max print size for photo quality on the 602

What would be the maximum print size for the 602 for photo quality. I believe the dpi would need to be about 250-300dpi or ppi.

Thanks,

Charlie

Charlie, I have printed several 8x12 pics and they look quite good. Others here have used interpolation software or outside printers who most likely interpolate and have printed much larger (20x30 comes to mind).
Ted

HikerCAS said:

What would be the maximum print size for the 602 for photo quality.
I believe the dpi would need to be about 250-300dpi or ppi.

Thanks,

Charlie

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/tdkd13

tdkd13 said:

Charlie, I have printed several 8x12 pics and they look quite good.
Others here have used interpolation software or outside printers
who most likely interpolate and have printed much larger (20x30
comes to mind).

Click to expand...

I'm just about to frame a pro print that's a partial crop of a 6MPF image, interpolated and re-saved in QImage and printed at 15 x 10 on glossy paper (i.e. if it were full frame, it would look the same at 16 x 12 or more) and it's indistinguishable from a large format neg. enlargement. My father's a retired scientific photographer and not that impressed with the digital format and even he had to admit that he wouldn't have known it was a digital print and had to concede that it was a decent piece of work.

I think the visual pleasingness of the resulting print depends on a great deal more than the number of pixels recorded - contrast, subject, lighting, colour range etc. etc. have far more impact than the resolution. I've had great 8 x 10 prints from crops from 2mp images from the 2800 and lousy prints from 6MPF images from the 602, just because some images look nicer on paper than others. I think you could safely rely on good looking 8 x 10s from the 602 routinely and much larger on suitably pleasing images with the right treatment.

Some here have reported stunning 30 x 20s, I haven't tried that large yet - 11 x 14 or 10 x 15 are as large as I've gone routinely - I haven't been disappointed with any of them.

--
Fuji S602Z and 2800Z
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music photos
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk/lowlight.html - available light live music tutorial

on how your prints will be viewed.

If you hang them where normal viewing is from a distance of 10 feet, then you can print far larger than if they are to be viewed in a coffee-table album.

Boo said:

Some here have reported stunning 30 x 20s, I haven't tried that
large yet - 11 x 14 or 10 x 15 are as large as I've gone routinely

• I haven't been disappointed with any of them.

Click to expand...

Boo,

What dpi did you have the prints done at?
I read that they should be between 200 - 300 dpi.

Charlie

Boo said:

tdkd13 said:

Charlie, I have printed several 8x12 pics and they look quite good.
Others here have used interpolation software or outside printers
who most likely interpolate and have printed much larger (20x30
comes to mind).

Click to expand...

I'm just about to frame a pro print that's a partial crop of a 6MPF
image, interpolated and re-saved in QImage and printed at 15 x 10
on glossy paper (i.e. if it were full frame, it would look the same
at 16 x 12 or more) and it's indistinguishable from a large format
neg. enlargement. My father's a retired scientific photographer
and not that impressed with the digital format and even he had to
admit that he wouldn't have known it was a digital print and had to
concede that it was a decent piece of work.

I think the visual pleasingness of the resulting print depends on
a great deal more than the number of pixels recorded - contrast,
subject, lighting, colour range etc. etc. have far more impact than
the resolution. I've had great 8 x 10 prints from crops from 2mp
images from the 2800 and lousy prints from 6MPF images from the
602, just because some images look nicer on paper than others. I
think you could safely rely on good looking 8 x 10s from the 602
routinely and much larger on suitably pleasing images with the
right treatment.

Some here have reported stunning 30 x 20s, I haven't tried that
large yet - 11 x 14 or 10 x 15 are as large as I've gone routinely

• I haven't been disappointed with any of them.

--
Fuji S602Z and 2800Z
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music photos
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk/lowlight.html - available light live
music tutorial

Click to expand...

HikerCAS said:

What dpi did you have the prints done at?
I read that they should be between 200 - 300 dpi.

Click to expand...

With photography I barely even think about dpi. When I'm printing in QImage it gives a dpi output on the screen details as it prepares the prints and from experience I can see that 220+dpi on MY cheap inket printer with photo paper will give very good results. But with commerical printing I don't specifiy it in any way.

As a very generalised rule of thumb, a resolution of 300 ppi (i.e. image pixels per inch) will guarantee a detailed printed output, but it really isn't that simple. As I understand it, commerical prints on paper aren't printed like an inkjet with a specific dot pattern, the digital image is projected onto photo sensitive paper in a similar manner to conventional neg. prints. The application I use to prepare and upload the files for printing, flashes me a warning if it feels the resolution is too small for the print size I'm ordering, but even in those cases, I've been perfectly happy with the results. So for example, using that rough guide, a 6MP image at 2832 pixels wide will happily print out at 9.44 inches wide - so therefore 8 x 10 will give good reliable results from 6MP images.

But it really isn't that simple - I don't use that as anything more than a starting guide and I certainly don't specify dpi when ordering commerical prints.

--
Fuji S602Z and 2800Z
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music photos
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk/lowlight.html - available light live music tutorial

Hi Boo,

Would you mind giving some more detail on the print you mentioned: Did you do the interpolation and which software did you use? When you said pro print, I'm assuming you had this printed at a photo print lab; do you know what process/paper ect they use? Any other detail you care to reply would be appreciated.

Thanks
Barney Milner

Boo said:

Boo said:

te: Charlie, I have printed several 8x12 pics and they look quite good.
Others here have used interpolation software or outside printers
who most likely interpolate and have printed much larger (20x30
comes to mind).

Click to expand...

I'm just about to frame a pro print that's a partial crop of a 6MPF
image, interpolated and re-saved in QImage and printed at 15 x 10
on glossy paper (i.e. if it were full frame, it would look the same
at 16 x 12 or more) and it's indistinguishable from a large format
neg. enlargement. My father's a retired scientific photographer
and not that impressed with the digital format and even he had to
admit that he wouldn't have known it was a digital print and had to
concede that it was a decent piece of work.

I think the visual pleasingness of the resulting print depends on
a great deal more than the number of pixels recorded - contrast,
subject, lighting, colour range etc. etc. have far more impact than
the resolution. I've had great 8 x 10 prints from crops from 2mp
images from the 2800 and lousy prints from 6MPF images from the
602, just because some images look nicer on paper than others. I
think you could safely rely on good looking 8 x 10s from the 602
routinely and much larger on suitably pleasing images with the
right treatment.

Some here have reported stunning 30 x 20s, I haven't tried that
large yet - 11 x 14 or 10 x 15 are as large as I've gone routinely

• I haven't been disappointed with any of them.

--
Fuji S602Z and 2800Z
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music photos
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk/lowlight.html - available light live
music tutorial

Click to expand...

--
B Milner

B Milner said:

Would you mind giving some more detail on the print you mentioned:
Did you do the interpolation and which software did you use? When
you said pro print, I'm assuming you had this printed at a photo
print lab; do you know what process/paper ect they use? Any other
detail you care to reply would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

I did the interpolation myself here using QImage's vector interpolation (upped the size to about 4000px wide and sharpened it) and saved the new larger image file and uploaded that for print. By pro print I meant that it was photo printed at a lab on Fujifilm Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper. It looks to all intents and purposes exactly the same as any other photo lab enlargement. Even with a glass, there's no pixelation or grain to see. I think, looking at the file name I uploaded that I must have done some modest noise reduction in Neat Image after enlarging it.

If you want to see the image itself, it's this one:



--
Fuji S602Z and 2800Z
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music photos
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk/lowlight.html - available light live music tutorial

Thanks Boo

Boo said:

B Milner said:

Would you mind giving some more detail on the print you mentioned:
Did you do the interpolation and which software did you use? When
you said pro print, I'm assuming you had this printed at a photo
print lab; do you know what process/paper ect they use? Any other
detail you care to reply would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

I did the interpolation myself here using QImage's vector
interpolation (upped the size to about 4000px wide and sharpened
it) and saved the new larger image file and uploaded that for
print. By pro print I meant that it was photo printed at a lab on
Fujifilm Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper. It looks to all intents
and purposes exactly the same as any other photo lab enlargement.
Even with a glass, there's no pixelation or grain to see. I think,
looking at the file name I uploaded that I must have done some
modest noise reduction in Neat Image after enlarging it.

If you want to see the image itself, it's this one:



--
Fuji S602Z and 2800Z
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music photos
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk/lowlight.html - available light live
music tutorial

Click to expand...

--
B Milner

Charlie,

It's hard to say what "photo quality" means. Would it mean "as good" (whatever THAT means) as the best photo you ever saw, or maybe the worst? Every photo ever printed is "photo quality".

And it depends on the intended viewing distance. An image that looks fine (to a certain person's taste) as an 10" x 8" print viewed at 20" would look just as fine as an 10' x 8' mini billboard viewed from a distance of 20'.

Doug Kerr

Hate to bring this up again, but this maybe helpful. I later realized that I "shot myself in the foot and saved the imaged at a 95% quality setting instead of 100 percent in Qimage before sending the file to Printroom.com. I have not had to print another photo this size, but with me experimenting with my son on the "five shot burst mode" these last few days, I might just get the ever elusive action shot of a two year old...

Dan - San Diego

HikerCAS said:

What would be the maximum print size for the 602 for photo quality.
I believe the dpi would need to be about 250-300dpi or ppi.

Thanks,

Charlie

Click to expand...

Whoops, forgot the link....

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=5101739

Dan - San Diego

Daniel Barnett said:

Dan - San Diego

HikerCAS said:

What would be the maximum print size for the 602 for photo quality.
I believe the dpi would need to be about 250-300dpi or ppi.

Thanks,

Charlie

Click to expand...

Click to expand...