Do I have enough megapixels for a print?

[JanePete]

The best photo paper cutters are the gullotine type.

In your opinion -- or have you had a revelation unavailable to those less blessed?

I don't have to preface such a thing with "it's my opinion." You are welcome to agree, or disagree.

Or are you only allowed to comment on those devices manufactured in your country?

LOL, what does my country have to do with the topic?

Here's a previous thread on the subject:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2535156

 

[edispics]

Beware the difference between dpi and ppi. Dots per inch is a printer thing, pixels per inch is a digital image thing. Post-processing and saving a jpg at a compatible dpi to a printer's capability is a good thing; I have fine prints, even at close range, which were outputted at 300 dpi but where the pixel density equals 163 ppi (20x30 from 16MP.). About 150 ppi is considered a lower limit for prints, as a rule of thumb, and I assume that's the minimum for close viewing.

Excellent point!

Since a lot of folks use Epsons, I include this little quote from the Luminous Landscape - old quote but makes the point:

Inkjets

Most photographers do their printing these days with a desktop inkjet printer and the Epson Photo printers are the most popular so I'll use them by way of example. These printers, such as the models 870/1270/2000P are (somewhat misleadingly) listed as 1440 dpi printers. This means that they are capable of laying down that many dots per inch. But, to create a colour image they need to use 6 different inks, so any particular pixel reproduced on a print will be composed of some dithered composite of coloured dots using some or all of these inks. That's why you need more dots from your printer than you have pixels in your image.

If you divide 1440 by 6 you end up with 240. This is the true minimum resolution needed to get a high quality photo-realistic prints from a 1440 dpi Epson printer.

Just note the difference between ppi and dpi and that a single pixel is the result of the dithered composite of some number of coloured dots.

 

[Brad Bohland]

Good info.

 

[Sir Canon]

um in a 4x6 you can use like a 4mp camera and get a-ok results

 

[jon404]

Throughout my career in ad agencies, I used 300 dpi as a guideline for photos that would be printed on offest presses, like for magazine ads. These days, I'd use 300 dpi as a rough guide for images that will be displayed on the new tablets, laptops, and smartphones. Sure, a lot of it is marketing hype... for digital display, you're hitting the limit of what our eyes can resolve at about 250 dpi ... actually, ppi.

As for prints -- a photo in a magazine is viewed at what, about 1' away? So that 300 ppi will get you a razor-sharp print that can be viewed at very close range on a gallery wall. 'Gallery-sharp.' But that's not where our prints end up. You're safe assuming a 2' viewing range... and, again, you're back to 225 ppi or 250 ppi ... and ANY modern digital camera gives you an image more than big enough, more than sharp enough for that 8 x 10 up on the wall behind that deak or sofa.

And -- obviously -- the subject and composition are what get folks saying "What a great picture!" A close up of a roaring lion at 150 ppi far outshines a wide angle of that same lion asleep in the distance, at 300 ppi. Right?

 

[JanePete]

Beware the difference between dpi and ppi. Dots per inch is a printer thing, pixels per inch is a digital image thing. Post-processing and saving a jpg at a compatible dpi to a printer's capability is a good thing; I have fine prints, even at close range, which were outputted at 300 dpi but where the pixel density equals 163 ppi (20x30 from 16MP.). About 150 ppi is considered a lower limit for prints, as a rule of thumb, and I assume that's the minimum for close viewing.

Excellent point!

Since a lot of folks use Epsons, I include this little quote from the Luminous Landscape - old quote but makes the point:

Inkjets

Most photographers do their printing these days with a desktop inkjet printer and the Epson Photo printers are the most popular so I'll use them by way of example. These printers, such as the models 870/1270/2000P are (somewhat misleadingly) listed as 1440 dpi printers. This means that they are capable of laying down that many dots per inch. But, to create a colour image they need to use 6 different inks, so any particular pixel reproduced on a print will be composed of some dithered composite of coloured dots using some or all of these inks. That's why you need more dots from your printer than you have pixels in your image.

If you divide 1440 by 6 you end up with 240. This is the true minimum resolution needed to get a high quality photo-realistic prints from a 1440 dpi Epson printer.

Just note the difference between ppi and dpi and that a single pixel is the result of the dithered composite of some number of coloured dots.

The vast majority of photographs today are still printed onto traditional photo paper. Printing to inkjet is unaffordable for most and a huge hassle.

 

[edispics]

Probably very worthwhile checking the Dry Creek Photo Digital Lab database.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/

You can find the lab you are interested in, see what printers they use and even download appropriate monitor and printer profiles. A lot of the Costco labs use Noritsu and/or Epson printers and you can find the right profiles to download and use with LR.

 

[Sir Canon]

I cave a 16x20 over my sofa from an 8 mp dslr, you couldnt tell the difference if it was on a 4x6. it is less then 200dpi. I think it has more to do with the glass it was shot with then the overall resolution. a kit lens will only resolve 8mp no matter what camera it is on. on the other hand a canon 70-200 2.8 (prized for its supperior sharpness) resolves over 22mp making it outperform any canon body's sensor [in resolution] that you put it on.

 

[JanePete]

Probably very worthwhile checking the Dry Creek Photo Digital Lab database.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/

You can find the lab you are interested in, see what printers they use and even download appropriate monitor and printer profiles. A lot of the Costco labs use Noritsu and/or Epson printers and you can find the right profiles to download and use with LR.

Never seen a Costco using Epson printers. As far as I know all their print sizes are traditional wet photo paper process, or c prints, not inkjet.

 

[69chevy]

Probably very worthwhile checking the Dry Creek Photo Digital Lab database.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/

You can find the lab you are interested in, see what printers they use and even download appropriate monitor and printer profiles. A lot of the Costco labs use Noritsu and/or Epson printers and you can find the right profiles to download and use with LR.

Never seen a Costco using Epson printers. As far as I know all their print sizes are traditional wet photo paper process, or c prints, not inkjet.

Once again, as far as you know isn't far enough. Had you bothered to follow the link provided, you would have realized you were calling someone wrong who was actually right (again).

If you have them print 8 x 12 or smaller, they use either a Fuji or a Noritsu minilab which uses a chemical process of Fuji paper.

Costco photo labs use Epson Stylus Pro 7880 inkjet printers for poster prints.

This thread started because of a question about an 11 x 14, which Costco would print on an inkjet.

 

[Brad Bohland]

Great.

 

[JanePete]

Probably very worthwhile checking the Dry Creek Photo Digital Lab database.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/

You can find the lab you are interested in, see what printers they use and even download appropriate monitor and printer profiles. A lot of the Costco labs use Noritsu and/or Epson printers and you can find the right profiles to download and use with LR.

Never seen a Costco using Epson printers. As far as I know all their print sizes are traditional wet photo paper process, or c prints, not inkjet.

Once again, as far as you know isn't far enough. Had you bothered to follow the link provided, you would have realized you were calling someone wrong who was actually right (again).

I did no such thing. Read more carefully what I wrote, instead of being so desperate to try and prove me wrong about something.

If you have them print 8 x 12 or smaller, they use either a Fuji or a Noritsu minilab which uses a chemical process of Fuji paper.

Costco photo labs use Epson Stylus Pro 7880 inkjet printers for poster prints.

This thread started because of a question about an 11 x 14, which Costco would print on an inkjet.

 

[69chevy]

Probably very worthwhile checking the Dry Creek Photo Digital Lab database.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/

You can find the lab you are interested in, see what printers they use and even download appropriate monitor and printer profiles. A lot of the Costco labs use Noritsu and/or Epson printers and you can find the right profiles to download and use with LR.

Never seen a Costco using Epson printers. As far as I know all their print sizes are traditional wet photo paper process, or c prints, not inkjet.

Once again, as far as you know isn't far enough. Had you bothered to follow the link provided, you would have realized you were calling someone wrong who was actually right (again).

I did no such thing. Read more carefully what I wrote, instead of being so desperate to try and prove me wrong about something.

If you have them print 8 x 12 or smaller, they use either a Fuji or a Noritsu minilab which uses a chemical process of Fuji paper.

Costco photo labs use Epson Stylus Pro 7880 inkjet printers for poster prints.

This thread started because of a question about an 11 x 14, which Costco would print on an inkjet.

You absolutely did exactly what I am calling you out on. I don't have to read more carefully.

edispics went out of his way to provide a Costco printer profile to the OP, who asked about printing an 11 x 14" print.

You so wisely offered "Never seen a Costco using Epson printers. As far as I know all their print sizes are traditional wet photo paper process, or c prints, not inkjet"

The printer Costco would use for the OPs print is both an EPSON and an INKJET.

I couldn't care less about you or the fact that you are delusional, but I would appreciate it if you would stop giving out bad info like "A 27" monitor in "fit screen" mode won't show critical sharpness, then saying a 4x6 print will.

People come on here to learn. Even those of us who spend time helping other people.

It appears to me (especially after learning you have been banned before and keep coming back with new user names) you like to come on here and stir things up.

You may feel as though it's your right to do so, but I feel as if it's my right to call you out, so people don't believe your terrible advice.

 

[JanePete]

Probably very worthwhile checking the Dry Creek Photo Digital Lab database.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/

You can find the lab you are interested in, see what printers they use and even download appropriate monitor and printer profiles. A lot of the Costco labs use Noritsu and/or Epson printers and you can find the right profiles to download and use with LR.

Never seen a Costco using Epson printers. As far as I know all their print sizes are traditional wet photo paper process, or c prints, not inkjet.

Once again, as far as you know isn't far enough. Had you bothered to follow the link provided, you would have realized you were calling someone wrong who was actually right (again).

I did no such thing. Read more carefully what I wrote, instead of being so desperate to try and prove me wrong about something.

If you have them print 8 x 12 or smaller, they use either a Fuji or a Noritsu minilab which uses a chemical process of Fuji paper.

Costco photo labs use Epson Stylus Pro 7880 inkjet printers for poster prints.

This thread started because of a question about an 11 x 14, which Costco would print on an inkjet.

You absolutely did exactly what I am calling you out on. I don't have to read more carefully.

Yeah, you do. I said "as far as I know." That does not equal me "calling someone wrong." If I were sure someone was wrong about something I would simply say it, just like you are obviously wrong now.

Read more carefully. If English is not your first language then take more time to learn it.

edispics went out of his way to provide a Costco printer profile to the OP, who asked about printing an 11 x 14" print.

You so wisely offered "Never seen a Costco using Epson printers. As far as I know all their print sizes are traditional wet photo paper process, or c prints, not inkjet"

The printer Costco would use for the OPs print is both an EPSON and an INKJET.

I couldn't care less about you or the fact that you are delusional, but I would appreciate it if you would stop giving out bad info like "A 27" monitor in "fit screen" mode won't show critical sharpness, then saying a 4x6 print will.

People come on here to learn. Even those of us who spend time helping other people.

It appears to me (especially after learning you have been banned before and keep coming back with new user names) you like to come on here and stir things up.

You may feel as though it's your right to do so, but I feel as if it's my right to call you out, so people don't believe your terrible advice.

 

[69chevy]

Yeah, you do. I said "as far as I know." That does not equal me "calling someone wrong." If I were sure someone was wrong about something I would simply say it, just like you are obviously wrong now.

Read more carefully. If English is not your first language then take more time to learn it.

I'll admit I'm obviously wrong, as far as you know.

 

[JanePete]

Yeah, you do. I said "as far as I know." That does not equal me "calling someone wrong." If I were sure someone was wrong about something I would simply say it, just like you are obviously wrong now.

Read more carefully. If English is not your first language then take more time to learn it.

I'll admit I'm obviously wrong, as far as you know.

According to the English language, you are wrong. It doesn't matter what either one of us thinks.

 

[jon404]

That makes sense. You get what you pay for. Although, you can get that sharpness back with Photoshop, the savior of inexpensive lens owners...