Maximum recommended print size for modern DSLR's

[JonathanRimmel]

I know it has been mentioned before that unless you are shooting with medium format you should stick with prints smaller than 13x19. Does this still ring true with the most current DSLR's? They have improved significantly through the years and their capacity to produce quality images is higher than ever. I recently procured an Epson 3880 and it is fantastic. But will I be able to make use of it's maximum print size with a DSLR? Or will I have to wait patiently until I can afford a medium format camera?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,


I normally print A2, (16x23") from my both cameras Sonya Alpha 700 (APS-C, 12 MP) and Sony Alpha 900 (fullframe 24-5 MP) at that size the full frame camera has a small benefit. I presume that A1 (23"x33") is definitvely workable. How much you can enlarge depends much on subject, image quality, viewing distance and your criteria.

That said, I made several test comparing the two cameras. The files rom the A900 (FF) were always much better than from the 12 MP A700, but the difference in prints was very, very small.

Another way to see it is that a good rule of thumb is that you need 180 PPI for a really good print. That would yield a 22"x33" print from a 24.5 MP full frame camera like the Nikon D3X or the Sony Alpha 900. But you can print larger with good interpolation and output sharpening. So I guess that A0 is within reach with careful work.

Keep in mind that stopping down to f/22 would eliminate 75% percent of the pixels in your camera. Not using mirror lockup could also loose 75% of the pixels. The key to large prints is careful work!

Best regards
Erik

I know it has been mentioned before that unless you are shooting with medium format you should stick with prints smaller than 13x19. Does this still ring true with the most current DSLR's? They have improved significantly through the years and their capacity to produce quality images is higher than ever. I recently procured an Epson 3880 and it is fantastic. But will I be able to make use of it's maximum print size with a DSLR? Or will I have to wait patiently until I can afford a medium format camera?

[Mark D Segal]

This question is unanswerable in the form asked. What DSLR are you talking about? Would the images have any cropping? What level of quality of resolution do you consider acceptable? For example have you personally noticed a difference in a large print whether the image is printed at 240 PPI or 300 PI? Unless you get down to specifics this is like trying to nail jelly to a wall. The short answer is NO. You are not limited to 13*19 using a DSLR. It depends...............it depends............it depends.............

[JonathanRimmel]

I should have been more specific in my question. Can I print larger under ideal circumstances (proper focus, exposure, mirror lockup, pro camera ect)? Or would I be limited even in those ideal circumstances?

[AFairley]

17x22 (or 17x25) (the largest size the 3800 will print) is a piece of cake from a good uncropped APS-C file with proper post-processing.  How much larger you can go depends on the file and what you are looking for in a print -- really, it's all subjective in the end. 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

+1

I actually have an 32x53 (12.5"x21") cm print taken on Iceland 2006 with my first DSLR (a 6 MP Minolta Dimage 7D). It has some issues with detail resolution but I would not hesitate to hang it at a gallery. Good sharpening and scaling takes you a long way.

I have a small write up on the issue here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/24-how-many-megapixels-do-we-need

Check Miles Hecker's writing here: http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Pentax_645D_review_pt2.html (look at the end of the article where he discussess prints).

I'd say that his conclusions are quite consistent with what I might expect.

Best regards
Erik

17x22 (or 17x25) (the largest size the 3800 will print) is a piece of cake from a good uncropped APS-C file with proper post-processing.  How much larger you can go depends on the file and what you are looking for in a print -- really, it's all subjective in the end. 

[Hening Bettermann]

If your subject is stationary and allows multiple exposures, you can double the pixel count of your camera using Super Resolution stacking with Photo Acute.

[Alan Goldhammer]

This link is useful.  However, the ultimate size of a print depends on the factors others have mentioned as well as the viewing distance.  A friend of mine with an Epson 7900 printed two of my Nikon D300 images at 24x36 and they really look spectacular when viewed at the proper viewing distance (>5 feet). Both were landscapes taken on a tripod with mirror lock up. 

[JonathanRimmel]

Thank you everyone for your replies. Great Links.

I have a small write up on the issue here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/24-how-many-megapixels-do-we-need

Unfortunately this link does not work.

I have made a few prints with a 6 MP camera (Nikon D70) and they have turned out quite nice. With better photographic techniques I could have printed them larger than I did.

This link: http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Pentax_645D_review_pt2.html was very straight forward. 16x20. I would imagine I wouldn't likely print larger than this anyway unless I did some image stitching (which I suppose would allow much larger prints as long as everything else was equal).

Hening, I am curious as to what this "super resolution stacking" is all about. Is it similar to photo stitching?  

[hjulenissen]

Hening, I am curious as to what this "super resolution stacking" is all about. Is it similar to photo stitching?  

It is similar in that 2 or more photos are combined to make a single, improved output.

They differ in that for SR the camera is not moved (or only moved a pixel or so).

The potential is probably larger for stitching than SR, but also more tedious.

-h

[Mike Guilbault]

I've printed 30x40" from cameras of 6mp up to 12mp and it really depends on the individual image.  The images that come to mind are a 30x40 of a rural scene (barn with mountain in the background) and a 3/4 length studio portrait taken with 12mp.  Both look amazing - and SOLD.  Can every print go that large - no.  So as many have said, it depends.

[Josh-H]

Yes, it most definitely depends on a lot of different factors. Assuming the original capture was optimal; tripod, mirror lock up, cable release, sharp lens, well focused, ETTR, planets aligned etc..And assuming the processing is optimal (especially the sharpening) then you can print very large. I printed a 44" x 60" a week or so ago for a client from a 1DS MKIII 21.1 mega pixel file on Moab Somerset Museum Rag paper and it came up beautifully. I was actually amazed how sharp, clean and detailed it was - printed on a Canon IPF8300. Had the capture and processing been less an optimal the results would have been less so.

Printing this kind of size does require interpolation and optimal output sharpening to really get the best out the image. In this case I used Lightroom for the processing. But used Q-image for the interpolation and output sharpening (But I could have also done this in Lightroom).

The surface also makes a difference. Canvas is more forgiving of flaws since you loose so much resolution by the nature of the surface. Matt Rag papers are far more revealing and Baryta Gloss and Semi-Gloss even more so. So choice of print surface plays a part in the end result.

One of the best things to do when you want to go really large and you have everything optimised and ready to print is to make a test strip to see how it holds up.

This topic is actually pretty well covered off in the original Camera to Print video series as well (im pretty sure it is also in the new one).

[Hening Bettermann]

> Hening, I am curious as to what this "super resolution stacking" is all about. Is it similar to photo stitching?

Hi Jonathan,

others have answered before I could. "Stitching" means combining 2 or more adjacent, but overlapping frames into one image, "stacking" means combining 2 or more (almost) identical frames into one image. "Almost" means, for SuperResolution, they must be different on the sub-pixel level, something I think is hard to avoid even if you wanted. Stitching can be done so to speak ad infinitum, whereas SuperResolution stacking is confined to 2 times the original pixel count. That is with PhotoAcute. I would not know of any other software that does this. SR stacking has 2 great advantages: 1- you need no additional equipment (supposing you use a tripod anyway); 2- the stacking reduces noise, the more so, the more shots you use. PhotoAcute requires a minimum of 4 frames for SR stacking, and by this number, noise is virtually gone! (May depend on how much it was to begin with, of course.) Hope this is useful.

Good light!

[JonathanRimmel]

Wow, super resolution stacking sounds like it could be very useful. I will have to look further into this.

[Sven W]

My experience of PhotoAcute is that it's true when stacking images from low-medium Mp cameras or cellphones.

When stacking images from, let say, a 5D Mark II, I wasn't that impressed. Actually
did PS the same job, interpolating from one original raw-file.

/Sven

[Alistair]

I know it has been mentioned before that unless you are shooting with medium format you should stick with prints smaller than 13x19. Does this still ring true with the most current DSLR's? They have improved significantly through the years and their capacity to produce quality images is higher than ever. I recently procured an Epson 3880 and it is fantastic. But will I be able to make use of it's maximum print size with a DSLR? Or will I have to wait patiently until I can afford a medium format camera?

In my view this has more to do with personal quality thresholds than format or equipment. I have not read the thread but I would bet that some folks are saying they printed a billboard from a 2 mp point and shoot and it was fantastic and others saying that you must have 360ppi native as a minimum. Both are right. It depends on your personal view of what is good enough. So try for yourself. Start at 720ppi and work downward by dividing by 2 for each successive print and see where YOU think things start to get ugly for your intended viewing distance. I recall the 3880 is A2 max so you do not need to go too far if you have a relatively recent DSLR.

[AFairley]

In my view this has more to do with personal quality thresholds than format or equipment. I have not read the thread but I would bet that some folks are saying they printed a billboard from a 2 mp point and shoot and it was fantastic and others saying that you must have 360ppi native as a minimum. Both are right. It depends on your personal view of what is good enough. So try for yourself. Start at 720ppi and work downward by dividing by 2 for each successive print and see where YOU think things start to get ugly for your intended viewing distance. I recall the 3880 is A2 max so you do not need to go too far if you have a relatively recent DSLR.

Bearing in mind that when you hang your print, no matter what the size, people will walk up to within a foot or so to get a good look....   

[hjulenissen]

Bearing in mind that when you hang your print, no matter what the size, people will walk up to within a foot or so to get a good look....   

They could also carry a microscope in their bag. Why is it so important to satisfy them rather than the ones who stand back and actually enjoy the image as it was meant to be seen?

-h

[Ernst Dinkla]

My experience of PhotoAcute is that it's true when stacking images from low-medium Mp cameras or cellphones.

When stacking images from, let say, a 5D Mark II, I wasn't that impressed. Actually
did PS the same job, interpolating from one original raw-file.

/Sven

The sensor anti-aliasing lenses/filter will play a role there, some are stronger. In the DSLR category a Pentax K5 might do better then. Sinars with their pixel shift feature of the MF back rely on the absence of AA filters on the sensor.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst

Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop

http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html

[Light Seeker]

With my old 6MP Nikon D70 things like grass or tree leaves in landscapes would tend to be what fell apart when I started to enlarge too much. Those elements could look very "digital" / pixellated when I pushed the image too large. I've not noticed a concern like this with my 12MP Nikon D700, but my shooting habits have also changed somewhat.

As others have said, it really depends on what you shoot and what your standards are. I suggest taking some typical images and making some 17" prints.

Terry.