Largest print took by 10D

In a article in the february edition of the german photo magazine (foto magazine), they printed the 5 MP image of a Minolta Dimage 7Hi to the incredible size of 50 x 70 cm. (they used RAW files)

So with a 6 Mp image from the 10D this should also be possible, maybe it´s possible to stretch it furter to 60 x 80.

But most important, you are only limited by your imagination

cheers

Before I buy 10D, i regulary use Canon G2 for bilboards and nobody complains. Of coure, that's in Eastern Europe, but we have some standards too.

What is most important is light and content. Everyithing else is less visible.

And with 10D, 30x40 cm is bigger photo i have done, on Agfa Dlab2 (it's similar to Fuji Frontera, but made in Germany) and it's look very good and sharp.

That is exactly what I was referring to.
In my opinion there is no 'better' format. Both digital and film have their place in the photography world - you just have to choose the right format (and processing) for you requirements.
All the comparisons between digital and film that I have seen end up with the transparency being scanned - which is totally wrong if you are doing a true comparison.

My original statement was a little broad, I apologise for not being clearer on what I meant by it.

Thanks very much for all your replies, this is something I have debaited over in my mind for afew month now.

I shoot sports photography mainly football (soccer for those in the US). I sold a print 40" x 30" full frame on Fuji Superia 800 and the quality was there. People buy large prints off me I have a Kodak DCS520 that was good up to 18" x 12"

I now have a 10D and eagerly awaiting a Canon 70-200mm 2.8L to hopefully equal my desire to produce quality prints.

My first match with the 10D is next Saturday(19th) if anyone wants to have a peek/giggle I'll sent some through for some quality analising!!!

Cardigan1979 asked how large an image could be created from the 10D, this is a completely different question to "How does digital compare with 'analogue'"

Last week I was working on display panels for an exhibition. The backdrop was five panels each 2m high and 1m wide. The whole image 2m x 5m came from a single shot from the 10D. The image was captured as Large/Fine JPG. Yes, the lighting was excellent and yes the tripod was designed around one owned by Fred Flintstone, but the origional image was only 3072 pixels wide. So when it was enlarged for output on a Novajet 600e Poster Printer running at 600dpi, it should have printed out with pixels 5000/3072 mm wide ie 1.7mm wide or 15 pixels per inch.

Now you can really see 15 pixels per inch, and the higher resolution the printer is, the greater the definition is between the edges of the pixels. At 600dpi on the Novajet you can print legible 2 point text, so 15 pixels per inch would have only been OK if the display could only have been viewed from 20 feet or more. But the exhibition required visitors to walk right up to the display and read detailed information in overlaid panels.

The final display did not have the slightest hint of pixelation - how?

The image was sectioned into five strips each 600 pixels wide. Then in PS, using bicubic interpolation it was resized to 40" wide at 72dpi, ( approx 5x magnification), then Lab USM and finally converted to CMYK for output to the RIP.

One section of the display was an instrument face which needed to be be as sharp as the printer could achieve. So this was reshot in the same perspective but zoomed to fill the frame. The whole image was then overlayed into its panel using PS.

So why print a 72 dpi file using a 600 dpi printer (or higher) - The answer has two parts.

Why 72 dpi image - because the eye has a hard job to see any difference between 72dpi and higher resolutions unless the image has very fine, high contrast linear elements (hairs, wires, lines etc)

Why 600dpi (or higher) print - because the printer is building up colours from cyan, magenta, yellow and black inks. To create light greys, reds or blues the printer needs to put down just a few dots of black or magenta. These are very strong colours and a dot is a dot (it does not blend in with any other inks applied to the same pixel).

At 300dpi the individual dark dots are easily visible.
At 600 dpi the dots are discernable at about 2feet.
At 1440dpi you need a glass to see the dots but a 72dpi image can start to look 'grainy' if there is significant contrast between the pixels.

Obviously, 'soft' images can be enlarged much more than sharp demanding 'technical' images, but with good lighting and skilful use of that vital tool the USM you can create close view images many meters wide from your 10D

It is now time to stop thinking in terms of grain and start thinking in terms of image pixels and printer 'dots'. The 10D is now an input device for Photoshop and your creative compositions will only get a 'Wow' when you master that vital combination 10D / PS / Printer AS WELL AS the all important aspects of capturing the shot in the first place.

Derek