You can definitely print larger than 8x10. I've made 8x10's with my 2.1mp. I would guess a nice 16x20, and a little loss as you go up. I think there was recently a thread on this.
It depends on a lot of factors - but I can tell you I have printed 13 x 19 prints from a 2.5 mp shot and under a 7x lupe can see no pixel separation. But I have a feeling it was more due to the printer used.
i printed this one to 24X16 without any loss at all with my kodak DX6490, this one now lives in a University where it won 2nd prize in a major competition..
and this one to 20X16 with the same ... this one hung in the N.S.W Art Gallery in a Huge exhibition for a few months and i bet noone thought it was done with a point and shoot 4 megapixel...lol...goodluck
I have printed a 18 feet by 4 feet (not inches) print on a flex sheet. This was a panorama shot, taken with Canon S1 IS, a 3.2 Megapixel Camera. The flex-printing has inbuilt limitation of grain size, however, the result appear acceptable from a distance of about 20 feet.
I have the same problem! My camera is 8.0 megapixels...went over to have a pic developed into 20X30...the result was so bad. A waste of my $$$ Please help!
Thank you so much for your help! I was going to just hang on to the bad pic from Cord Camera and never go back again...poor...now, I'll go bitch at them to fix for me =P Also, I would check out your suggestions digitalpins =)
Last year there were made 1x2 meter prints of photos I shot with my 3.2mpix EOS D30 and they looked great... There are no limits, the larger the prints get the further away from them people usually are when viewing them, but of course more pixels are better. One hint though, shoot in raw format and develop uncompressed TIFF files. JPEG compression crap just isn't cool when it comes to enlarging.
Last year there were made 1x2 meter prints of photos I shot with my 3.2mpix EOS D30 and they looked great... There are no limits, the larger the prints get the further away from them people usually are when viewing them, but of course more pixels are better. One hint though, shoot in raw format and develop uncompressed TIFF files. JPEG compression crap just isn't cool when it comes to enlarging.
it depends very much one 2 factors - the camera and the printer.
I can get film quality 5x7 out of a 0.9mp kodak that is about 5 years old.
Someone i know had a 2.1mp kodak purchased last year, and (and this might just be because they were dumb and couldnt use a camera) they couldnt even get a 4x6 without out it looking like a webcam image.
Kodak really started making thier low end cameras cheaply now compared to the 0.9 which was the only one they had on the market when it was "current".
I have printed 8x10 our of my 2mp fuji from walmart, whcc, fotki and winkflash. That is the order in which they turned out (walmart worse fotki best). However, WHCC requires you to upsize so it is 200dpi and at 2mp, that doesnt work so well.
All for companies use the same fuji archive paper and the same inks and printing technology,. I used prints from the same series on all of them (mostly the same print exact) and you can DEFINATLEY tell quality difference, so how well your prints are taken care of at the printers is signifiacnt factor also.
