Max size printing from Canon r6 ?

[Akasashasha]

Hello dears,

new to this forum so I'm not sure I'm placing the question in the right place ...

I have to make a 2m x 1m20 print and wonder if the 20Mpx from the R6 is enough.

I also own a 6DII which is 26Mpx so I'm a bit hesitant to go back to this old (but really good) reflex for this specific picture ... but I actually like much more using my R6 for plenty of reasons.

Any advice ? Would 20Mpx be enough for a (very) large print ?

thanks a lot !

 

[Sittatunga]

Hello dears,

new to this forum so I'm not sure I'm placing the question in the right place ...

I have to make a 2m x 1m20 print and wonder if the 20Mpx from the R6 is enough.

I also own a 6DII which is 26Mpx so I'm a bit hesitant to go back to this old (but really good) reflex for this specific picture ... but I actually like much more using my R6 for plenty of reasons.

Any advice ? Would 20Mpx be enough for a (very) large print ?

thanks a lot !

The R6 pixel size would be good for a viewing distance of about 1100mm or more from a print that size if you didn't crop the image or upsample it. The 6D II would be good for a viewing distance of about 960mm or more with the same conditions, so there's really not a lot in it. The R6 sensor is newer with a different anti-aliasing filter in front of it, so the difference in actual image sharpness (governed by the lens as opposed to the size of the pixelation) could well be less than that. How close do you want the viewer to be to a print that size?

 

[Marco Nero]

There's a few folks on Facebook groups that do large prints with the R6. One of whom printed a full-sized roadside billboard with a single picture taken with an EOS R6 camera. I seem to remember it was a portrait and the print was massive. A 2x1m print is pretty large so I'd be inclined to consider using interpolation software to enhance the resolution further, regardless of the sensor.
.



.
If you are still unsure but you don't see a need for higher resolution sensors, my suggestion to you would be to download 'GIGAPIXEL' by Topaz Labs. You can increase your image size by up to 600% without any noticeable degradation to the image. In fact you can enhance the image further with the software if you like. I use it when I need to crop in tight on something and it's an effective tool for noise reduction, resolution enhancement and sharpening.

--
Regards,
Marco Nero.

 

[drsnoopy]

Hello dears,

new to this forum so I'm not sure I'm placing the question in the right place ...

I have to make a 2m x 1m20 print and wonder if the 20Mpx from the R6 is enough.

I also own a 6DII which is 26Mpx so I'm a bit hesitant to go back to this old (but really good) reflex for this specific picture ... but I actually like much more using my R6 for plenty of reasons.

Any advice ? Would 20Mpx be enough for a (very) large print ?

thanks a lot !

You can print literally any size including billboards from an R6. It all depends on the viewing distance.

 

[Le Kilt]

Hello dears,

new to this forum so I'm not sure I'm placing the question in the right place ...

I have to make a 2m x 1m20 print and wonder if the 20Mpx from the R6 is enough.

I also own a 6DII which is 26Mpx so I'm a bit hesitant to go back to this old (but really good) reflex for this specific picture ... but I actually like much more using my R6 for plenty of reasons.

Any advice ? Would 20Mpx be enough for a (very) large print ?

thanks a lot !

No problem.

I've printed many photos 2m wide wide from the 5DII (21Mpx), simply enlarged in Photoshop and printed on pvc for hanging outdoors, and they looked stunning.

Most people won't want to get too close and will enjoy viewing them without their noses stuck to them.

 

[J A C S]

There's a few folks on Facebook groups that do large prints with the R6. One of whom printed a full-sized roadside billboard with a single picture taken with an EOS R6 camera. I seem to remember it was a portrait and the print was massive. A 2x1m print is pretty large so I'd be inclined to consider using interpolation software to enhance the resolution further, regardless of the sensor.
.

From the typical viewing distance, this portrait has the angle of view of a photo on a phone from arms' length.

 

[KLO82]

Hello dears,

new to this forum so I'm not sure I'm placing the question in the right place ...

I have to make a 2m x 1m20 print and wonder if the 20Mpx from the R6 is enough.

I also own a 6DII which is 26Mpx so I'm a bit hesitant to go back to this old (but really good) reflex for this specific picture ... but I actually like much more using my R6 for plenty of reasons.

Any advice ? Would 20Mpx be enough for a (very) large print ?

thanks a lot !

If you are using an inkjet printer, you need 200 to 300 PPI. As a rule of thumb, 300 PPI for A4 or smaller prints, 240 PPI for A3+ prints, and 200 PPI for A2 or larger prints. At 200 PPI you can print 0.69m x 0.46m from your R6. For your print, you may need to upscale or you may rely on the printer driver to upscale it for you.

For commercial printers, you need 300 to 350 PPI. At 300 PPI you can print upto 0.46 m x .31m from R6. For larger you will need to upscale.

 

[gipper51]

Hello dears,

new to this forum so I'm not sure I'm placing the question in the right place ...

I have to make a 2m x 1m20 print and wonder if the 20Mpx from the R6 is enough.

I also own a 6DII which is 26Mpx so I'm a bit hesitant to go back to this old (but really good) reflex for this specific picture ... but I actually like much more using my R6 for plenty of reasons.

Any advice ? Would 20Mpx be enough for a (very) large print ?

thanks a lot !

The R6 will do fine here. Sure, a higher megapixel camera would be preferred at this size but you can still get stunning results from it. However, for best results, you'll need to do some prep work first.

I've found what tends to kill large print "perceived quality" isn't lack of resolution, but visible pixelation when you get closer. Running out of super fine detail is OK as long as the image does so organically (think film like). It's when you get up closer and see square pixels with zero grain that it looks bad IMO. And at this print size, you will see pixels if you get within ±18" of the print.

For me, I've found the trick when you're lacking pure resolution (even a 100MP Medium Format camera is going to be short on res at this size) is to make a digital image look like a film image. This means rather than detail dropping off the cliff into sharp pixels, it does so with softer edges and a bit of grain. Yes, I said grain. This makes the image print so, so much nicer! Once you reach the end of visibly sharp detail for an output size, a bit of grain is more aesthetically pleasing than blurry, noiseless edges. That just looks "unnatural".

Basically, you're going to need to enlarge, and alot. Getting your image up to 200ppi minimum. So this means about 16,000 x 10,000 for your image size. You'll want something like Gigapixel AI. Everyone has different workflows (it's rarely best to simply just 'go as big as possible'). I'm happy to share my workflow if you're interested.

After you enlarge, you'll want to add some grain. Lots of ways to do this. I use Photoshop and the Camera RAW filter and tweak the grain till I like it.

Long story short, here's a comparison of a native 6000x4000 image and the same one enlarged to about 16,000 x 11,500. Enlarged in Gigapixel then my own workflow in Photoshop, with grain added.



On screen it may look very grainy, but this will print very nicely at 200ppi for a huge print. I'm not saying everyone likes grain, but trust me, it really helps when pushing the limits to the extreme like this. The detail extinction sorta melts into the grain and just look nice when it's on paper. It looks and feels more like a high quality film image rather than a digital file that ran out of resolution for the purpose.

--
My site:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com

 

[irm]

Another approach is to print on high quality canvas.

 

[drsnoopy]

Hello dears,

new to this forum so I'm not sure I'm placing the question in the right place ...

I have to make a 2m x 1m20 print and wonder if the 20Mpx from the R6 is enough.

I also own a 6DII which is 26Mpx so I'm a bit hesitant to go back to this old (but really good) reflex for this specific picture ... but I actually like much more using my R6 for plenty of reasons.

Any advice ? Would 20Mpx be enough for a (very) large print ?

thanks a lot !

If you are using an inkjet printer, you need 200 to 300 PPI. As a rule of thumb, 300 PPI for A4 or smaller prints, 240 PPI for A3+ prints, and 200 PPI for A2 or larger prints. At 200 PPI you can print 0.69m x 0.46m from your R6. For your print, you may need to upscale or you may rely on the printer driver to upscale it for you.

For commercial printers, you need 300 to 350 PPI. At 300 PPI you can print upto 0.46 m x .31m from R6. For larger you will need to upscale.

Quoting pixels per inch in isolation is not sufficient. You must also consider the viewing distance. A greater viewing distance is normal for larger prints, so a lower “resolution” in terms of ppi is entirely appropriate - unless you intend to examine them from a few inches away. For example one of my most liked prints is of a jaguar, taken using an 18MP camera (with a good lens). It has been printed up to 1.5m (60 inches) wide, without using any upscaling or AI software, and is therefore printed at less than 100 ppi. Each whisker and hair is visible and crisp. Nobody has ever complained about the “resolution”, in fact quite the reverse.

You can safely make very large prints from a 20MP R6 - just as you can from a 1DX mk3 or any other 20MP camera, as long as the image is sufficiently sharp to start with, requiring good optics and good technique.

 

[KLO82]

Hello dears,

new to this forum so I'm not sure I'm placing the question in the right place ...

I have to make a 2m x 1m20 print and wonder if the 20Mpx from the R6 is enough.

I also own a 6DII which is 26Mpx so I'm a bit hesitant to go back to this old (but really good) reflex for this specific picture ... but I actually like much more using my R6 for plenty of reasons.

Any advice ? Would 20Mpx be enough for a (very) large print ?

thanks a lot !

If you are using an inkjet printer, you need 200 to 300 PPI. As a rule of thumb, 300 PPI for A4 or smaller prints, 240 PPI for A3+ prints, and 200 PPI for A2 or larger prints. At 200 PPI you can print 0.69m x 0.46m from your R6. For your print, you may need to upscale or you may rely on the printer driver to upscale it for you.

For commercial printers, you need 300 to 350 PPI. At 300 PPI you can print upto 0.46 m x .31m from R6. For larger you will need to upscale.

Quoting pixels per inch in isolation is not sufficient. You must also consider the viewing distance. A greater viewing distance is normal for larger prints, so a lower “resolution” in terms of ppi is entirely appropriate - unless you intend to examine them from a few inches away. For example one of my most liked prints is of a jaguar, taken using an 18MP camera (with a good lens). It has been printed up to 1.5m (60 inches) wide, without using any upscaling or AI software, and is therefore printed at less than 100 ppi. Each whisker and hair is visible and crisp. Nobody has ever complained about the “resolution”, in fact quite the reverse.

You can safely make very large prints from a 20MP R6 - just as you can from a 1DX mk3 or any other 20MP camera, as long as the image is sufficiently sharp to start with, requiring good optics and good technique.

I was describing in terms how printers work. Your 18 MP image, if printed using an inkjet printer - was upscaled by the printer's driver to at least 200 PPI.

 

[drsnoopy]

Hello dears,

new to this forum so I'm not sure I'm placing the question in the right place ...

I have to make a 2m x 1m20 print and wonder if the 20Mpx from the R6 is enough.

I also own a 6DII which is 26Mpx so I'm a bit hesitant to go back to this old (but really good) reflex for this specific picture ... but I actually like much more using my R6 for plenty of reasons.

Any advice ? Would 20Mpx be enough for a (very) large print ?

thanks a lot !

If you are using an inkjet printer, you need 200 to 300 PPI. As a rule of thumb, 300 PPI for A4 or smaller prints, 240 PPI for A3+ prints, and 200 PPI for A2 or larger prints. At 200 PPI you can print 0.69m x 0.46m from your R6. For your print, you may need to upscale or you may rely on the printer driver to upscale it for you.

For commercial printers, you need 300 to 350 PPI. At 300 PPI you can print upto 0.46 m x .31m from R6. For larger you will need to upscale.

Quoting pixels per inch in isolation is not sufficient. You must also consider the viewing distance. A greater viewing distance is normal for larger prints, so a lower “resolution” in terms of ppi is entirely appropriate - unless you intend to examine them from a few inches away. For example one of my most liked prints is of a jaguar, taken using an 18MP camera (with a good lens). It has been printed up to 1.5m (60 inches) wide, without using any upscaling or AI software, and is therefore printed at less than 100 ppi. Each whisker and hair is visible and crisp. Nobody has ever complained about the “resolution”, in fact quite the reverse.

You can safely make very large prints from a 20MP R6 - just as you can from a 1DX mk3 or any other 20MP camera, as long as the image is sufficiently sharp to start with, requiring good optics and good technique.

I was describing in terms how printers work. Your 18 MP image, if printed using an inkjet printer - was upscaled by the printer's driver to at least 200 PPI.

Printers work at many times that resolution in dots per inch - not the same as ppi. The fact remains that a perfectly good large print can be made at 100 ppi as long as you aren’t viewing it from the same distance as say an A4 or 8x10” print. I’ve seen a superb print made at more than 2m from a 12MP GoPro image, no upscaling used or permitted, which won a major international wildlife competition (WPOTY in London).

 

[J A C S]

I've found what tends to kill large print "perceived quality" isn't lack of resolution, but visible pixelation when you get closer. Running out of super fine detail is OK as long as the image does so organically (think film like). It's when you get up closer and see square pixels with zero grain that it looks bad IMO. And at this print size, you will see pixels if you get within ±18" of the print.

It would take a really bad printer driver to print square pixels. Normally, that should not happen. If you print commercially, you have no idea of what the driver is doing, so it is better to upsize first. If you print at home, you can experiment first and play with different drivers/printing software. Qimage was very popular in the past.

 

[gipper51]

I've found what tends to kill large print "perceived quality" isn't lack of resolution, but visible pixelation when you get closer. Running out of super fine detail is OK as long as the image does so organically (think film like). It's when you get up closer and see square pixels with zero grain that it looks bad IMO. And at this print size, you will see pixels if you get within ±18" of the print.

It would take a really bad printer driver to print square pixels. Normally, that should not happen. If you print commercially, you have no idea of what the driver is doing, so it is better to upsize first. If you print at home, you can experiment first and play with different drivers/printing software. Qimage was very popular in the past.

Not sure what you mean here? If you size an image to print at about 70ppi like the OP is facing, you're going to see little square boxes printed on the paper if you look close enough. I'd assume that's normal for most print drivers? That's not a bad print driver, per se, just one that doesn't offer upscaling interpolation. I would think Qimage falls into the "specialty print driver" category.

Photoshop doesn't offer print upscaling (as they assume you'll upscale the actual image), does that make it a 'bad' print driver?

 

[Le Kilt]

I've found what tends to kill large print "perceived quality" isn't lack of resolution, but visible pixelation when you get closer. Running out of super fine detail is OK as long as the image does so organically (think film like). It's when you get up closer and see square pixels with zero grain that it looks bad IMO. And at this print size, you will see pixels if you get within ±18" of the print.

It would take a really bad printer driver to print square pixels. Normally, that should not happen. If you print commercially, you have no idea of what the driver is doing, so it is better to upsize first. If you print at home, you can experiment first and play with different drivers/printing software. Qimage was very popular in the past.

Not sure what you mean here? If you size an image to print at about 70ppi like the OP is facing, you're going to see little square boxes printed on the paper if you look close enough. I'd assume that's normal for most print drivers? That's not a bad print driver, per se, just one that doesn't offer upscaling interpolation. I would think Qimage falls into the "specialty print driver" category.

Photoshop doesn't offer print upscaling (as they assume you'll upscale the actual image), does that make it a 'bad' print driver?

The printer driver will upscale the photo with interpolation to give a smooth image, you won't see large square pixels.
Photoshop can also enlarge at your demand by 'resizing' the image under the Image size menu and give you a smooth image at the size and PPI you want for printing. It works well I've had low rez pics printed at 2m wide for outdoor fairs and they come out fine, no large square pixels in sight.

 

[J A C S]

This was answered already, just to mention that when you zoom in (no printing) in PS at >100%, you see small squares by design. The software creator assumes that you want to inspect individual pixels. If you use a decent viewer to display, say a 2mp photo on a 4k screen, the viewer would upsize in a smooth way. My viewer needs to be allowed to do that in the settings, since the developers did not want to hear complaints that their viewer is soft.

 

[Leigh A]

Its arbitrary to a degree, especially with up-rezzing programs like Topaz Megapixel, ON-1 Resize, etc.

Local hospitals here in town have their walls adorned with 24X36, & 27X40 inch prints taken with the likes of 12MP Nikon D300's & 10M Canon 40D's, and they don't look in any way compromised.

 

[Canon_Guy]

Hello dears,

new to this forum so I'm not sure I'm placing the question in the right place ...

I have to make a 2m x 1m20 print and wonder if the 20Mpx from the R6 is enough.

I also own a 6DII which is 26Mpx so I'm a bit hesitant to go back to this old (but really good) reflex for this specific picture ... but I actually like much more using my R6 for plenty of reasons.

Any advice ? Would 20Mpx be enough for a (very) large print ?

thanks a lot !

As already noted above, it is about the viewing distance. 2m print size with appropriate viewing distance will be fine.

What is very important are lenses and postprocessing. These will have a huge impact on the resulting IQ.

 

[Akasashasha]

Dears,

was away for some time, thanks everyone for your inputs !

Yes the R6 is largely enough for 2m size printing, just saw with a graphist/designer, starting from a good quality picture taken on the R6, one just have to export at 125ppp to get an almost 2m60 print !

And also discovered one photo I took in the past with a Canon 550D has been used on a 2m size print ... this was a 18mpx camera.

thanks everyone

 

[CamerEyes]

Hello dears,

new to this forum so I'm not sure I'm placing the question in the right place ...

I have to make a 2m x 1m20 print and wonder if the 20Mpx from the R6 is enough.

I also own a 6DII which is 26Mpx so I'm a bit hesitant to go back to this old (but really good) reflex for this specific picture ... but I actually like much more using my R6 for plenty of reasons.

Any advice ? Would 20Mpx be enough for a (very) large print ?

thanks a lot !

I shoot for Ikea's largest retail store in the world (700,000 square feet or 65,000 square meters!).

For their food and grocery products, they're happy with what comes out of my R6 Mark II and Sony A7C.

For in-store wall photos, they used to be ok with the same 24mp output. Two months ago they have asked for a minimum of 30-35mp. Has something to do with their new in-house printing system as they are trying to minimize outsourcing printing jobs. Since then I have been using the 45mp R5, the 40mp Fuji XH2 (where editing latitude is not expected) and the 61mp Sony A7CR.