View Full Version : largest print size with dRebel ?
Paul_B
1st of April 2005 (Fri), 14:01
With good quality, what would be the largest print size and look good ?.
I finally have my new lens, the Sigma 70-200 F2.8. My wife asked me how large I could print a photo. I didn't know, so I told her "a fairly good size". Could someone tell me the best I can get, and also if there is "trick/tip" in processing to get it there.
thx for any info on this.
ed2day
1st of April 2005 (Fri), 14:07
Somewhat subjective, but for me I would say 16x24 in. I wouldn't attempt that with my kit lens though. There are interpolation tricks in Photoshop to stretch to larger sizes, but I havent tried.
Chazs
1st of April 2005 (Fri), 14:23
I printed a 24in x 30in, but obviously you want to view from 8+ft. If you want to view it under 5 feet I'd stay below 26x24.
robertwgross
1st of April 2005 (Fri), 14:51
I think the rule of thumb is that a print should be viewed from a minimum distance of the longest of the print dimensions. So, for a 16x24 inch print, you ought to be back at least 24 inches. At that distance, you don't necessarily need 300 dpi or whatever you might have wanted for a 4x6 inch print. So, as the print size goes up, the dpi standards tend to go down. It's either that, or else start with a 900 Megabyte file.
---Bob Gross---
timmyquest
1st of April 2005 (Fri), 14:52
I've made 30x20 prints from my 4mp 1D...they look fine.
Paul_B
1st of April 2005 (Fri), 15:23
ok thanks all, I'll be very happy with the smallest mentioned thus far.
Is there some kind of chart that you all go by for print size vs dpi size ? A web site or some kind of guide.
mikeymike
1st of April 2005 (Fri), 15:31
I have printed them with my i9900 too 13 by 19 and they look really good even from a few inches away. evey one of my friends that i show my 13 by 19 prints are like :eek:
kawter2
1st of April 2005 (Fri), 15:49
I just printed some 15x22.5" And let me tell you they look really GREAT!! but the problem is that the larger you go the mor exagerated your flaws are. Let me tell you you have to NAIL everythiing. Good exposure in the camera, or close to it if you shoot raw (over exposed better than uder). A good amount of USM but this can SOOOOOO easily be over done, and even slightly it makes the photo look poopy
The most tedious thing for me right now is adjusting curves for better contrast and saturaton, with out creating noise/pixelization
**EDIT Sorry I forgot to add, I am using a 20d, and not a 300d.. but they are still very close
Hellashot
1st of April 2005 (Fri), 17:05
I've made 30x20 prints from my 4mp 1D...they look fine.
I second that. I've heard and seen that done from 3 and 4MP cameras that were not even dSLRs.
Bodog
1st of April 2005 (Fri), 17:51
I regularly do 13 X 19s and haven't seen any need to re-sample. These look so good, I'm sure you can go larger, but That's my printer's max.
tim
1st of April 2005 (Fri), 21:12
I've printed a couple of photos from my 300D at A1 size, 594 × 841mm, and so long as you don't stand too close (1 or 2 meters back) they look great. It depends on your subject though, the ones I printed are this one (http://www.mrwild.co.nz/Featured/TheNight/slides/IMG_6256_CRW.html) and this one (http://www.mrwild.co.nz/PhotoGallery/2004/NewYears/slides/CRW_4701.html), neither have a lot of fine detail necessary to appreciate the picture.
Avalonthas
2nd of April 2005 (Sat), 16:58
The biggest ive ever done on my 300D was a 24' x 30' however you needed to be 10 feet back (hope i got imperial conversion right) to see it descetly, and would recommend 20 feet to see it at its best quality. Up close its pretty ugly.
robertwgross
2nd of April 2005 (Sat), 18:16
I attended a photographic show, and a number of 24x36 inch prints were scattered around the room so that everybody could browse around and compare. All of the prints were of the very same still subject, so either we were comparing the cameras or else somebody cheated in the printing process.
There were some from 35mm and MF film cameras and most were from digital cameras of various sensor types.
The normal show visitors just walked around and viewed the prints from 5-8 feet away. The photographers walked around and then got their noses almost up against the prints.
In summary, the digitals did at least as good as the film cameras. In some cases, they were a little better.
---Bob Gross---
folkxrock
7th of April 2005 (Thu), 14:12
I have created prints at 44" x 66" and a ton of 24" x 36" & 30" x 44" with an online printer. The enlargement results are terrific.
http://www.clarioncreative.com
The service is outstanding - If I send bad prints they always call with alternative suggestions.
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.