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

[Treymac]

My Rebel XTi does 10mp, what do you guys think would be the max size that I would be able to go up to? Eventually I think I would like to sell large professional photos if I ever become good enough.

 

[EOS_JD]

How often have you done 20x30 prints?

Certainly not as often as you but regularly print 19x13s (on my R2400) and the odd few 20x30s that I send out to a lab. I have even printed larger.

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.

I use a 20D and have to look VERY closely at my image to see any difference. At normal viewing distances I can't pick out any diifference. Obviously you may need to sharpen slightly when resampling but I try not to resample. Why add pixels that were not there in the first place? I prefer to print at lower resolutions. Your eyes will be unlikely to tell any difference from 240ppi or 300ppi and certrainly when you go larger, dropping the resolution (I print regularly at 180ppi) again at normal viewing distances there is no difference from a 6x4 printed at 300ppi.

When resampling the computer adds pixels randomly and I feel they have a softer look and sharpening can add this pixelation look.

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.

As I said before there is much discussion on the web on what the best method is. Only by trial and error can you work the best one for you. What I#m saying is none are right and none are wrong.....

And noo nooo noo. No prints under 300 dpi when you are going huge. Absolutely not. You will look like a total new bee.

What makes the world the way it is, is that we all have different views. I'm not saying you are wrong but I have my own way of printing and it works. Don't think my large images make me look like a newbie.

 

[EOS_JD]

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

Try it and you may be surprised.... I print anything up to around 10x8 at 300ppi but drop the resolution for larger images. My 19x13s print at 180ppi and I can't see any difference from a 6x4 at 300ppi!

 

[EOS_JD]

My Rebel XTi does 10mp, what do you guys think would be the max size that I would be able to go up to? Eventually I think I would like to sell large professional photos if I ever become good enough.

Probably bigger than you would ever want to print!

 

[jstuedle]

Probably bigger than you would ever want to print!

Agreed. I have 36" X 54" prints at 300 DPI that astound medium format shooters. Some taken & printed over 4 years ago. I used the 10% method of up-sampling in P-Shop 7 at the time. They were shot with a 5.47 MP D1X in RAW mode. That camera will output a 10MP file in RAW by doubling the pixels vertically. (Sort of hard to understand how and why, but when you do it makes perfect sense.) One such shot is of a Blue and Gold Macaw. After up-sampling to the above size, my reflection can be seen in her eye. Examples can bee seen at:

http://www.pbase.com/jstuedle/feathered_friends

The third pic in that gallery is a sample of one of these large prints. The forth is just the eye area cropped from the 36X54. After cropping the image was still 4000 X 3300 pixels. It was reduced to 999 pixels wide for posting. This was shot with the D1X in RAW and a 35-70 2.8 in overcast sunlight.

 

[skieur]

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.

The 10% technique is indeed the method highly recommended by the top Photoshop specialists for enlarging without losing much quality in resolution.

skieur

 

[EOS_JD]

The 10% technique is indeed the method highly recommended by the top Photoshop specialists for enlarging without losing much quality in resolution.

skieur

Scott Kelby doesn't and neither does Deke McLelland and they are two of the very top photoshop pros. Read The Photoshop CS(x) book for Digital Photographers or Adobe Photoshop CS(x) One on One.

You don't need as high a resolution as 300ppi for prints and you don't need to resample in 10% increments to get the best from your images.

 

[skieur]

Scott Kelby doesn't and neither does Deke McLelland and they are two of the very top photoshop pros. Read The Photoshop CS(x) book for Digital Photographers or Adobe Photoshop CS(x) One on One. .

Scott Kelby does indeed in "The Photoshop book for Digital Photographers"
Page 68 to be exact, recommend the 10% approach as I indicated. Joseph Janes: a renowned imaging expert and Rip Noel recommend the same 10% approach in their smart professional's choice of digital photography books.

skieur

 

[NoFilter]

I use Genuine Fractals. Works like a charm.

 

[EOS_JD]

Scott Kelby does indeed in "The Photoshop book for Digital Photographers"
Page 68 to be exact, recommend the 10% approach as I indicated. Joseph Janes: a renowned imaging expert and Rip Noel recommend the same 10% approach in their smart professional's choice of digital photography books.

skieur

Might be an older Kelby book (or the newer CS3?) not in the CS2 book. he recommends a different way. To be honest there really isn't much difference.