What's the biggest I should print?

scottduffy

scottduffy

Messages
3,347
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
I know that's a silly question really but I've been asked by a client to provide them with a large print of their baby and I'm not sure how large a print to order. I have always printed my stuff via Loxley or DS Colour and I was wondering whether to just provide them with the file and ask them.

Is there any way for me to check it out via photoshop? I'm using a fuji xt2/20 and 16-55 so I should have sufficient quality to blow it up but I've always printed at 300dpi and I know I'd have to decrease this.

How far is too far?
 
Perhaps the question should be to the client i.e. what size print are they wanting.

Once you know that, you can either meet that requirement or guide their expectations by offering them what is possible!
 
Large print to your client could be a 10x8?
 
Heh. Size is relative :)

In all seriousness, you really need them to define large. Some people I know consider A4 to be large!

The 6000x4000 sensor on the X-T2 is easily good enough for whatever size you want assuming your client is going to be looking at the picture from a reasonable distance. 300ppi is accepted as a good resolution for reading distance (12") however a 4ft print isn't going to be looked at from 12". If you want close scrutiny though, your image (assuming it's uncropped) will print to (6000/300) 20" x (4000/300) 13" which is pretty much A3+. If they want bigger, your ppi will go down but it's not going to be noticeable unless they're scrutinising.
 
Box Brownie said:
Perhaps the question should be to the client i.e. what size print are they wanting.

Once you know that, you can either meet that requirement or guide their expectations by offering them what is possible!
Click to expand...
Unfortunately not. They wanted 36x24 to start with then asked for bigger. Not sure I can provide a good quality print larger than that.
 
scottduffy said:
Unfortunately not. They wanted 36x24 to start with then asked for bigger. Not sure I can provide a good quality print larger than that.
Click to expand...

As per @Harlequin565 says as size and viewing distance factors in.......if you printed at 40inches long side 150ppi would "work". Next question, canvas or sheet material surface ~ as I perceive it 150ppi on canvas will 'hide' minor reductions in edge sharpness.

So as suggested, in part it is about managing their expectations e.g. if they want a 40inch print and expect to count the pores on their baby's nose then that will not be something they can expect to do......but if said print is going to hang high up on a wall/behind a sofa/on the wall seen as they go down stairs........i.e. viewed from at least say 4feet then 150 or even 100ppi would be adequate.

PS if canvas talk to Trade Canvas here at TP
 
As an aside, I test printed a Grand Canyon panorama at 160dpi (9 feet by 12") and I couldn't fault the quality - even up close. And that was on a Canon 350D

I was also stunned by Alien Skin's 'Blow Up' which has been around a bit longer. I did a print for a member here that was from a film scan at pretty low quality. Ended up doing a really nice 13x19 from nothing. Dunno about the Topaz offering but you can get a 30 day (no watermark) trial with Alien Skin if you want to try it.
 
Box Brownie said:
As per @Harlequin565 says as size and viewing distance factors in.......if you printed at 40inches long side 150ppi would "work". Next question, canvas or sheet material surface ~ as I perceive it 150ppi on canvas will 'hide' minor reductions in edge sharpness.

So as suggested, in part it is about managing their expectations e.g. if they want a 40inch print and expect to count the pores on their baby's nose then that will not be something they can expect to do......but if said print is going to hang high up on a wall/behind a sofa/on the wall seen as they go down stairs........i.e. viewed from at least say 4feet then 150 or even 100ppi would be adequate.

PS if canvas talk to Trade Canvas here at TP
Click to expand...
Used trade canvas print for all my canvasses. They're excellent.
 
DemiLion said:
There's a very simple formula for this:

Client: "How large can you print?"

You: "How much can you afford?"
Click to expand...
That's where my fears surrounding quality come into things. I would hate to charge them a fortune for a large print or canvas and it arrives and they're not happy with it.
 
There is no limit to the size of "decent quality" print you can get from an XT2/XT20.

Whether or not it looks decent depends on how far away you are when you look at it. The bigger the print, the further away you'll be, so you can get away with lower resolution.

On the Cambridge In Colour web site, there's a resolution calculator. For somebody with 20/20 vision, it suggests:
- 350 ppi when viewing at 25cm
- 175 ppi when viewing at 50cm
- 87 ppi when viewing at 1m
- 18 ppi when viewing at 5m

(ppi = pixels per inch)

Your camera will give you 6000 x 4000 pixels to play with. So, assuming you have a high-quality image to start with, and a good printer, you can have:
- a 18" x 12" print at 333 ppi, which will look really sharp even with your nose up to it
- a 36" x 24" print at 167 ppi, which will look good from a couple of feet away
- a 72" x 48" print at 83 ppi, which will look good from about 3 or 4 feet back
- you get the idea

Thing is, if you had a 72" x 48" print, you wouldn't want to look at it from only 3 or 4 feet away. I guess 10 feet or so would be more reasonable. And from that distance it will look great.

If you get every pixel printed out 1m square, you'll have an image measuring 6km x 4km which will look AWESOME from a plane at 35,000 feet. Admittedly it would be a bit tedious putting all the pixels together. And you'd need a big flat space to do it. And it would probably be expensive. Though you could probably get some sort of arts grant for a project like this.
 
What Stewart says is spot on as is Ian and Box Brownie.... Only another photographer has a viewing distance as long as their nose... so resize to 36" x 24", accept the reduced ppi and it will be fine...
 
Last edited:
I had a 4,256 × 2,832 image from a D700 printed on some billboards that where around 8m x 3 m, they looked great.
 
Last edited:
scottduffy said:
Unfortunately not. They wanted 36x24 to start with then asked for bigger. Not sure I can provide a good quality print larger than that.
Click to expand...

I've had some 36x24 prints done from a m4/3 sensor. It took a little bit of care with resizing (using Topaz Perfect Resize) & sharpening and a few test strips but looks good from even quite close. I don't think I'd go much bigger for a high quality print. Your sensor should be fine at that size and possibly as big as 48x32.
 
I have tested native resolution letting the ppi drop, which was fine for the reasons the guys above have explained regarding viewing distances.

Because ds colour labs insist on 300ppi I have also tried uprezzing to meet that and it actually looked better. (Sharper)

There must come a point where uprezzing, which is software creating pixels that didn't exist based on their neighbours, will stop being effective but I've gone to about 33% and it was fine.
 
Also, I'm picturing this baby photo being black and white and dreamy focus with limited depth of field? That sort of photo will also handle lower ppi better than certain others.

Also the medium you print on has an effect, canvas is more forgiving than crystal gloss for example...
 
juggler said:
I've had some 36x24 prints done from a m4/3 sensor. It took a little bit of care with resizing (using Topaz Perfect Resize) & sharpening and a few test strips but looks good from even quite close. I don't think I'd go much bigger for a high quality print. Your sensor should be fine at that size and possibly as big as 48x32.
Click to expand...

He doesn't actually go through his processing of the files which is a shame. Ive not actually printed that large on my EM5 MKII but A3 size is very easily achievable.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGn3yPl59ZM&t=141s
 
Craig_85 said:
I have tested native resolution letting the ppi drop, which was fine for the reasons the guys above have explained regarding viewing distances.

Because ds colour labs insist on 300ppi I have also tried uprezzing to meet that and it actually looked better. (Sharper)

There must come a point where uprezzing, which is software creating pixels that didn't exist based on their neighbours, will stop being effective but I've gone to about 33% and it was fine.
Click to expand...

This is what I want to know - at what point does up-scaling look worse than reducing the PPI. If anyone has an answer on that I'd love to hear it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top