Your biggest print - DPChallenge Forums

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

02/25/2005 10:01:23 PM · #1

Hi people!

A simple question: what was your biggest print from one of your photos that you (or someone) ever did? What was the resolution and post the piscture if you have it.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

02/25/2005 10:15:01 PM · #2

I had this pic printed at 31.5 inches wide by 11.25 inhces high. The pixel dimensions are 9450Wx3375h

I also had this one printed at 35.5Wx9.8H. The original image was 12148px W by 3450px H.

Message edited by author 2005-02-25 22:21:18.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

02/25/2005 10:17:02 PM · #3

I printed this approx 19 x 26 inches not counting the borders

and this 15 x 29 inches not counting the borders

Both were direct from my 4MP camera and were not interpolated up. They came out beautifully. We had them framed professionally, but it cost a fortune, and so I:

1) don't make them that big anymore, and
2) I do my own framing from americanframe.com

Edit: added inches since this is an international site!

Message edited by author 2005-02-25 22:17:38.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED

02/25/2005 10:22:47 PM · #4

The widest I've printed so far is 48x17 @ 350 pixels per inch. It is a 571Mb file. You can see a web version of the print here. I just sold one last week. I have printed a few that were bigger files, but that stands out in my mind as the widest.

megryan

Nikon D300

02/25/2005 10:30:22 PM · #5

Neil, left a comment on your bell ! Such a soothing photograph :-)

train

Panasonic DMC-FZ30

02/25/2005 10:52:16 PM · #6

24inches x 18 inches and it looks great

Message edited by author 2005-02-25 22:52:31.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

02/25/2005 10:54:51 PM · #7

Originally posted by megryan:

Neil, left a comment on your bell ! Such a soothing photograph :-)

Thanks. It was taken in Alaska--best vacation I ever had and had the most beautiful places I've ever been!

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/27/2005 03:42:38 PM · #8

Originally posted by nsbca7:

What in the worl makes pictures with 571MB???

These values that you post are huge. Do you interpolate it or how do you get such huge files?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/27/2005 04:06:48 PM · #9

Originally posted by Nuno:

Originally posted by nsbca7:
The widest I've printed so far is 48x17 @ 350 pixels per inch. It is a 571Mb file. You can see a web version of the print here. I just sold one last week. I have printed a few that were bigger files, but that stands out in my mind as the widest.

What in the worl makes pictures with 571MB???

These values that you post are huge. Do you interpolate it or how do you get such huge files?

48 x 17 @ 350 = 286mb in RGB color; maybe the 571mb figure is for a 16-bit color TIFF (twice 286).

How you get those pixels in the first place is a separate question -- this is about a 3:1 panorama.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/27/2005 04:08:49 PM · #10

Originally posted by Nuno:

When coverted from RAW a file from the 1Ds in 16 bit is 62Mb. Resize to actual printing size and the result is the large file size. I could convert to 8 bit and print at a lower resolution if I didn't have the hardware to handle these large files, but I do and so I try to print as high quality as I can.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/27/2005 04:13:31 PM · #11

How do you perform the resampling? That's quite a large increase.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/27/2005 04:18:58 PM · #12

I've printed both of these as large as 20 x 30, although the mirror shot got kind of grainy because of the conditions it was shot under -- it looks OK from a couple feet away like you'd normally view it.

Both of these originated in my 2MP (1600x 1200) Olympus D490Z, before I got involved at DPC.

02/27/2005 04:34:24 PM · #13

Originally posted by GeneralE:

How do you perform the resampling? That's quite a large increase.

It's a little over a fourfold increase. It would be about the same as converting a 6 Mb image to 24 Mb. I do it in one shot resample bicubic. No problems so far.

02/27/2005 04:38:01 PM · #14

I've changed from Fuji S5000 to the D70 and I'm amzed with the qualaty (and the SB800 is suberb).

but I'm getting a bit worried about printing sizes because I wish I could print bigger with the same qualaty.

So the 6 mp image from my D70 has more or less 3000x2000 pixels in image size. So if I print it in a 300 dpi photo realistic qualaty, in my head I can only print as big as 10x6 inch. So How do you get images with such huge number of pixels? (it wasn't the file size that impressed me).

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

02/27/2005 04:42:42 PM · #15

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
How do you perform the resampling? That's quite a large increase.

It's a little over a fourfold increase. It would be about the same as converting a 6 Mb image to 24 Mb. I do it in one shot resample bicubic. No problems so far.

Is that under the "image size" menu or the "canvas size"?

I've notticed that when I crop an image with a fixed aspect ratio, for example 6x4 inch in Photoshop the image size in pixels become the 6x300 dpi x 4x300 dpi (I always work at 300 dpi).

Is that another way to do it?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

02/27/2005 04:48:15 PM · #16

Originally posted by Nuno:

...So the 6 mp image from my D70 has more or less 3000x2000 pixels in image size. So if I print it in a 300 dpi photo realistic qualaty, in my head I can only print as big as 10x6 inch...

You're just being very conservative. You can print at 200dpi, and you will not really see the difference. That would take you to 15x10. You can go larger if you upsample and if the original is quite sharp to begin with. If, for example, you take your original file and carefully upsample by 3:1 in linear terms (that is, the 3000px side becomes 9000px and the 200px side becomes 6000px) then print at 300dpi, you're at 30x20. This will still look very good indeed, since the normal viewing distance for a 20x30 print means you won't really see that it's a bit softer. It's still equivalent to printing the original at 100dpi, but will look smoother because of the upsampling.