Is the “Large/SuperFine” setting on my G3 enough detail to p

[Quick1]

I’m considering buying a Canon i9100 13x19” printer (4,800 x 1,200 dpi). Anyone printing at this size and resolution that could offer feedback?

[Deckyon]

I have gotten some very nice 8x10s out of Large Superfine. Since my printer does not go much larger (11.5x17) I really cant answer. All I can say is give it a try and see.

[Quick1]

deckyon: Thanks for the feedback. I would kinda' like to know before I speed the $400+ on the i9100(13x19"max). Otherwise I'll just buy the Canon 960(8.5x11"max).

[wibbly]

Not specifically. But it all depends how the resulting print is to be used (what distance it will be viewed from). It's all a case of what the eye sees (the angle the image spans in your field of view at the viewing distance).

Think of a poster on a billboard. It's viewed from a large distance and can appear high quality. But close up it looks awful as the effective resolution in dots/inch is awful.

Now, suppose you measure the quality by looking close up at a 10x8 and consider a resolution of xyz dots/inch is ok. If you want your larger print to look the same at the *same* viewing distance, you'll require the same resolution in of xyz dots/inch. But normally a larger print is viewed from a larger distance, so a smaller resolution will look as good.

If I recall correctly there's no point in more than quadrupling the resoultion of the printer to make full use of the pixels from the image. I.e. if the image is, say, 2000 pixels wide, there's no benefit in printing the image on an inkjet at more than 8000 pixels wide. So if you wanted the image to be 10" wide, thats 8000 pixels across 10", or 800 dpi. This assumes it takes up to 16 printer dots in the printer's available colours (a 4x4 cluster of dots of cyan, magenta, etc) to create the correct colour of each pixel in the source image, which may be one of millions of colours.

In practice I think you can get away with much lower printer resolution.

http://www.wildpicture.com/pages/photography/dpi.htm

The "Large/Smaller" setting on the camera will affect the MB/per image by setting the number of pixels in the image out of the camera. The "SuperFine/Fine" setting will compress the file size using image compression. Overly compressed images have artifacts in them which are different from images with too small a number of pixels. So which method/combination you use to keep the file size down depends on which effect you like most/least.

Personally, I'd expect 13x9 images with those settings printed with that printer to look great... The G3 does 2272x1704 pixels. At 13x9 that's 175dpi x 189dpi. We said you need up to 4x that from the printer, or 700 x 756 dpi. I don't think that printer's resolution will be your limiting issue! And whilst 300dpi (compared with the 175x189 figures above) is considered equivalent to photographic, at the distance you'll be viewing 13x9 prints, this won't be a problem...

And the 300dpi and 4x figures are reinforced by the printer's capabilities you selected. If to get photo quality you need 300dpi from the image and it takes 4x that from the printer to represent each dot, 1200dpi as a printer spec delivers that!

My 2c worth anyway :-)

W

[Quick1]

wibbly: Thanks for the feedback and link! I'm printing the link now.

[tonymac]

For something that large you may want to use the RAW mode to avoid JPEG artifacts. Be sure to apply Unsharp Mask before printing, otherwise the image will look soft. Also try to shoot at ISO 50 to minimize grain.

I've printed 13x19 images on a HP Deskjet 1220C and they look very good (given the quality of the printer).

[MikeG3]

I'd love to hear your results. I have a Canon i850 (8.5 x 11) max size (more importantly the small picoliter droplet size). It's great, I've taken Large/Super Fine and used them at about 50% of the picture cropping in PSE2 (no upsizing). printing at 200 dpi. But looking at a 13x19 print, not sure.

Love to hear what you decide to do.

Mike G.

PS. Wibbly's weblink article is great.

[bruin70]

i shot my artwork for printed invitations. the largest i could get at 300dpi was 6" measured heighth. that's about a little less than half your print size.

i shot in RAW, converted to jpg, and sent it out as is.

[cityboy_ca]

Like so many other responses to your question, I haven't printed at the size you suggest (I've got an i950), but I have done the equivalent... I've cropped and printed portions of my images.

When absolutely necessary I use S-Spline to upsize my files - it's one of those rare programs that actually does what it's supposed to do. You can upsize an image without the usual loss of data and without adding artifacts.

Recently I cropped the head of the bride from a reception line photo and printed out a 5 x 7 of the new image, after upsizing with S-Spline. Is it as good as it would have been had I taken the right photo when I had the chance? Probably not. But the results were still excellent. I haven't spent a lot of time figuring out the limits of the program but I've had wonderful images result from upsizing to 6X.

Hope this helps.

[MackRoe]

Just for fun, I thought I'd mention a great printer if you haven't looked at it. A friend of mine who has a very established photography business in Minnesota suggested I look at the Epson Stylus Photo 1280 printer, which he says will print beautifully up to the size you are wanting to work with. I bought it, and while I haven't printed a shot at 13X19, everything else I've printed has been more than excellent. Also, the ink cartridges are reasonably priced at around $20 to $25 for either black or the color cartridge.

[highlander714]

I have printed of at 15" x 10" from a G3 on Super Fine using an Epson 2100 (2200 USA). and the results are perfectly acceptable.

Not sure how much is due to the printer/ paper/pigment inks etc and how much credit to the camera but the combo works well.

Alan

[phili1]

I can print 13 x 19 but I have not tried it yet, but at Wholsale Photo in Midland Park N.J. I saw a 13 x19 that was shot with a 3 mega pixel camera, si the answer is if you have enough detail and do not have to crop it will be a great shot. By the way the two pictures I saw the detail and resoloution werer awsome.

[rangersvtsplash]

ok im not to familiar with printers. i have a hewlett packard p1000 printer and woundering the same in regards to its quality for prints.

[phili1]

I am not sure about yours but the pictures I saw were from Epson 1200 printer.

[David Saulnier]

I just got back 2 16x20s from ofoto.com and they looked terrific. I shot jpeg large/superfine and didn't upsample, just autolevels and crop for 16x20 aspect ratio. There is a little bit of pixelation that you can see on certain areas, but only if you have your nose 5" from the print. It cost me $16 per print which is a pretty cheap test if you ask me. Unfortunately they don't offer many poster sizes, just 16x20 and 20x30.

[miatamich]

Yes. You can use Qimage software ($39 online) to interpolate your images and get excellent results. I use an Epson 1270 and get very acceptable 13 x 19 prints.