largest print out for your full frame

[xpatUSA]

Hi Ted,

Just tried [the link] with Firefox 25.0 and 25.0.1, no problem. MS Internet Explorer 11, and Google Chrome (version 31.0.1650.57) also open it without issues. My service provider reports no issues.

Thanks for looking, Bart. My DNS problem seems to have gone. The Hughes satellite connection can be a bit erratic. No phone line here, therefore no DSL but I've been thinking about a 4G modem lately . .

Ted

[jjj]

And now what? 

Not sure what you are asking there Chris.

[xpatUSA]

What is the largest print out that has diminishing return in image quality?

A rather abstruse question, IMHO.

Surely, as has already been said or implied, it depends only upon human visual acuity. Since the OP makes no reference to viewing conditions, we can safely take an average value for visual acuity of 0.29mrad (1 minute of arc) for a distinguishable point. And that would be the answer, if the question in the OP were worded differently. (By expressing visual acuity as an angle, we remove all that obfuscation due to differences cameras, lenses, printers. Also, by expressing the angle in radians we can use the small angle approximation when considering actual dimensions or distances.)

Thus we find that "largest print out" should be interpreted arguably as "the largest ppi", in order to answer the question and ppi, unfortunately being a dimension, involves the viewing distance. I won't insult you with an example  

So instead, taking 0.29mrad for a distinguishable point, the points per radian becomes about 3450 (or 60 points per degree of visual angle), and that is the value below which there is a diminishing return in image quality.

mrad = (1000)/(dist(ft) * 12 x frequency(ppi)) approximately. From which we can say ppi = (1000)/(dist(ft) * 12 x 0.29)?

[ChuckT]

This can be ascertained thru several maths. But I've never seen math to help. I've seen 30 x 40 prints made of virtually the same scene with 35 mm film and 6 x 6 film and the difference was there. The claim is made that "if viewed from the proper distance..." etc. And I want to walk up and see the details. If it's an oil painting or a fresco that works. For a photograph not so much. My $00.02 worth.
Cvt

[jjj]

This can be ascertained thru several maths. But I've never seen math to help. I've seen 30 x 40 prints made of virtually the same scene with 35 mm film and 6 x 6 film and the difference was there. The claim is made that "if viewed from the proper distance..." etc. And I want to walk up and see the details.

Then there needs to be 2 sizes, one for pixel peepers and one for those who are looking at the full picture - so to speak.  
Though there is certainly a marked difference between 35mm film/sensors and larger formats in look.
 

If it's an oil painting or a fresco that works. For a photograph not so much. My $00.02 worth.

Most painting are quite 'low res' compared to a photo. So you see the texture of the painting as opposed to the pixels. Which may be far more pleasing in the same way that film grain is nicer [IMO] than digital pixels.

[Telecaster]

Then there needs to be 2 sizes, one for pixel peepers and one for those who are looking at the full picture - so to speak.  
Though there is certainly a marked difference between 35mm film/sensors and larger formats in look.
Most painting are quite 'low res' compared to a photo. So you see the texture of the painting as opposed to the pixels. Which may be far more pleasing in the same way that film grain is nicer [IMO] than digital pixels.

This brings up something regarding my own enjoyment of paintings & photos. I love getting up close to a painting and seeing the texture of the canvas (or board), the patterns of the brush strokes and, in the case of someone like vanGogh, the 3D quality of the impasto technique. Seems to me there's a direct connection between those things and the artist her/himself. (I have a friend who paints.) I find none of this detracts from my appreciation of the painting as a whole.

Yet when it comes to photos I don't do this. IMO there's little or nothing to be learned by such close examination about how a photographer sees the world or about why they framed the photo that way or why they clicked the shutter then. In fact my reaction when I see someone sticking their nose up to a large photo is...annoyance. Now, as Slobodan has noted (either in this thread or in another similar one), many if not most folks who do this are just trying to see almost-resolvable details more clearly. "Oh, okay, that white rectangular shape is indeed a house." But I know my fellow photographers...we tend to geek out on the micro to the point of overlooking the macro. So I suppose my reaction of annoyance equates to: "Great...another gear/technique-obsessed pedant."     Further, I guess the larger issue is my disappointment in the number of "sharp renditions of fuzzy concepts" that I see hanging on gallery & museum walls. Maybe I just need to get over myself and relax about it.   

-Dave-

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My take is that it depends. For instance, looking at panorama close makes you feel like a part of the picture. To see an ultra wide image in natural perspective means looking close. Sometime, fine detail can enhance an image.

Best regards
Erik

This brings up something regarding my own enjoyment of paintings & photos. I love getting up close to a painting and seeing the texture of the canvas (or board), the patterns of the brush strokes and, in the case of someone like vanGogh, the 3D quality of the impasto technique. Seems to me there's a direct connection between those things and the artist her/himself. (I have a friend who paints.) I find none of this detracts from my appreciation of the painting as a whole.

Yet when it comes to photos I don't do this. IMO there's little or nothing to be learned by such close examination about how a photographer sees the world or about why they framed the photo that way or why they clicked the shutter then. In fact my reaction when I see someone sticking their nose up to a large photo is...annoyance. Now, as Slobodan has noted (either in this thread or in another similar one), many if not most folks who do this are just trying to see almost-resolvable details more clearly. "Oh, okay, that white rectangular shape is indeed a house." But I know my fellow photographers...we tend to geek out on the micro to the point of overlooking the macro. So I suppose my reaction of annoyance equates to: "Great...another gear/technique-obsessed pedant."     Further, I guess the larger issue is my disappointment in the number of "sharp renditions of fuzzy concepts" that I see hanging on gallery & museum walls. Maybe I just need to get over myself and relax about it.   

-Dave-

[Telecaster]

My take is that it depends. For instance, looking at panorama close makes you feel like a part of the picture. To see an ultra wide image in natural perspective means looking close. Sometime, fine detail can enhance an image.

Yes, there is something creatively valid about the immersive nature of large pano/ultra-wide prints when done well. I like those. When I was a kid my best friend & I loved going to see films at one particular cinema that had a huge screen. We'd sit in the front row or close to it and, so to speak, lean forward into the film.

-Dave-

[jjj]

This brings up something regarding my own enjoyment of paintings & photos. I love getting up close to a painting and seeing the texture of the canvas (or board), the patterns of the brush strokes and, in the case of someone like vanGogh, the 3D quality of the impasto technique. Seems to me there's a direct connection between those things and the artist her/himself. (I have a friend who paints.) I find none of this detracts from my appreciation of the painting as a whole.

Indeed, it usually adds to to it.

Yet when it comes to photos I don't do this. IMO there's little or nothing to be learned by such close examination about how a photographer sees the world or about why they framed the photo that way or why they clicked the shutter then. In fact my reaction when I see someone sticking their nose up to a large photo is...annoyance. Now, as Slobodan has noted (either in this thread or in another similar one), many if not most folks who do this are just trying to see almost-resolvable details more clearly. "Oh, okay, that white rectangular shape is indeed a house." But I know my fellow photographers...we tend to geek out on the micro to the point of overlooking the macro. So I suppose my reaction of annoyance equates to: "Great...another gear/technique-obsessed pedant."     Further, I guess the larger issue is my disappointment in the number of "sharp renditions of fuzzy concepts" that I see hanging on gallery & museum walls. Maybe I just need to get over myself and relax about it.   

My method of really with 'fuzzy' things like say the fuss over Wimbledon in the UK every July, is simply to tune them out and spend time on things I enjoy.

[jjj]

My take is that it depends. For instance, looking at panorama close makes you feel like a part of the picture. To see an ultra wide image in natural perspective means looking close. Sometime, fine detail can enhance an image.

I think a panorama or gigapixel image is slightly different as part of the construct of that sort of image is about getting as much detail in as possible.

[chez]

Totally agree with this. Coming up close to a large print feels like walking into the print. Totally different experience than standing back from the print and looking at it as a whole. Really has nothing to do with pixel peeping...just a different way to experience a photo.

Now, if viewing a photo up close reveals mushy details...then that is a turn off.

Hi,

My take is that it depends. For instance, looking at panorama close makes you feel like a part of the picture. To see an ultra wide image in natural perspective means looking close. Sometime, fine detail can enhance an image.

Best regards
Erik