| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/04/2009 09:27:14 PM · #1 |
| I shoot with a canon 30D, always in RAW. Im wondering how large of print can i get while still looking like a quality print? |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 09:33:29 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by brimac:
I shoot with a canon 30D, always in RAW. Im wondering how large of print can i get while still looking like a quality print? |
That is dependent on more than just your camera.
How far away will the print be viewed from? You could make a 16" x 20" print that looks awful when viewed from 10 inches, and you could print a 16' x 20' print that looks great when viewed from 50 feet away. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 10:10:17 PM · #3 |
Depends on how you have it printed. But if you look at the image in photoshop & do View-Print Size, it should give you an idea. Now that I'm thinking about it, do that then look at Image-Image Size and it will give the dimensions in inches. My raw files come up as 40.708 x 27.104 inches.
I've had a large canvas and had poster sized images done from my Fuji and they look wonderful. I've done 16x20 from the 300D & the 40D and they look wonderful. |
|
|
|
08/04/2009 10:18:40 PM · #4 |
This eventually boils down to a discussion of DPI and printing, so you should look into that- there are numerous other discussions about it, and what is acceptable.
Don't forget that there is also Genuine Fractals. |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 04:07:13 AM · #5 |
I've printed a 24" x 20" from a jpg from my 40d which looks fantastic
Genuine Fractals (as above) claims to be able to enlarge the image by several hundred percent IIRC |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 08:22:03 AM · #6 |
| Opinions on what is a "quality" print vary greatly, but 200 dpi is often mentioned as good target. Assuming the file is sharp to begin with (good lens and technique, good processing) then 200 dpi should give a great-looking print. It's probably OK to drop to 150 dpi, depending on how critical you are, and how closely you'll examine the print. At 200 dpi, you're talking about 11.6 by 17.5 inches. At 150 dpi, you're talking 15.6 by 23.3 inches. At 150 dpi, up-sampling may help to make the file smoother. I don't find much benefit from Genuine Fractals. |
|
|
|
08/05/2009 08:31:50 AM · #7 |
With my 8MP Rebel XT
|
|
|
|
08/06/2009 03:31:19 AM · #8 |
I am always blown away but what the new enlargement software can do.
If you don't mind shelling out the few bucks its well worth it if you are into large prints.
I have had the privilege of trying Blow Up 2 by Alien Skin software.
It was ok.
I can do an example if anyone is interested.
A before and after comparison.
Just let me know :)
|
|
|
|
08/06/2009 05:54:37 AM · #9 |
This is one panel of a 6' x 11' image from my 6MP D70s, blown up to a 120MB jpeg file in CS2.
I regularly print out 16x20s, and have done a few in the 32x40 range.
It does depend on the image, not the MP of your camera.
Message edited by author 2009-08-06 05:56:25.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2009 05:58:20 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by bobonacus:
I've printed a 24" x 20" from a jpg from my 40d which looks fantastic
Genuine Fractals (as above) claims to be able to enlarge the image by several hundred percent IIRC |
GF is what a lot of printers use and swear by.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2009 06:20:11 AM · #11 |
Here are some examples.
The source photo I was using was the original version of this.
What I did was zoom in to 200%, crop, which gave me this.
Then I applied an increase of 10X to the image and cropped again, using both CS4 (bicubic smoother for upsizing) and GF (I cropped to keep the file sizes for upload manageable-they get giant). I have provided two zoom ratios, 25% and 66.67% to give you somewhat of an idea of what it looks like.
CS4 @ 25% 
GF @ 25% 
CS4 @ 66.67% 
GF @ 25% 
The difference is subtle but it's there. If you magnified a 30D RAW by what I've done, you could print it at 300 DPI and it would be 116.8"X77.8666"
Keep in mind your viewing distance is closely related to how good this will all actually look. That's why I suggested you look into the relationship between DPI and quality.
ETA: No changes were made to files except enlargement. Enlargement was done in one big leap, though I've heard that doing it progressively can give you smoother results.
Message edited by author 2009-08-06 06:25:53. |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 07:14:20 AM · #12 |
| If I remember correctly, Scott Kelby writes in his latest book on CS4 that you can get better upsizing results by using bicubic sharper instead of bicubic smoother... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/17/2024 08:12:09 PM EDT.
