon lens on a digital SLR would blow away 90% of what has been sold before. I think the difference between pro glass and consumer glass is bigger than film vs digital.

--
BillG
 
BillG,

As far as good glass goes, my current intent is the 20D with a 10-20mm wide angle Canon lens. (recommended by a pro that does the same thing as I do http://www.gravityshots.com ) The 20x30, I expect, will be largest I would offer. The 16x20 has been the most common 'large' enlargement that my customers have requested. Thanks very much for the info...I will have to check out the 7600...currently send all my large prints done by outside services.
Bill Gilbertson said:
When I saw what I could get out of this camera, I went out and
bought an Epson 7600. I have produced many stunningly beatiful
images mostly portraits and figure skating (at 1600 ISO) and many
look incredibly good.

I haven't shot aerials though, so I would know what one would get.
I think many of the aerials I have seen have been done by people
who like to fly that have consumer photo equipment. I would guess
a pro Canon or Nikon lens on a digital SLR would blow away 90% of
what has been sold before. I think the difference between pro
glass and consumer glass is bigger than film vs digital.

--
BillG
Click to expand...
--
twice the quality, half the price
 
I suggest that you rent or borrow a 20D and see for yourself whether the prints will work. Even if the 20D is adequate for this customer, consider that you may generate business that needs prints with greater detail. I know when I look at aerial photos, I love to scrutinize them for every little detail--you know, "Look, there's my house!" (And of course if I can see my house, I'm going to be trying to pick out the shrubs, the patio furniture, the pool toys, whatever.)
Gary Hart
http://www.eloquentimages.com
FLAP said:
Bill Gilbertson said:
When I saw what I could get out of this camera, I went out and
bought an Epson 7600. I have produced many stunningly beatiful
images mostly portraits and figure skating (at 1600 ISO) and many
look incredibly good.

I haven't shot aerials though, so I would know what one would get.
I think many of the aerials I have seen have been done by people
who like to fly that have consumer photo equipment. I would guess
a pro Canon or Nikon lens on a digital SLR would blow away 90% of
what has been sold before. I think the difference between pro
glass and consumer glass is bigger than film vs digital.

--
BillG
Click to expand...
--
twice the quality, half the price
Click to expand...
--
Gary Hart
http://www.eloquentimages.com
 
Thanks Bill. Actually, my tool is my Web designer. :) I think she used a java script, but I don't know any more than that. There's a link to her site on mine, or if you want to e-mail me off-line I'll see what I can find out.

Gary Hart
http://www.eloquentimages.com
Bill Gilbertson said:
Bill Gilbertson said:
Gary Hart
http://www.eloquentimages.com
Click to expand...
Gary, I really like the organization of your site and the way the
mouse overs work. What tool do you use to create it?

--
BillG
Click to expand...
 
There is one think I try with Qimage, and print just the crop potion on 8x10. I am happy the the quality for most subjects up to 180ppi before resample. So, I would suggest you to do the same. Try crop it out, and print to see if you find it holds enoug details to your standard.

EL
Gary Hart said:
Gary Hart
http://www.eloquentimages.com
Bill Gilbertson said:
Gary Hart said:
Gary Hart
http://www.eloquentimages.com
Click to expand...
Gary, I really like the organization of your site and the way the
mouse overs work. What tool do you use to create it?

--
BillG
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
 
How you interpolate an image is just as important as the number of megapixels of the camera. I've seen 5mp Nikon Coolpix images professionally interpolated to 36x48 inches, but it has to be done in steps with a high end program. Although coming straight out of the camera an 8mp camera shouldn't "mathematically" be able to be enlarged to 20x30, but no one goes by those numbers. Using Photoshop carefully you can easily interpolate an 8mp SLR file to 20x30 with crystal clarity. Depending on the size of my final image, I enlarge in steps: usually three or four. Some people don't believe in this method, but it works great for me. Be sure to chose bicubic interpolation in Photoshop, and whatever you do, don't let your printer do the interpolation for you, you will get poorer results.

Don
FLAP said:
I am moving up from the Canon Camedia 4MP, which took this photo,to
a digital SLR this year. Will 8MP, like the Canon 20D produce a
reasonable quality 20x30 inch print?
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/383897/1/15375221/Large
Click to expand...
 
I read somewhere that the new Bicubic Smoother in PS CS interpolation method obviates the needs for stepwise interpolation.

In any event, the photos from the 20D will be significant better than from a 4 megapixel point and shoot not only because of twice the pixels but because the sensor is likely 30 times bigger thus collecting much more light giving more sensitivy and better dynamic range. High contrast images are likely much harder to enlarge if from a PS camera.

Buy the 20D and some L glass and you will be delighted.

--
BillG
 
Interploation is a tool, and we all use it occasionally, but it is no subsitute for the real thing.

I just produced two large prints for a client at 39" x 59" using RAW files from a 1ds. One was a straightforward interpolated enlargement. It looked pretty good, but was far from perfect. The other was a stitched image, and that WAS perfect.

Even A4 prints for magazines are very noticable weather you have used something like a 1ds / MF as opposed to a 6mp camera interpolated. We know because we produced one issue with photos from half and half as we changed over our camera equipment.

Those interpolated imaged looked embarrasing against the uninterpolated 1ds images.
 
You bring up a valid point. I think the human eye is especially keen when looking at comparisons. Im sure the interpolated print looked decent right until you put it against your stitched print.

Of course, your example would be even harder on the interpolation method than what he is considering as your aspect ratio and size yield a very low out of camera PPI.

In the short dimension - you have 39" and 2704 out of camera pixels = 69 PPI (very low) and results in a pretty severe upsize to get to a resonable resolution.

He is considering a 20" (matched aspect ratio so it doesnt have the crop problem yours has) and has 2336 out of camera pixels(20D) = 117 PPI and a much less extreme upsample to say the 240PPI level.

So- I agree, theres no substitute for real information, but interpolation using the right software and within limits can produce very good results that can meet certain quality levels. However, It will never be the best.

Best regards
Trebor
riddell said:
Interploation is a tool, and we all use it occasionally, but it is
no subsitute for the real thing.

I just produced two large prints for a client at 39" x 59" using
RAW files from a 1ds. One was a straightforward interpolated
enlargement. It looked pretty good, but was far from perfect. The
other was a stitched image, and that WAS perfect.

Even A4 prints for magazines are very noticable weather you have
used something like a 1ds / MF as opposed to a 6mp camera
interpolated. We know because we produced one issue with photos
from half and half as we changed over our camera equipment.

Those interpolated imaged looked embarrasing against the
uninterpolated 1ds images.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top