|
Next: I need photo xmas cards with printing on both ins..
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Dec 01, 2005
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:06 pm
Post subject: Camera VS large printing size?
Archived from groups: rec>photo>digital (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Apr 05, 2006
Posts: 704
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:09 pm
Post subject: Re: Camera VS large printing size? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
jeffreyv.TakeThisOut@globetrotter.net wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I want to buy a good digital camera to print them in large sizes like
> 16 X 20 or something like that. What kind of camera should I use?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jeff
What size you can print to is a very odd area. If you take a give
digital photo and print it at a number of sizes people will almost
always like the largest size.
I have gotten to the point where any thing much less then 300 ppi looks
soft to me, but I am pretty near sighted and people with more normal
vision often can't tell the difference between 200 ppi and 300.
The best thing to do is going to any number of digital camera review
sites that have sample photos and print out crops from these that if
printed full size would be 16 x 20, this will give you the best idea
of what it will look like when printed out.
I make 12 x 18 prints from the 20D from time to time, I am never very
happy with them but other people seem to love them.
In short more pixels per inch is better if you can get them. If you
have a fix number of pixels print them out larger is better. The best
is lots of pixels printed out large. For a 16 x 20 this lots would be
close to 30 MP. I am becoming a fan of stitching photos to get to
higher resolutions, 30 MP is like falling of a log and 100 MP is not
very hard, something to think about since a 30 MP camera will cost a
lot.
A MF (at least a 6 x 6 ) will come close to 30MP but it will be a bit
soft there, if you go the film route a 4 x 5 would serve you well, but
a pain to use (but a 16 x 20 print would look great from one).
Scott |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 26, 2005
Posts: 309
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:10 am
Post subject: Re: Camera VS large printing size? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 09, 2005
Posts: 498
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:18 am
Post subject: Re: Camera VS large printing size? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> Jeff writes ...
>
>I want to buy a good digital camera to print them in large sizes like
>16 X 20 or something like that. What kind of camera should I use?
My personal experience and taste says 6 Mpixels won't cut it since it's
a bit soft printed this large (Canon 10D files is all I've tried), 11
Mpixels and larger will do it fine (Canon 1Ds) and 8 Mpixels (Canon 1D
Mark II ... not sure about the smaller sensor 8 Mpix bodies like the
20D though) sometimes makes very good prints up to 16x24" but not
always, depending on the image. We just sold a 16x20" print from the
Mark II to a hospital and they were very happy with it, for example.
I'm basing this on doing all the digital work myself (Adobe "Certified
Expert" in Photoshop) and printing on an Epson 4000 professional
printer with accurate profiles. You need to know the best ways to
resample the file up and best ways to sharpen the file to get good
large prints, I feel you can't do it with files fresh from the camera.
Bill >> Stay informed about: Camera VS large printing size? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 05, 2006
Posts: 704
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:29 am
Post subject: Re: Camera VS large printing size? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
sid derra wrote:
>
> i got a few 12 x 18s from my D70 (6mp) and am very pleased with the results.
>
> sid
This is my take on it a 12 x 18 print from a 6 MP camera will look
better then a 8 x 12 print from of the same file. But a 12 x 18
print from good 20MP image will look better then a 12 x 18 print from a
6 MP image. How much better the 20MP print looks depends a lot of who
is looking at and how close they are to it. A lot depends also on what
is in the scene, things like grass and leaves take a lot more detail to
look right then photos of people.
Scott >> Stay informed about: Camera VS large printing size? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 05, 2006
Posts: 704
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:24 am
Post subject: Re: Camera VS large printing size? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Gregory Blank wrote:
> In article <1133533788.299823.112290.RemoveThis@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Scott W" <biphoto.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A lot depends also on what
> > is in the scene, things like grass and leaves take a lot more detail to
> > look right then photos of people.
> >
> > Scott
>
> I agree with at least one exception:
>
> Unless its a large group of people where the faces are quite small
> but it goes back to your statement regarding detail.
yup, I was thinking about a portrait on one person, not a group photo.
Scott >> Stay informed about: Camera VS large printing size? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 26, 2006
Posts: 26
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:17 am
Post subject: Re: Camera VS large printing size? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Scott W" <biphoto DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133507390.933632.108880@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> jeffreyv DeleteThis @globetrotter.net wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I want to buy a good digital camera to print them in large sizes like
>> 16 X 20 or something like that. What kind of camera should I use?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Jeff
>
> What size you can print to is a very odd area. If you take a give
> digital photo and print it at a number of sizes people will almost
> always like the largest size.
>
> I have gotten to the point where any thing much less then 300 ppi looks
> soft to me, but I am pretty near sighted and people with more normal
> vision often can't tell the difference between 200 ppi and 300.
>
> The best thing to do is going to any number of digital camera review
> sites that have sample photos and print out crops from these that if
> printed full size would be 16 x 20, this will give you the best idea
> of what it will look like when printed out.
>
> I make 12 x 18 prints from the 20D from time to time, I am never very
> happy with them but other people seem to love them.
>
> In short more pixels per inch is better if you can get them. If you
> have a fix number of pixels print them out larger is better. The best
> is lots of pixels printed out large. For a 16 x 20 this lots would be
> close to 30 MP. I am becoming a fan of stitching photos to get to
> higher resolutions, 30 MP is like falling of a log and 100 MP is not
> very hard, something to think about since a 30 MP camera will cost a
> lot.
>
> A MF (at least a 6 x 6 ) will come close to 30MP but it will be a bit
> soft there, if you go the film route a 4 x 5 would serve you well, but
> a pain to use (but a 16 x 20 print would look great from one).
>
i got a few 12 x 18s from my D70 (6mp) and am very pleased with the results.
sid >> Stay informed about: Camera VS large printing size? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 02, 2005
Posts: 6
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:08 am
Post subject: Re: Camera VS large printing size? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <1133533788.299823.112290 RemoveThis @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Scott W" <biphoto RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> A lot depends also on what
> is in the scene, things like grass and leaves take a lot more detail to
> look right then photos of people.
>
> Scott
I agree with at least one exception:
Unless its a large group of people where the faces are quite small
but it goes back to your statement regarding detail.
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
www.gregblankphoto(dot)com >> Stay informed about: Camera VS large printing size? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 20, 2005
Posts: 546
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Camera VS large printing size? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
jeffreyv.TakeThisOut@globetrotter.net wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I want to buy a good digital camera to print them in large sizes like
> 16 X 20 or something like that. What kind of camera should I use?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jeff
Not an exact science. Personally I would say that good quality prints
16x20 can be made from an 8 meg camera. Larger is is better, assuming all
else is equal. It is not a hard fast rule.
I would say that in film photography you could make a good 16x20 from a
35 mm negative, but the results from a good 4x5 would be far better.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit >> Stay informed about: Camera VS large printing size? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 26, 2005
Posts: 1149
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Camera VS large printing size? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"bmoag" <aetoo RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> You could try scanning film.
If by "film" you mean "35mm film", that doesn't really work if one has
anything even vaguely resembling a requirement for quality in one's prints
(since that's a 16x enlargement). 6x7 is the smallest film size that I'd use
to make a 16x20 _photograph_.
You can make nice 16x20 _posters_ from smaller film sizes and even consumer
dcams. But you need to physically restrain your viewers from approaching
said posters.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan >> Stay informed about: Camera VS large printing size? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 19, 2005
Posts: 7
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:41 pm
Post subject: Re: Camera VS large printing size? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I agree with the 300 pixels per inch for high quality, but most cameras
don't really have single-pixel resolution of details, so I'd err toward
more megapixels rather than towards fewer. The Foveon does have
single-pixel resolution, but it's got nowhere near 28.8 megapixels.
They say the megapixel wars are over. Not for me, they aint. I think
I'll be happy with 16mpixels for 8x11 prints, or 9mpixels if the camera
has single-pixel resolution. 6-megapixel cameras have good enough
resolution for high quality 5x7 prints. >> Stay informed about: Camera VS large printing size? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 05, 2006
Posts: 704
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Camera VS large printing size? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
bob_jenkins DeleteThis @burtleburtle.net wrote:
> I agree with the 300 pixels per inch for high quality, but most cameras
> don't really have single-pixel resolution of details, so I'd err toward
> more megapixels rather than towards fewer. The Foveon does have
> single-pixel resolution, but it's got nowhere near 28.8 megapixels.
>
> They say the megapixel wars are over. Not for me, they aint. I think
> I'll be happy with 16mpixels for 8x11 prints, or 9mpixels if the camera
> has single-pixel resolution. 6-megapixel cameras have good enough
> resolution for high quality 5x7 prints.
the 8 MP from the 20D does a great job of 8 x 12 prints and prints at
that size are very close to 300 ppi. As you point out the pixels from
any bayer pattern camera are not as sharp as pixels can get, but it is
not bad from a 20D or other DSLRs. I did a post some time ago looking
at how much one has to down sample to get really clean pixels, this
depends a lot of the camera. Sure you can get a bit sharper print by
having more then 300 ppi, even if the printer only outputs at 300 ppi.
The reality is however that the pixel are clean enough from the 20D and
just about any other DSLR that you would be hard pressed to tell the
difference between a 300 ppi print and a 600 ppi print, but there would
be some and if you really want the ultimate in sharpness you need the
extra pixels.
I would say however that if you have a 6 mp camera and you are limiting
yourself to 5 x 7 prints you are being a bit on the crazy side.
Scott
Scott >> Stay informed about: Camera VS large printing size? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 17, 2005
Posts: 95
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Post subject: Re: Camera VS large printing size? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> My opinion: minimum 300 ppi for high quality, 240 ppi for good quality,
> 200 for low.
These are images output PPI resolutions and to be precise, decision on an
image PPI depends on the printing output DPI and printing technology. A
200PPI image may prints better than a 300PPI (same image) with different
print output technology. For example: photo laser print needs about 250PPI
but will print better than inkjet one at 300PPI. >> Stay informed about: Camera VS large printing size? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 17, 2005
Posts: 143
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:53 pm
Post subject: Re: Camera VS large printing size? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
bob_jenkins DeleteThis @burtleburtle.net wrote:
> They say the megapixel wars are over. Not for me, they aint.
I'll never say I have "enough" detail. The problem is, at least for me,
at 8 megapixels the limiting factors on detail is not pixels, but
subject motion, camera motion, or sometimes bad focus. In other words,
conditions often don't permit full use of the pixels I already have.
This is something I never thought about while reading those websites
where they compare digicams to 35mm film and medium format. All their
tests assume a tripod and plenty of light relative to subject motion.
When any of those conditions are violated, which is all too often, then
speed is the real limiting factor on capturing detail. A 50 MB scan
from a motion-blurred medium format negative has no more detail than a
motion-blurred 2 megapixel digicam snapshot.
And since big lenses never come down in price (and are a hassle
anyways), I think the best avenue for higher detail in the future is
less noisy sensors. I wouldn't mind being limited to 10 megapixels 10
years from now if I could use it at ISO 12,000 or so  >> Stay informed about: Camera VS large printing size? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 39
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:46 am
Post subject: Re: Camera VS large printing size? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Yes I agree that there is an image dependance factor. But generally, a
20D should do fairly well at 16x20 with proper upsampling sharpening. I
have even printed some 20"x30" from a 20D (upsampled/sharpened) and
they look quite good. At that size you may begin to see a little of an
'artificial' look but overall a properly produced print can be sharp
and stunning at that size if executed correctly (clearly better than
35mm film).
Bill Hilton wrote:
> > Jeff writes ...
> >
> >I want to buy a good digital camera to print them in large sizes like
> >16 X 20 or something like that. What kind of camera should I use?
>
> My personal experience and taste says 6 Mpixels won't cut it since it's
> a bit soft printed this large (Canon 10D files is all I've tried), 11
> Mpixels and larger will do it fine (Canon 1Ds) and 8 Mpixels (Canon 1D
> Mark II ... not sure about the smaller sensor 8 Mpix bodies like the
> 20D though) sometimes makes very good prints up to 16x24" but not
> always, depending on the image. We just sold a 16x20" print from the
> Mark II to a hospital and they were very happy with it, for example.
>
> I'm basing this on doing all the digital work myself (Adobe "Certified
> Expert" in Photoshop) and printing on an Epson 4000 professional
> printer with accurate profiles. You need to know the best ways to
> resample the file up and best ways to sharpen the file to get good
> large prints, I feel you can't do it with files fresh from the camera.
>
> Bill >> Stay informed about: Camera VS large printing size? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
