Rebel XTi and Printing Images

I have been having some fun taking pics with my Rebel for a couple years now and I think it is time to print some out, but I have a few questions.

What is the largest print I can get from pictures taken by a XTi and still be professional looking? Is 8x10 it, which also leave little room for cropping?

If you have a properly exposed shot without too much noise you can easily take it up to 20x24 without too much degradation. I've gone to 20x30 and the results were mixed.

Out of the camera the image is 10.8 x 16.2 at 240 pixels/inch
I read that 300 is preferred but you can get away with 240 pixels/inch so how are you getting up to the 20x24 size?

fatpoint wrote in post #12206249
Out of the camera the image is 10.8 x 16.2 at 240 pixels/inch
I read that 300 is preferred but you can get away with 240 pixels/inch so how are you getting up to the 20x24 size?

By having one printed, and not getting into the measurebating. Its possible to upsize an image.

fatpoint wrote in post #12206249
Out of the camera the image is 10.8 x 16.2 at 240 pixels/inch
I read that 300 is preferred but you can get away with 240 pixels/inch so how are you getting up to the 20x24 size?

By upsampling.
300 ppi is the standard for prints viewed at normal reading distance, but big prints hung on the wall are viewed from further away, so you can get away with less native resolution. I have made and sold many beautiful 20x28 inch prints from a 40D - the same resolution as the XTi.

gonzogolf wrote in post #12206209
If you have a properly exposed shot without too much noise you can easily take it up to 20x24 without too much degradation. I've gone to 20x30 and the results were mixed.

Isn't 20x24 the same as 20x30 except cropped?

tzalman wrote in post #12206416
Isn't 20x24 the same as 20x30 except cropped?

I suppose it would be. I just had better results with the 20x24 image than the 20x30. Perhaps it has something to do with the way the lab handled the uprez files. It was not a pro printer by any means.

The purpose of the print is for a camera club competition. Judges sit 6-8' away so I I could get away with the upsample. I just don't want it to look bad however, 8x10 is just too small although it is the smallest size they will accept.

Thanks for all the help so far!

fatpoint wrote in post #12206484
The purpose of the print is for a camera club competition. Judges sit 6-8' away so I I could get away with the upsample. I just don't want it to look bad however, 8x10 is just too small although it is the smallest size they will accept.

Thanks for all the help so far!

If you want to print big, you have two routes you can go down. One, find a good lab that will do the resizing well, give them as many native pixels as you have after aesthetic and paper format cropping, and put it in their hands. Or you can do the resizing yourself and the sharpening that will be necessary afterwards. I'm a control freak, so I do it myself using Lightroom's excellent resizing and output sharpening. If you have PS, here is a good tut:
http://www.outbackphot​o.com/workflow/wf_60/e​ssay.html

gonzogolf wrote in post #12206464
I suppose it would be. I just had better results with the 20x24 image than the 20x30. Perhaps it has something to do with the way the lab handled the uprez files. It was not a pro printer by any means.

A 20x24 is simply a cropped portion of a 20x30 -- kind of like printing an 8x10 instead of an 8x12.

fatpoint wrote in post #12206184
I have been having some fun taking pics with my Rebel for a couple years now and I think it is time to print some out, but I have a few questions.

What is the largest print I can get from pictures taken by a XTi and still be professional looking? Is 8x10 it, which also leave little room for cropping?

I have made lots of 13x19 print, many shot at max iso. They look great if the exposure is good. I think you should do some test prints, that is the best way to judge quality.

You can print really big with the 400D if you want. Remember, it is not always about sharpness, upscaling, noise etc, it is about the image. If the image itself is interesting few will care about technical details.

Just my opinion

J_R2 wrote in post #12209254
IIf the image itself is interesting few will care about technical details.

but if i'm printing one of my own photos, i'll be one of the few who care. lol.

msclman99 wrote in post #12209419
but if i'm printing one of my own photos, i'll be one of the few who care. lol.

You know what they say: "The best way to pay for a lovely moment is to enjoy it."

I will probably newer become a good photographer but as long as I can have fun with my camera equipment and my wife likes my prints I`m happy.

msclman99 wrote in post #12209419
but if i'm printing one of my own photos, i'll be one of the few who care. lol.

My point of reference is this:

I have printed and framed numerous photos from numerous cameras at my standard print sizes, 12x16 and 12x18. They proudly adorn my walls. The cameras that produced the images range over 4MP and 6MP compact and P&S cameras to DSLRs, starting with the 8MP 30D.

When I look closely at the prints from the 4/6MP cameras, as in very closely, yes I see the fine detail breaking down a bit. But this is not at all noticeable at a "normal" viewing distance, which, when you are walking by is as close as just a couple feet.

My 8MP 30D, on the other hand, yielded prints that are what I would call "tack sharp" at any viewing distance.

Needless to say, I could fearlessly print larger, whether from those 30D images or from any of my higher res bodies or any newer body.

Just sayin'!

tonylong wrote in post #12210337
Just sayin'!

Just sayin´I agree