Reading mode: Light Dark

24x36 or bigger prints from m4/3?

Go to last post
Reybabes

Reybabes

Senior Member
Messages
1,837
Solutions
1
Reaction score
416
Location
Boston, MA, US
I've been using images to supplement/accentuate some work I've been doing with an international relief organization. To date, that has involved projecting the images onto a large screen. I've been asked to speak in a number of venues where projecting won't be possible, so I've thought about printing out several photos 24x36 size or larger and mounting them on foam core backing. At various times during the speech, I could plan on holding up the photos. Has anyone reliably and consistently printed this large and with good effect from m4/3? I'm shooting with an EM1 and have the 12-40 and 25/1.8 which have given me great results via projection.

Interested in feedback from those who've been down a similar path.

Thanks,

Rey
 
Only last week I printed an em5/12-40 image 32x24". I also took the same shot with a 6d/17-40. Sample equiv focal lenght and aperture. One has to really look close to see the difference, which is really minimal. Point being that the latest m43 cameras with the best lenses are well able to produce images that print well to a that size. I would say that's about their limit though.
 
I have printed to 20"x16" from an E-M10 as a comparison to the same image shot on my 5D3. The 45mm f1.8 on the Olympus and the EF 100 mm f2.8 USM macro both at f5.6. The Olympus framed to pretty much match the 5D3 and both cameras on tripod. ISO was 200

I can can only tell the difference as the processed colour image is slightly different with the OMD image a little brighter in the orange and red colours. Friends cannot tell me which shot is from which camera and gob smacked the little OMD matches the 5D3.

I have seen a 30"x40" print from an E-M1 but not as a comparator to anything else. The shot was very sharp and clear at normal viewing distance of around 10 feet away. Up close (within 1 foot) you could see some slight "pixelation" so I would say that was at the edge of its enlargement.
 
What is an acceptable enlargement size has everything to do with how large the image is in the viewer's field of view. You can print a billboard with a 3MP image and it will look good from cars on the road. You are going to be holding up images that will be seen by an audience. Depending on how far away the audience is, you could probably enlarge two or three times the size you are considering and still have images that are nice to view.

A good general rule of thumb is that if an image can produce an 8x10 that looks sharp when handheld, then there's enough detail for just about any other use. The exceptions would be where people would get very close to images so that the image is extraordinarily large in their FOV - for instance, a mural on a wall that people would walk close to.
 
vin 13 said:
Only last week I printed an em5/12-40 image 32x24". I also took the same shot with a 6d/17-40. Sample equiv focal lenght and aperture. One has to really look close to see the difference, which is really minimal. Point being that the latest m43 cameras with the best lenses are well able to produce images that print well to a that size. I would say that's about their limit though.
Click to expand...
Can't argue with that. Super helpful... thank you!

Rey
 
Coast said:
I have printed to 20"x16" from an E-M10 as a comparison to the same image shot on my 5D3. The 45mm f1.8 on the Olympus and the EF 100 mm f2.8 USM macro both at f5.6. The Olympus framed to pretty much match the 5D3 and both cameras on tripod. ISO was 200

I can can only tell the difference as the processed colour image is slightly different with the OMD image a little brighter in the orange and red colours. Friends cannot tell me which shot is from which camera and gob smacked the little OMD matches the 5D3.

I have seen a 30"x40" print from an E-M1 but not as a comparator to anything else. The shot was very sharp and clear at normal viewing distance of around 10 feet away. Up close (within 1 foot) you could see some slight "pixelation" so I would say that was at the edge of its enlargement.
Click to expand...
Great feedback and very encouraging. I have access to a FF Nikon system but my favorite shots are from the EM1 for this purpose. And I didn't want to get into any pixel enhancement acrobatics. Looks as though the EM1 raw shots should suffice.

Thank you!

Rey
 
Jay Turberville said:
What is an acceptable enlargement size has everything to do with how large the image is in the viewer's field of view. You can print a billboard with a 3MP image and it will look good from cars on the road. You are going to be holding up images that will be seen by an audience. Depending on how far away the audience is, you could probably enlarge two or three times the size you are considering and still have images that are nice to view.

A good general rule of thumb is that if an image can produce an 8x10 that looks sharp when handheld, then there's enough detail for just about any other use. The exceptions would be where people would get very close to images so that the image is extraordinarily large in their FOV - for instance, a mural on a wall that people would walk close to.
Click to expand...
 
Reybabes said:
Jay Turberville said:
What is an acceptable enlargement size has everything to do with how large the image is in the viewer's field of view. You can print a billboard with a 3MP image and it will look good from cars on the road. You are going to be holding up images that will be seen by an audience. Depending on how far away the audience is, you could probably enlarge two or three times the size you are considering and still have images that are nice to view.

A good general rule of thumb is that if an image can produce an 8x10 that looks sharp when handheld, then there's enough detail for just about any other use. The exceptions would be where people would get very close to images so that the image is extraordinarily large in their FOV - for instance, a mural on a wall that people would walk close to.

--
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Click to expand...
Hmmm... interesting. I'll be standing in front of audiences of 75-300 people and may even have to walk up and down an aisle for people to see. Given their distance and your logic, I should be good. Thanks.

--
The best things in life aren't things...
Photo blog: www.2guysphoto.com
http://500px.com/reyspadoni
Click to expand...
I was about to post the same as Jay - his advice is spot on. 16MP is enough for a pretty enormous print, providing its viewed from a few feet away.

Consider this: The big hype in TVs and video right now is 4k right? People are raving about the incredible detail the picture has on 60, 70, 80" screens. Or maybe 100" if you are lucky enough to have a 4k projector.

Or what about at the movies with a 60ft screen?

4k is roughly 8 megapixels. Your images have double this detail. You could have a 120" diagonal poster and it would look pretty incredible at 10 plus feet away.
 
Last edited:
Chippy99 said:
4k is roughly 8 megapixels. Your images have double this detail. You could have a 120" diagonal poster and it would look pretty incredible at 10 plus feet away.
Click to expand...
That's pretty encouraging, thank you. I presume if there was going to be closer viewing, more detail/pixels would matter...

Appreciate the info.

Rey
 
It's been many years since I had enlargements made from 35mm film shots. Last year my wife asked me to get a large print of a lighthouse picture I had made with my old 12mp Olympus pen and 40-150 lens. I ordered a 24" X 36" (from Costco!) on a lark and told her not to expect much. I was floored when it came back. Buildings 1/4 mile across the river in the background showed practically no pixelation even at a distance of a few inches. Lighthouse perfectly sharp, as well.
 
I really don't understand all the angst over how large one can print from an m4/3's file. I have been doing large printing from digital files since I started shooting digital cameras about 14 years ago, and I have yet to get a large print that looks bad when viewed from any reasonable viewing distance.

I have several 24X32 in. prints in my studio that were printed from 4MP Canon G2 files that are absolutely beautiful, and 30X40 in. prints from 8-10MP Olympus cameras.

I just recently did a shoot for a gentleman who owns a clock museum and needed images of a 14ft. 'tower clock' that he custom built. He needed large prints for his exhibit and presentation at a national clock symposium. He wanted print that were 1/2 life size, so had two 7 ft. (yes that's 84 in.) prints on mylar base done from the images below shot with my E-M1 and 12-40mm. Not only did the prints turn out great, but he won a 'Blue Ribbon' for the best exhibit in his category, and a trophy for the best overall presentation at the symposium.

The critical issue is not nearly as much the resolution of the image file as it is who is doing the printing, and whether they really know what they are doing. The gentleman noted above had his prints done by a good, professional, large format printing service -- they do this stuff day in and day out, and they had no worries about the size of the files, etc.

So, the short answer to your question is -- "No problem".

For reference, here is one of the two images that printed 7 ft.:



92e456ceeb244bafa954ffdee209f5de.jpg



--
God Bless,
Greg
www.imagismphotos.com
www.mccroskery.zenfolio.com
www.pbase.com/daddyo
 
Last edited:
daddyo said:
I really don't understand all the angst over how large one can print from an m4/3's file. I have been doing large printing from digital files since I started shooting digital cameras about 14 years ago, and I have yet to get a large print that looks bad when viewed from any reasonable viewing distance.
Click to expand...
I often get the impression that a lot of people judge prints by sticking their nose into them to see if they can see any signs of softness, much as people do when they view their images at 1:1 magnification on the computer screen (1 image pixel = 1 monitor pixel).

The reality is that people don't normally view pictures that way, either on the monitor or as a print. There's a natural instinct to back up to the point at which the entire print fits into your field of view. That's completely sensible, because if the picture is composed properly then you should want to be able to see the whole thing at once.

Anyone who judges prints quality by getting really close and looking it in minute detail is really missing the point, IMHO. It's like criticizing a painting because the brush strokes are visible.
 
Reybabes said:
Reybabes said:
4k is roughly 8 megapixels. Your images have double this detail. You could have a 120" diagonal poster and it would look pretty incredible at 10 plus feet away.
Click to expand...
That's pretty encouraging, thank you. I presume if there was going to be closer viewing, more detail/pixels would matter...
Click to expand...
Yes. If you want to make a large gallery print and invite people to press their noses up close to it, then you'll want maybe 30MP or more. But other than special circumstances like that, 16Mp is not only adequate, but often overkill.

Years ago I shot a picture of a Greater Yellowlegs (shore bird) with a 3Mp Coolpix 995. No raw. In camera JPEG only. To make matters worse, it was digiscoped. So it was a somewhat soft 3MP that I had to carefully sharpen. I considered it barely acceptable for an 8x10 print. Some would call it unacceptable. But I liked the image and enlarged it to 11x14 anyway. It has hung in our guest bathroom over the toilet for about 10 years now. This works out nicely because the toilet being in the way tends to have you viewing the image from 3-4 feet away. And the image looks plenty sharp from that distance at that size.

I think an 8Mp image is generally sharper than what I got from optically enlarged 35mm film years ago. And 35mm film was a pretty good general purpose format that most people considered perfectly capable of making nice 8x10 and 11x14 prints. So frankly, unless you have some special commercial or artistic need, any modern camera with a 2/3" sensor or better is probably going to be capable of delivering all the image detail that would be needed under "normal" viewing distances.
 
Sean Nelson said:
daddyo said:
I really don't understand all the angst over how large one can print from an m4/3's file. I have been doing large printing from digital files since I started shooting digital cameras about 14 years ago, and I have yet to get a large print that looks bad when viewed from any reasonable viewing distance.
Click to expand...
I often get the impression that a lot of people judge prints by sticking their nose into them to see if they can see any signs of softness, much as people do when they view their images at 1:1 magnification on the computer screen (1 image pixel = 1 monitor pixel).

The reality is that people don't normally view pictures that way, either on the monitor or as a print. There's a natural instinct to back up to the point at which the entire print fits into your field of view. That's completely sensible, because if the picture is composed properly then you should want to be able to see the whole thing at once.

Anyone who judges prints quality by getting really close and looking it in minute detail is really missing the point, IMHO. It's like criticizing a painting because the brush strokes are visible.
Click to expand...
I get the same impression that people on this forum constantly look to stick their head in the sand about any possible IQ advantages of larger formats.

I can definitely understand people believing that certain subjects and/or images that will be viewed at a certain distance(I would say the OP will have no problem for example) won't benefit from greater IQ but to ignore the issue entirely just seems like gear fanboyism.
 
i have one at that size sitting on my wall. you should not have an issue printing at that size.
 
Remember when people shot 35mm slide film and invited the neighbours round for viewing the slides via a projector and (say) 80" screen? I don't remember anyone complaining that the image quality was lousy at those sizes, but the slide film carried less detail than your 16MP sensor.
 
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