How big can you go?

With superb quality, A3.. it will hold well to A2 though. A1 would start to look awful.

In a minute, someone will come along as say "It depends on viewing distances" and explain to you patiently that you should be looking at image from a distance equal to the diagonal... which is nice.. except those that don't understand that rule will just look at it however they damned well please.

I'd say A2 max. It will be compromised, but it will hold for "normal" viewing distances. If it's going to to be mounted somewhere where people can't get close to it, such as behind a sofa... A1 will hold OK.... just, but you're pushing it. If you want utterly superb quality that can even stand close inspection, then A3.
 
Last edited:
Good point. Canvas will stand larger, as the resolution is lower due to the surface texture. My guide is based on exhibition quality printing. I'd say A1 would be fine for a domestic setting on canvas from a 16MP image.
 
David using your 'superb' quality for A3 at 16mp what size could I print 24mp too, whilst still getting the superb quality.
 
Being critical, and ignoring the silly "people will stand at a distance equal to the diagonal" rule, A2 would hold well. Assuming people can be prevented from going up close to pixel peep, A1.

It really does depend where the print is though, and the quality of the printing. You could theoretically print a 44sheet billboard from anything, as they're viewed from a very long distance, and printed with terrible quality anyway.

Being critical, as is exhibition quality.... I'd say A2 would be the quality threshold.
 
ynot said:
... how can i find out how big i can go before it will really effect the image quality?
The original pixel size is 3264 x 4928 (16.1MP)
Click to expand...
Additionally to what David's just said, it also depends not just on the pixel dimensions of the original but on how sharply it's been rendered in camera - regarding focus and lack of camera shake.
 
droj said:
Additionally to what David's just said, it also depends not just on the pixel dimensions of the original but on how sharply it's been rendered in camera - regarding focus and lack of camera shake.
Click to expand...

Yes. There is much more to a sharp image than pixels.
 
droj said:
Additionally to what David's just said, it also depends not just on the pixel dimensions of the original but on how sharply it's been rendered in camera - regarding focus and lack of camera shake.
Click to expand...


That was a given, yes. An out of focus or badly exposed and recovered image will massively effect how big it can print. You can't polish a turd.
 
The quality of that is pretty poor already, and the lithographic like black and white (literally) makes quality a moot point. That will print at whatever size you need, as the processing has pretty much removed all fine photographic detail.
 
Not harsh... it's just the kind of image where quality is not really a concern due to it's treatment.
 
We had a large print made for our stand at The Photography Show this year.
When I say "large" it was actually 4 metres, and not all of the frame was used, maybe half of it.
And the photo was shot on a 12 MP D3, and at 800 ISO.

Now, I didn't know about this in advance, it was left to the stand designer and graphic artist, who tend to know far less about photography than they think they do and I was pretty horrified when I saw it, walking towards it from a distance.

But you know what? The quality, although not perfect, was pretty amazing and was perfectly acceptable even at point blank range.
 
20/20 vision is defined as being able to define 1 arc minute (1/60th degree).

So provided each pixel is rendered smaller than that, you can't see individual pixels.

This means how big can you go is dependent on viewing distance.
 
All debate aside.... just print it, and decide if YOU accept it's quality or not. Some people are prepared to accept outrageously poor quality and actually think it looks great, whereas others can't stand anything less than perfection. Only you know what's acceptable to you.
 
Now you can have a zebra munching your head. Can we have a shot of that too lol.

Really suits the room well as much as we can actually see.
 
Looks good - but is at actually 5ft x 3ft - it doesn't look as big as that.
 
Thanks all.

Tintin124 said:
Now you can have a zebra munching your head. Can we have a shot of that too lol.

Really suits the room well as much as we can actually see.
Click to expand...

It will save a trip to the barbers :)

drounding said:
Looks good - but is at actually 5ft x 3ft - it doesn't look as big as that.
Click to expand...

Yes, it really is 5x3 foot. The ceiling is about 12 foot high making it look smaller than it is.
 
I wish I had 12ft ceilings! I hate low ceiling. NO idea how high mine are, but I can almost touch it and I'm 6ft tall... so 8ft? Standard height anyway.
 
I always feel that a canvas print needs some sort of frame to look tidy. Maybe I'm OCD about this.

Nice photo though :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top