Wall Sized Prints

[Alpha]

You might also want to consider the expectations of the client and/or viewer. While many photographers may be critical of an image that isn't what they would consider sufficiently sharp...I'd guess that the majority of non-photographers wouldn't be so critical.

This is very true. People do tend to overestimate the level of sharpness needed in large prints. Though I do think it tends to boil almost entirely down to viewing distance. I've seen people do billboards at 96dpi.

 

[Alex_B]

This is very true. People do tend to overestimate the level of sharpness needed in large prints. Though I do think it tends to boil almost entirely down to viewing distance. I've seen people do billboards at 96dpi.

certainly, I stated this in an earlier thread, in narrow rooms or corridors, printing for a wall might mean people are just inches away from the print ... and then you need a lot of resolution.

But this is not the common case.

 

[Big Mike]

This is very true. People do tend to overestimate the level of sharpness needed in large prints. Though I do think it tends to boil almost entirely down to viewing distance. I've seen people do billboards at 96dpi.

I talked to someone who makes the 'prints' that go onto the side of buses...it was only 60 or 70 dpi.

 

[Sideburns]

I talked to someone who makes the 'prints' that go onto the side of buses...it was only 60 or 70 dpi.

Well I'm sure his wall is not going to be driving 30 Mph on city streets...lol

 

[shorty6049]

haha, yeah, that, and people will be a lot closer to it at all times i would imagine. When you look at a bus print close up (within a few feet) you'll see the dots, and i dont think that what you'd want

 

[Bobby Ironsights]

This sort of thing is done with large format film all the time, it's called a mural. Still, A thirty foot print is pretty damned big.

I really don't think a digital print at 9x30 is going to look very good.

But if you really want one, large format film and paper is the way to go.
Using an 8x10 inch view camera, and enlarging to 30 feet long is still the equivalent of enlarging a 35mm film shot to a 42 inch wide print.

It won't be fine art sharp, but it can be done. To see what the final resolution will look like, you should actually blow up a section of 35mm film print to 35 times enlargement (on 8x10 paper), and show that to your client.

With film, it can actually be done fairly economically too.

An 8x10 camera can be purcahsed for under $1000 with a fairly nice lens, and sold for pretty much the same as you paid for it, after you are done.

The cool thing about a view camera, is that you can use it as an enlarger by pointing it at the wall, and shining a very bright diffuse light source through the film, while mounted in the camera. It's how Ansel Adams made his mural prints, and still usually how it's done by amateurs making murals today.

Film costs between a buck and 7 dollars a sheet, depending on whether you are using colour, black and white, etc..etc..

A 42 inch wide, 100 foot long mural roll of paper in black and white will cost 250 bucks, give or take. That will cover 9 feet by 30 feet....JUST!

Murals are generally done using either a garden sprayer for the chemicals, or a length of PVC drain gutter with endcaps (yes, the type along the roof of your house). Something this size would necessitate the sprayers, so plan to do it in an area you can get wet.

Something 30 feet long will require at least three people, each using a garden sprayer and covering ten feet each. Be sure to wear masks when spraying, as the chems will really get into the air.

That still means you'll need SIX tank sprayers, three for developer, three for stop.

Rinse each one out, then fill all six with fixer and off you go. Final wash with a garden hose. Squeegee, and allow to air dry.

Roll up each one carefully and mount at your clients house. The image should align fine, even without registration marks.

Consumables (film, paper, chemistry) should run you less than 400 dollars, assuming you don't screw it up, and have to redo it. Rent or buy a view camera, with the sharpest lens you can get, and build a lighthead out of a bank of fluor. lights to use your viewcamera as an enlarger, and then do your thing, (after alot of further research and planning).

 

[jstuedle]

I shot a few images for a local hardware chain that were printed on their delivery trucks. I shot in the stores paint department using a D1X in raw and processed the resulting 10 MP files. The final image (with text and logo's) was edited and up-sampled 5 to 8% at a time until a 11 ft. X 5 ft. image @ 100 DPI TIFF was created. From 15-20 feet the image was stunning. But up close, from a few feet it was obvious I should have used MF film. (when I shot this, most MF digital backs were 6 to 10 mega-pixel max.) These trucks would pull up in a clients drive and the image would be viewed by people walking on the towns sidewalks. If there is a remote chance anyone will view your image up close and personal on a regular basis, I would print at 150 DPI and up-sample as little as possible.

 

[PaulBennett]

If I use a Medium format film camera, which type might suit the job. 2. Is there a digital camera that can produce that kind of quality? Thanks.

I realize you are asking about cameras but I think you should consider attacking the problem from the other end, the printing services. There is no point in obtaining a gazillion pixel photo file if there is no printer to handle it.

I use http://www.udevelop.com/ (no affiliation) who have scanned 4x5 negs for me into 80MB tiff files. Although this was a ho-hum no sweat job for them, coming from the analog darkroom world, I had a lot of knowledge to gain in the realm of what can and cannot be done in the print process. And I sincerely believe from there, your format and camera choice will suddenly become apparent. I suggest you poke around their web site to get an appreciation of what kind of equipment is available then talk to your local pro printer as they have probably the same or similar equipment.

(Aside & further, if you use PS, check w/your printhouse for soft proof files available soas to exactly match your scene to your printer/paper choice.)

 

[Jeff Canes]

I vote for a good dslr and lenses

 

[RacePhoto]

Sorry, but 21.1 million pixels is nowhere near to threatening a half decent medium format 6x6, 6x7 or 9x9 frame that is correctly exposed, with the camera on a rock solid support and taken on fine grain slide film.

Either borrow or hire a medium format (or maybe large format camera) for teh shot and get the slide professionally scanned or take Garbz' advice.

Last thing I wrote in my message... you might be better off, expense wise, with a medium format camera, super fine grain film and then pay for a professional, very high resolution scan

A 10mpx camera is a 10mpx camera if the correct lens projects a sharp picture onto the sensor.

That's news to me. The pixels are different sizes. That's like saying a disk film camera photo has the same quality as a 35mm shot, with the same film, made into a 4x6 print. They are not the same.

Smaller 7mp sensor, on a P&S means smaller pixels, if the same number are on the larger 7mp sensor of a DSLR.

When you make the smaller pixels larger, you lose.

Try reading this.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

Your choice of sensor size is analogous to choosing between 35 mm, medium format and large format film cameras-- with a few notable differences unique to digital technology.

 

[RacePhoto]

"bigger is better" when it comes to image quality and digital sensors.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/size_matters.html

 

[JIP]

This sort of thing is done with large format film all the time, it's called a mural. Still, A thirty foot print is pretty damned big.

I really don't think a digital print at 9x30 is going to look very good.

But if you really want one, large format film and paper is the way to go.
Using an 8x10 inch view camera, and enlarging to 30 feet long is still the equivalent of enlarging a 35mm film shot to a 42 inch wide print.

It won't be fine art sharp, but it can be done. To see what the final resolution will look like, you should actually blow up a section of 35mm film print to 35 times enlargement (on 8x10 paper), and show that to your client.

With film, it can actually be done fairly economically too.

An 8x10 camera can be purcahsed for under $1000 with a fairly nice lens, and sold for pretty much the same as you paid for it, after you are done.

The cool thing about a view camera, is that you can use it as an enlarger by pointing it at the wall, and shining a very bright diffuse light source through the film, while mounted in the camera. It's how Ansel Adams made his mural prints, and still usually how it's done by amateurs making murals today.

Film costs between a buck and 7 dollars a sheet, depending on whether you are using colour, black and white, etc..etc..

A 42 inch wide, 100 foot long mural roll of paper in black and white will cost 250 bucks, give or take. That will cover 9 feet by 30 feet....JUST!

Murals are generally done using either a garden sprayer for the chemicals, or a length of PVC drain gutter with endcaps (yes, the type along the roof of your house). Something this size would necessitate the sprayers, so plan to do it in an area you can get wet.

Something 30 feet long will require at least three people, each using a garden sprayer and covering ten feet each. Be sure to wear masks when spraying, as the chems will really get into the air.

That still means you'll need SIX tank sprayers, three for developer, three for stop.

Rinse each one out, then fill all six with fixer and off you go. Final wash with a garden hose. Squeegee, and allow to air dry.

Roll up each one carefully and mount at your clients house. The image should align fine, even without registration marks.

Consumables (film, paper, chemistry) should run you less than 400 dollars, assuming you don't screw it up, and have to redo it. Rent or buy a view camera, with the sharpest lens you can get, and build a lighthead out of a bank of fluor. lights to use your viewcamera as an enlarger, and then do your thing, (after alot of further research and planning).

Um I guess you missed the part where the OP said his client wanted a digital file. By the way if you decide you want to go digital medium format here is a good way to go.

http://www.adoramarentals.com/Home.aspx

 

[jstuedle]

I go to trade shows with my wife who is into embroidery. Most of these are printwear and graphic/sign shows. I troll the graphic side while she does her thing. There are several printer manufacturers that cater to the sign business that build 10' and 12' printers. They use a solvent based ink by the bucket full, and can print 12' wide X several feet a min. in length. Print cost is a fraction of a dollar per square foot because the ink is very cheap compared to what we are used to. It's amazing to watch these things work. A print from one of these is a lot cheaper, in vivid color, and faster than wet photographic silver halide process. The downside, I don't know what the expected print life is. The input files are 100 DPI and print output is from 100 to 1200 DPI depending on speed and quality desires. These all use digital files, most are from medium or large format cameras with digital backs. The large format cameras have a back adapter that is usually a 6 CM. X 6 CM digital back that is moved from point to point , then stitching the images together to make one large format digital file. Because your image is in panoramic format, a Hasselblads (cheap these days) and a rented digital back, 21 to 39 M.P. would work well. I would think is your best bet. If "best" is not in your budget, a DSLR 10 MP or better, turned up portrait style using a 50mm lens and stitching 6 or 8 frames together will give you something acceptable. Depends on if your client wants best, or good enough.

 

[Ls3D]

Shoot medium format film & get a fat wet mount laser drum scan.

-Shea

 

[Mike_E]

I think that John has the right idea.

If the profit margin won't allow for the film and drum scanning, determine what amount of detail is acceptable and use your best lens at a distance that will give you the pixel density needed and stitch what you need together. (you already know this but @300 pixels per inch 3000p will give you 10 inches at max resolution and the math falls into place after that )

Be sure to keep the horizontal/vertical axises and distance constant or in other words- don't try this at home with out a good tripod.