UKC

There are a lot of factors involved in "how large can I print my digital shots". e.g., the image itself, the number of megapixels, and how far away is the image going to be viewed from (up on a wall, or up close in a magazine), etc.

I've printed plenty of 6 and 8 megapixel images at 13" x 19" (A3+) and they look great, even viewed very close up, and I'm looking forward to getting some shots from my new 13 megapixel camera printed even larger on board or canvas wrap.

However, I've just seen a couple of images from a 6 megapixel camera printed on board at 40" wide and they looked stunning! Very impressive, so perhaps I'm being a bit conservative with my print sizes.

YMMV

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

Yes Nick.

I frequently printed images from my Minolta Dimage 7i, 5 megapixel at 36' X 24" on matt paper on a HP 5000, sometimes laminated them and mounted them on foam core. They look great.

18 x 24 were even better.

Good if you have the printer right next to you and unlimited ink and paper, and time!

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Just looked up the specs on the HP 5500 - that's one huge printer! How much do you pay per page for paper & ink??

(Cue 'Jaws' quote: "we're gonna need a bigger desk...")

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

Can't remember the cost per square foot. It was cheap, but for the 'punters' they paid between $6-$10 per square foot depending on the paper. I have seen a table somewhere with all that info for large format printers. I worked at a commercial printers for a while.

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

I have image files scanned from 35mm to around 36"x48" and they are great. I was looking for the grain enhancement that you get with film. The film was Delta 3200 and was perfect for the subject. I have serious doubts whether I could get the same effect from a digitally sourced image without it looking pixellated. I suppose thats where digi (for me anyway) loses things.

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC: Good topic, as I have just seen some A1's done from 4 mega pixel cameras taken at the darlington community carnival, I was staggered at how good they looked, printed on epson printer, very impressed.

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC: With smaller mp cameras I think it depends a lot on the photo as to how well it will print big. With the new Canon you should be sorted either way

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

Also look at Lambda printing.

digital file printed direct onto photographic paper, no inks involved.

bear in mind that big prints are meant to be viewed further away anyway.

I have 3 60"x 40" in my bedroom atm due to storage issues but they were large format done as above, the digital files weren't massive iirc.

In reply to Removed User:

Lamda printing's gallery-quality isn't it?

In reply to CJD: lambda and Lightjet prints are gorgeous!, and less delicate than inkjets, nearly as good as Cibachromes IMO

In reply to CJD:

It is gallery quality yes. Nick seems to be asking for that in the sense of having images that will be able to go beyond the norm. Having such large images is making a statement.

The statement is either technical or aesthetic, for instance its seeing technically how big an image can go, or its making a statement on the image itself and making it big to enforce that. Mine in retrospect was a combo of the both

In reply to dek:

I'm Interested in that Dek, could you mail me with some thoughts on it, you know more than me and I am always open to thoughts and ideas on this subject.

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC: Good discussion this - any more thoughts?

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC: I reckon after looking at those 4MP enlargements you could easily go upto B0 or 60x40inches, just read canons white paper on full frame (the sacrifice is worth it nick) and its the way forward for me also, allied to the new 16-35mm mkii L will produce superb images which I guess will only be surpassed by MF digital (obviously) or large format film in expert hands.

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:
Got some A2's fro Photobox from the 350D on my son's playroom wall. Look great. Tend not to use a lupe on these print's right enough......

In reply to ICE: I wish you luck in the corners with a 16-35 on a 35mm sensor Canon...
I hear it's a matter of swapping the lens till you find a good one?

TTG

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC: Interesting subject. I think the other thing to bear in mind is that it's not just the number of MPs in the original, but the quality of the lens too, which means that blowing up pics taken with better lenses (as you are doing) probably works better. I saw some shots taken with a 10MP compact recently that were awful, but when you see the size of the lens it's clear why.

Bear in mind people blow 720 x 480 images up on 56"+ TVs all the time!

Cheers,

FT.

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

Test your camera by printing a small section blown up to the size you are thinking of getting done, so you know what it will look like before spending a lot of money on one.
Do the corners and centre to see any fringing and aberrations.

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

I use an Epson 7800 for printing and don't usually bother printing anything at less than A2. But then most of my stuff is landscape type stuff, and that's a bit different to climbing shots. Regularly print at 40" wide on pano shots (roll paper).

Have printed Canon DSLR 6MP (two different cameras) and Canon 17 MP DSLR. There really is no comparison at A1.

Even with 17 MP, you have to up res to get to A1.

I use QImage to do all of this up-ressing & printing and it works a treat.

Big is best !

In reply to O Mighty Tim: you've been reading to many posts from amatuer measureabators on DPreview I dispair at that sites forums, had a quick look this morning to find another prize example of someone who should not be allowed out unaccompanied.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=235819...
and I quote 'the second one was perfect although I didn't realise it', so this guy has so far returned 2 perfectly good lenses, and is on a third, which he will then 'test' and may yet return, I do not test lenses as I have neither the equipment nor the knowledge to asses the results.