Determining MAximum Print Size

I have a Canon 60D (18mp, 22.3 X 14.9mm sensor). I plan to start having some of my images printed. Although I understand that there are a variety of factors that will affect maximum print size, I am trying to come up with a guideline (or better yet, a reference chart) to determine maximum print size without visible pixelation at "normal" viewing distances. I might add that I shoot in RAW format at ISO 100-200 (whenever possible). Print dpi would be 240-300.

Thank you kindly for any help.

That last sentence you wrote confuses things a bit since you are probably referring to PPI (pixels per inch), not DPI (dots per inch). Fixing the print resolution at 240-300 PPI would also fix the enlargement and turn the exercise into a mathematical one (divide the pixels dimensions of your image by the PPI and get your print size), assuming you don't do any up-sampling before-hand.

Forgetting that for the moment though, here is something I have posted quite a bit. These are the guidelines recommended by the late Bruce Fraser and I think they serve as a pretty good starting point:

Viewing distance in inches/recommended PPI
8 / 480
10 / 360
12 / 300
18 / 240
24 / 180

So for your 60D, 21.6 x 14.4 would be the maximum suggested enlargement for a full-frame at 240ppi and 28.8 x 19.2 at 180ppi.

If you need to go bigger than that or you are starting off from a crop of the frame, then you could try up-sampling (it won't add detail but it may blend the pixels a little better so they aren't as visible) or you can assume a larger viewing distance and just accept the smaller PPI.

Why not just print your best image at the largest size you'd like and judge from that. Sometimes what seems unacceptable in pixel peeping calculations, turns out to be acceptable in realty. The cost would be worth it.

Eyeball2: Oops, my bad. I meant PPI. Thank you for the guidelines. It gives me reference point from which to start.

Kjonnnn: I agree. Point well-taken. However, having a rough guideline is nevertheless helpful.

Printing and enlargement FAQ. You can print large images down to 50ppi and they look great at a reasonably viewing distance - you don't examine big pics up close. I have a 50" print from a cropped 5D classic that looks amazing. If you want to examine pics reaaaaaly close then you'll want 200+ ppi.

I have a 40x30 print I made off of my old 40D hanging on the wall that I didn't have to do anything with other send the jpeg off to the printer and it looks fine even up close.

Thank you for the responses. BTW, I came across an online print quality calculator that factors in camera sensor, desired print quality & viewing distance in order to determine maximum print size.

http://damiensymonds.b​logspot.com.au …ressively-can-i-crop.html

kitjv wrote in post #17261656
Thank you for the responses. BTW, I came across an online print quality calculator that factors in camera sensor, desired print quality & viewing distance in order to determine maximum print size.

You are over complicating this. Just print the image at the size you want and its going to be fine - unless you have already cropped the life out of the shot on screen.

Lowner wrote in post #17262475
You are over complicating this. Just print the image at the size you want and its going to be fine - unless you have already cropped the life out of the shot on screen.

Richard: Maybe so. But since this is my first foray into having prints made, I would like to have a basic understanding of the process. And, if perchance I am not quite pleased with a print, at least I will have an idea what I can do to remedy the problem. But I agree with you since pixel peeping is not my thing. Thanks.

I went to a print facility in Seattle called Bumblejax. They had a print on the wall that was around 10 feet tall, taken with a Canon Rebel Xsi and kit lens. It was an amazing photograph! The subject was interesting, the color was fantastic, and it was a great thing to look at. Did the softness up close make any difference? Heck no! I don't care what the inside of an Elephant's ear looks like, I just like looking at elephants.

If the most interesting aspect of your photo is the close up details, then it is probably not an interesting photo to begin with. That's my philosophy.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #17263286
I went to a print facility in Seattle called Bumblejax. They had a print on the wall that was around 10 feet tall, taken with a Canon Rebel Xsi and kit lens. It was an amazing photograph! The subject was interesting, the color was fantastic, and it was a great thing to look at. Did the softness up close make any difference? Heck no! I don't care what the inside of an Elephant's ear looks like, I just like looking at elephants.

If the most interesting aspect of your photo is the close up details, then it is probably not an interesting photo to begin with. That's my philosophy.

Amen!!

kitjv wrote in post #17261101
Eyeball2: Oops, my bad. I meant PPI. Thank you for the guidelines. It gives me reference point from which to start.

Kjonnnn: I agree. Point well-taken. However, having a rough guideline is nevertheless helpful.

There is no set rule for this. I have 3 prints on my bedroom wall that were made from crops of photos taken with my 60D. The crops are 1111x1666, but I exported them from LR at 2000x3000 (LR added pixels as needed to increase the pixel count, and did a very good job of it), then sent them to Fine Art America to make metal prints at 16x24 each. They came out perfect, even when viewed at much closer than "normal" viewing range.

Maybe I was lucky, I don't know, but there is more to the subject than just pixel count.

Preeb wrote in post #17264873
There is no set rule for this. I have 3 prints on my bedroom wall that were made from crops of photos taken with my 60D. The crops are 1111x1666, but I exported them from LR at 2000x3000 (LR added pixels as needed to increase the pixel count, and did a very good job of it), then sent them to Fine Art America to make metal prints at 16x24 each. They came out perfect, even when viewed at much closer than "normal" viewing range.

Maybe I was lucky, I don't know, but there is more to the subject than just pixel count.

+1

My TV screen is 1080p. I don't complain about the lack of details when viewing my screen. A print can deliver way more than that even cropped, so with viewing distances, any modern DSLR is going to offer vastly more detail to the eye.

Only people who teach themselves to hate softness up close, actually hate softness up close. Of all the prints I have made and sold, not a single person has ever mentioned sharpness. It's always color, lighting, subject, etc. The emotional stuff.

Preeb wrote in post #17264873
There is no set rule for this. I have 3 prints on my bedroom wall that were made from crops of photos taken with my 60D. The crops are 1111x1666, but I exported them from LR at 2000x3000 (LR added pixels as needed to increase the pixel count, and did a very good job of it), then sent them to Fine Art America to make metal prints at 16x24 each. They came out perfect, even when viewed at much closer than "normal" viewing range.

Maybe I was lucky, I don't know, but there is more to the subject than just pixel count.

Preeb: You touched on something with which I am not totally comfortable. If I understand the example you gave, you upsampled your crops to 2000x3000. Am I correct that you are in essence having LR increase the ppi? Is this done in the Export dialog box? Thank you.