Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Is Bigger Really Better?  (Read 2501 times)

SteveZ

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
Is Bigger Really Better?
« on: November 12, 2008, 05:11:31 pm »

I have a client who wants to purchase several of my images which they will print and frame at their shop and resell to one of their clients. I'm to supply them with only the finished TIFF file at the native resolution. Problem is some of these images were taken with an 8pm camera and others taken with 13mp camera. My understanding is that some of these images may be printed in various sizes and may go as large as 4' x 8'. I'm a little concerned about the quality of the printed image at this size. Should I be?
Logged

dalethorn

  • Guest
Is Bigger Really Better?
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2008, 05:51:41 pm »

Quote from: SteveZ
I have a client who wants to purchase several of my images which they will print and frame at their shop and resell to one of their clients. I'm to supply them with only the finished TIFF file at the native resolution. Problem is some of these images were taken with an 8pm camera and others taken with 13mp camera. My understanding is that some of these images may be printed in various sizes and may go as large as 4' x 8'. I'm a little concerned about the quality of the printed image at this size. Should I be?
People who do poster prints should be well aware of the issues of resolution -vs- appearance at normal viewing distance. And with TIFF files in hand, they have the best possible resource for creating those prints. It all depends on whether they know what they're doing.
Logged

SteveZ

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
Is Bigger Really Better?
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2008, 05:56:31 pm »

Quote from: dalethorn
People who do poster prints should be well aware of the issues of resolution -vs- appearance at normal viewing distance. And with TIFF files in hand, they have the best possible resource for creating those prints. It all depends on whether they know what they're doing.

Thanks Dale. In your opinion how large can an image from an 8mp camera be printed before it loses quality? Before you answer take into account that I'm assuming they know handle file interpolation for output and that the finished product is going to be viewed from a reasonable distance
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Is Bigger Really Better?
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2008, 08:44:57 pm »

Hi,

It all depends on the viewing distance. So it really comes to reasonable distance. My own experience is with 6MP to 12.5 MP. I have A2-s (40 cm x 60 cm) printed from 6MP, and it is a stretch. I recently printed a 24.6 MP test picture in A2 and a nearly identical one from an 12.5 MP and there was not a lot of difference. I'd guess that A2-s from 12.5 MPixels are quite OK. Viewing distance here is probably 80 cm or so. If you double viewing distance you can essentially double linear size. So if I say that a print from 12.5 MP is OK at 60 cm (2') when looked at 80 cm than a 8' print would probably be OK at 3.2. This can be stretched a bit with good interpolation an careful but aggressive sharpening. The eye (actually brain) can be fooled to perceive an image sharp even if it lacks detail.

I have a 70x100 cm enlargement on my wall made from a 10 MPixel image. With my eyesight it's actually OK at about 80 cm viewing distance, so what I have written above can be significantly stretched.

Also keep in mind that MPixels are not created equal. The reasoning above really requires the picture to be "absolutely sharp" when viewed at actual pixels, before rezzing up.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: SteveZ
Thanks Dale. In your opinion how large can an image from an 8mp camera be printed before it loses quality? Before you answer take into account that I'm assuming they know handle file interpolation for output and that the finished product is going to be viewed from a reasonable distance
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

dalethorn

  • Guest
Is Bigger Really Better?
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2008, 10:58:30 pm »

To be honest, it's not predictable, unless the images have a consistency of color, contrast, density, and subject that make it so. That's why I say that large-scale printing has to know what it's doing regarding all sorts of technique - interpolation, masking, edge enhancement (sometimes referred to as sharpening, but not quite the same as sharpening for normal size prints), and so on. I've seen marvelous things done with small negative films and enlargers with different light sources, but digital is not the same, since pixels have a regular size and shape unlike film grain, and are harder to disguise in the final print. Be prepared to spend a lot for good results. In case I forgot to mention, the 8 -vs- 13 mp difference won't be nearly as much a factor as the other factors I mentioned.
Logged

allanjder

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
    • http://www.allan-der.com
Is Bigger Really Better?
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2008, 11:25:32 pm »

Viewing distance is important, some subjects can tolerate more enlargement. I work for a grand format printer (www.supercolor.com).
We have printed images 12' or wilder from lower resolution photos and they look great. Here is a 2MP image of mine that made a great 17"x22" print:
 http://www.allan-der.com/photography/photo.../gyserbasin.jpg.
Logged

sniper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Is Bigger Really Better?
« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2008, 04:49:45 am »

We often print 2x3 foot images of 10-12mp cameras, these look pretty good, but as one of the other posters said theres 8mp and 8MP cameras, theres a big difference say between an 8mp compact and an 8mp SLR with a cracking lens, a lot of other variables will affect the image too, how well exposed it is, what sotware the company use to upsize the image, how much PP works it's had etc etc.  Wayne
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up