My cam only goes to 8x12 with 300dpi, how can I print larger?

[Treymac]

Hey guys. The instructor for my photography course told us that to print our pictures we need to have the pics at 300dpi resolution. But when I change it to 300dpi, photoshop changes my dimensions to an 8x12 photo. If I ever want to make large photos, what would I do? Is there anything I can do? Is photographing with a medium format camera the only way to do it?

 

[newrmdmike]

just print at a lower dpi. i've seen guys get pretty good 4x6's from 400x600 files.
( i cant remember his name, but he wrote the book "printing with digital negatives" and was making platinum prints with inkjet negatives)

i have printed from a 2000x3000 image to 16x20 and 16x24 without problems.

that puts it at dpi 125 . . . so it can be done.
modern dithering processes make it look pretty good
if your a stickler for even higher quality and are for some reason going to be that close to a large print then yes medium or large format is the way to go.

 

[Flash Harry]

crop it to whatever size you like in PS, along the top toolbar there's a box to set the resolution of the crop, type in 300ppi. H

 

[EOS_JD]

crop it to whatever size you like in PS, along the top toolbar there's a box to set the resolution of the crop, type in 300ppi. H

I usually advise against resampling although this does work. You may need to sharpen your image after resampling.

But i'd go with the lower ppi setting (note the correct term is pixels per inch (ppi) - not dots per inch (dpi))

What size do you want to print the image? i can tell your image is 3600pixels x 2400ppixels (12x300 by 8x300). if you want to print at 24x16 it's easy to work out the ppi value. Take the number of pixels along one axis and divide by the print size and then do the same with the other - so if you want a 24x16 it's 3600px/24 = 150ppi and 2400px/16 = 150ppi.

You can get great prints at 150ppi. You will not see much difference in a 6x4 @ 300ppi compared to the 24x16 @ 150ppi at normal viewing distances.

I print my 19x13s at 180ppi and they look amazing!

 

[Mike_E]

Also, if you are going to enlarge in PhotoShop, do it in smaller incrementsof around 10 to 15% at a time. If you make too large a jump then PhotoShop has to make guesses and has a bigger chance to make them wrong.

mike

 

[EOS_JD]

Also, if you are going to enlarge in PhotoShop, do it in smaller incrementsof around 10 to 15% at a time. If you make too large a jump then PhotoShop has to make guesses and has a bigger chance to make them wrong.

mike

As I said, better not resampling at all but if you have to the difference between one jump and many smaller jums is miniscule! Don't believe all the hype over this, it really is a tiny difference.

 

[elsaspet]

You can't just make the photo larger. But you CAN make small incremental changes in resolution while using a bicubic smoothing.
However, you most likely will not need to do this. Most professional labs can res up for you.

 

[Nikon Norm]

Just go ahead and print it at the size you want,don't worry about Photoshop telling you the maximum size. Often it looks great especially if you view the image from a normal distance for a large print.

If you do increase the size of your file, do it in one jump, I have to do this for a picture library I submit to, the images are a little soft, so you would want to sharpen them for printing. The larger the print the more unsharp mask you should use.

 

[elsaspet]

Just go ahead and print it at the size you want,don't worry about Photoshop telling you the maximum size. Often it looks great especially if you view the image from a normal distance for a large print.

If you do increase the size of your file, do it in one jump, I have to do this for a picture library I submit to, the images are a little soft, so you would want to sharpen them for printing. The larger the print the more unsharp mask you should use.

I disagree with the above. You can NOT make one sweeping bump up, as you will end up with "pixel holes" if you try to do that. That is exactly why you have to make MANY small incremental changes if you insist on doing it yourself.
I'm not sure what the picture library is that you refer to, but I make huge prints (20x30, 24x20) daily.

 

[EOS_JD]

I disagree with the above. You can NOT make one sweeping bump up, as you will end up with "pixel holes" if you try to do that. That is exactly why you have to make MANY small incremental changes if you insist on doing it yourself.
I'm not sure what the picture library is that you refer to, but I make huge prints (20x30, 24x20) daily.

Elsapet
There's much discussion aound on this point. I've tried both methods and to be honest I couldn't see any difference. I actually found a non resampled image to be the best even though it was printed at a lower resolution!!!

 

[jstuedle]

I up-sampled 10% at a time and have a stunning shot taken at 5 1/2 MP displayed at 36 X 54. I now use a FRED Miranda action and get similar results. It's not the MP's so much as the quality of the file you start with.

 

[elsaspet]

Elsapet
There's much discussion aound on this point. I've tried both methods and to be honest I couldn't see any difference. I actually found a non resampled image to be the best even though it was printed at a lower resolution!!!

How often have you done 20x30 prints?
When I didn't know any better, I just cropped what I wanted it to be.
Compared to the bicubic 1 step res up, it totally sucked. Look at them side by side. You can actually SEE the pixulation. And this was from I was first starting out with the Cannon 20 and 30's, long before I got into the 5d and the Mark D3.
If someone is paying many many hundreds of dollars for a photo, do it right. Hell, if they are paying 50 cents do it right. It takes about five minutes of your life.
And noo nooo noo. No prints under 300 dpi when you are going huge. Absolutely not. You will look like a total new bee.

 

[jstuedle]

If someone is paying many many hundreds of dollars for a photo, do it right. Hell, if they are paying 50 cents do it right. It takes about five minutes of your life.
And noo nooo noo. No prints under 300 dpi when you are going huge. Absolutely not. You will look like a total new bee.

I totally agree, never less than 300 DPI for anything worth printing.

 

[Nikon Norm]

I disagree with the above. You can NOT make one sweeping bump up, as you will end up with "pixel holes" if you try to do that.

Yes you CAN

 

[ksmattfish]

I've had surprisingly great results upsizing 10% at a time using bicubic smoother in CS2. I've gone up to sizes that would be only 150 dpi without the upsizing. When I was first told to do this I wouldn't have believed it was at all possible to get quality prints from anything less than 250 dpi or so original file size, but it was advice from someone that I know and respect so I tried it. I think I'm fairly picky about print quality (I won't print 35mm larger than 8"x12"), and I was absolutely floored when the 16"x24" prints came back (from a Canon 20D). I've been using this technique for about a year now; proudly displaying and selling a lot of 16"x20"/24" prints. It was sort of the straw that broke the camel's back for me; I've sold off much of my medium format gear.

It never surprises me when different people get different results when they are all supposedly using the same techniques and gear. I see it all the time. I see people who can't seem to make a decent 8"x12" print from 1Ds MkII files. There are a whole lot of potential variables between exposure and print. Prints are fairly cheap, and personal testing and seeing with your own eyes is usually way more valuable than internet advice.