10D capable of 20x30 print?

Steiglitz wrote in post #2710832
A 6mp image enlarged that big looks scaley.

The 5D gives me this quality that my customers demand, and a 1DS Mark II would give even better.

No digital picture that is properly interpolated will look scaly unless it is a picture of a snake. Interpolation does not create scales. Interpolation can not create detail, it just causes the image to looks softer to cover the missing resolution. If you got scaly enlargements from a 6 mp image you should try a different printer or get a better interpolation program.

Just hope your customers don't seem images from a 39 mp Hasselblad or they will return your pictures and ask for their money back.

Most people actually prefer their portrait to be a little soft and Canon even makes a 135 lens that can soften portraits exactly for that purpose when shooting film. With digital we don't have to smear Vaseline on our lenses to get that effect, but can do it with Gaussian blur in post processing.

ScottE wrote in post #2711186
No digital picture that is properly interpolated will look scaly unless it is a picture of a snake. Interpolation does not create scales. Interpolation can not create detail, it just causes the image to looks softer to cover the missing resolution. If you got scaly enlargements from a 6 mp image you should try a different printer or get a better interpolation program.

Just hope your customers don't seem images from a 39 mp Hasselblad or they will return your pictures and ask for their money back.

Most people actually prefer their portrait to be a little soft and Canon even makes a 135 lens that can soften portraits exactly for that purpose when shooting film. With digital we don't have to smear Vaseline on our lenses to get that effect, but can do it with Gaussian blur in post processing.

Perhaps the word "scaly" was not the best one to use. Pebbly? maybe. Interpolation has to add detail that is not there. It guess, and often very well, or at least convincing. The bottom line is that the less interpolation done, the better, but if one is forced to work with 6mp or less, then it will be interpolation-city...not good.

As for soft portraits....I generally only sharpen the eyes and maybe the mouth and teeth too...the rest stays soft....I get more compliments doing this then if I made the entire image soft....a big reason why I hate SF portrait lenses...it is indiscriminate, to be sure. I hate portraits where the entire face is soft...it looks too Point & Shooty.

As for the 39mp hassy images, I certainly would not want my clients to compare my 5D images to those. lol

ScottE wrote in post #2711140
I made the point that composition and lighting are more important than fine resolution in the majority of pictures. If you think a poorly composed, flatly lighted and out of focus picture with camera motion blur made with 39 MP of resolution is better than a well executed picture made with 6 MP resolution you are saddly wrong.

Most of us would do better photography if we worried more about the quality of our skills than the technical ability of our equipment.

The fact remains that many people have made 16 x 20 inch prints from 6 MP files and been happy with the results. That doesn't mean that the picture would not have been better if they had used a 39 MP camera, just that it was good enough to be pleasing for their needs.

I agree that a poorly captured 39mp image would suck. The point I was making was if one perfectly exposed, tripoded an image with just 6mp, enlarging it with the best interpolation software would produce rud (INVALID EMAIL) in most circumstances...there would be few exceptions.

Just because many people are happy with posters made from 6mp files does not mean the quality was high, yea? You're forgetting that most people love the images coming from disposable cameras. lol

KevC wrote in post #2695483
A good image with good glass (a nice sharp prime stopped down on a tripod) would yeild sharp enough photos that even my baby 4MP can print up to that large.

KevC, not even close. Have you tried it? I have. Lots. I was sad.

Steiglitz wrote in post #2685904
Nope, 6mp is not good enough for such large enlargements, in fact it is pitifully not enough...sure you can use fancy interpolation programs to res up an image but often pixelation and other digital artifacts get introduced. Detail gets smeared, blured, and unless you are viewing the poster from several feet away it will look soft, and quality will be low. For enlargements that big, pixels & sensor size are everything, and will trump interpolation everytime. Interpolation has to add detail that never existed...it does a best guess.

Those that think the results that big from a 6mp camera are great have never seen enlargements from a 5D or 1DS Mark II.

If you want stunning remarkable quality out of a 6mp camera, don't go bigger then 11 x 14 (inches) and even then it is going to be dodgy.

I often sale posters of wedding pics and looking at my old 10D, 20D samples versus what I get with the 5D, it is night and day....with the 5D enlargements no need to view the image from afar to find it pleasing....you can be impressed 4 inches from your nose.

Also the resulting quality is a function of what is in the scene....the more granular detail an image has, the worse it will look blown up big.

A lot of it too is a function of what one calls "quality"...one mans pixel map is another man's master piece

Im not here to bash you but my local lab has a HUGE large format plotter print taken with a 6mp camera and I was amazing. Print was of a chevy car and it was printed to in feet... like 4x6 feet... After I saw that I was convinced. As long as you know what your doing in the post processing stages, you make make a wonderful print of 6-8 MP

My clients are impressed by the 20-30's I have on the wall from the 10D - even shot JPEG they look great.

LBaldwin wrote in post #2711084
There is alot of differing answers here. Having run a chem based photo lab and now have an all digital lab in my home including a W6400 LF printer my answer to the OP, is yeah sure you could, but what is your expected quality level. Software does not cut it. Sorry to those of you who rely on first person experience I understand that is all you have. Megs do = format. LF images 4x5 8x10 etc are sharper. MF is sharper and renders better quality than 35mm and so on. A 10d was (in my opinion) not one of Canon's best cameras. But the Digital cameras in that section are directly aimed at mid level 35mm bodies. Not MF or LF so now what? The 5D = MF 645 or so. The 1D is aimed at the MF market in relation to 6x6 or 6x7.

The poster printers especially Epson HP and Canon, use RIP or Raster Image Processing. So that image that you see a poster of is not really they one you sent in. It looks like it but when run through the RIP software it becomes a file nearly 140 megs in size, depending of course on what you start with. This software is very expensive (as high as 5K) and is geared towards a lab.

The more detail you have in your original RAW file (you are shooting in raw, right?
The better the RIP software will be able to render your image on a large format printer.
Most do not use PS for anything above 20x30.

Having and using the right tools for the job are really what it is all about. The 10D in my opinion does not cut it for serious work. But for a BF portrait on glossy stock, probably stuck to the wall, go for it. Just use a tripod, nail the exposure and shoot as large a file as you can. Make sure to use a large color space, a calibrated monitor and save the file per your individual printers needs. That will go a very long way towards making a usable print. Mega pix helps but it is not the end of the story.

All of clients view my prints with a loupe, if they don't I hand them one. I explain how to look at the print and what normal viewers will do vs photo minded folks like you all. When you go to look at a new printer don't you view the test prints with a critical eye?

So the answer? Crap in and Crap out. The 10 D will work for a non serious application. But if you can (yea I know) use the largest format available to you.

This issue is by no means new. This very debate raged on ( no forums) back in teh dark ages of photography when folks moved from LF to 35mm for "real" work.

Les

I think this is absoulutely right. The point about people using 1st person perspective hits the nail on the head for me.
Having said that, it's all relative, take two shot sof the same subject, one with the 10d, one with the 5d, output a large format proof and compate the two. Once people see what the difference is, what was once fantastic becomes a poor second.

I received two comments when I did a 8"x10" family portrait with my old D30 (3.1MP):

1) "The picture is too good... you can see all my wrinkles!"
2) "You can definitely tell it's a digital picture."

I knew 3.1MP is not adequate for 8"x10" because I religiously follow the 300dpi rule for photographic quality. But it was good enough to show fine details.

So I got myself a 10D to make perfect 8"x10" (20x25cm) prints!

The bottom line is, big pictures were meant to be viewed further away. Just like a huge tv. Take a 62inch hdtv and it doesnt look as good as a 32in hdtv. But, step back about 15 feet and you'll be wishing you had the 62in and it'll look great from that far back.

I seen a 20x30 that was printed from a 6mp Nikon d50. From about 6 feet away on the wall, I couldn't find anything wrong with it at all. I was really impressed by that. I say the 10d is capable. Have one printed from Walmart for like 13$ and see how it looks just for fun. I'm going to have Walmart print one and then one of these recommended places and see if theres a difference besides about 15$ per print.

This image is one of the 10D sample images you can download from Canon.

Resized using only Photoshop, then cropped from a 100% view.

wilvoeka wrote in post #2712666
This image is one of the 10D sample images you can download from Canon.

Resized using only Photoshop, then cropped from a 100% view.

That image looks soft even as small as it is on this site! How much worse will it be enlarged? Lots....bad example, to be sure.

Stump wrote in post #2712496
The bottom line is, big pictures were meant to be viewed further away. Just like a huge tv. Take a 62inch hdtv and it doesnt look as good as a 32in hdtv. But, step back about 15 feet and you'll be wishing you had the 62in and it'll look great from that far back.

I seen a 20x30 that was printed from a 6mp Nikon d50. From about 6 feet away on the wall, I couldn't find anything wrong with it at all. I was really impressed by that. I say the 10d is capable. Have one printed from Walmart for like 13$ and see how it looks just for fun. I'm going to have Walmart print one and then one of these recommended places and see if theres a difference besides about 15$ per print.

NOPE, big enlargements are meant to be viewed close up....I see this all the time over fireplace mantles, walls, etc....20 x 30 are not billboards...they are pictures to be viewed close up.....lack of quality distracts the eye of the viewer. Go to a museum that exhibits very large photographs....you will see that viewers are just inches away...go to an Ansel Adams exhibition and view his very large prints...the print is hung so that viewers can walk right up to it. Diane Arbus has several very large enlargements of her work, many others do too.

The image was soft to begin with, go download it for yours self and see.

The print is very exceptable and has no noticable loss of detial from the original.

It looks alot better than prints made from many taken with 100 ISO speed film.

As soon as you take an image above its original size you will start to see the quality go down. Even 4x5 25 ISO prints start to show some loss above 11x14.

You are arguing the Technical aspects of large prints based on scientific facts, and you are 100% correct. Some judge prints on thier technical merit adn some judge them on thier Artistic merit.

The question never was if a 10D could produce the Highest quality 20x30 print, it was could a 20x30 print be made from a 10D that looks good. This would be highly subjective on wether the viewer was judging it technicly or artisticly.

Technicly a 10D cannot achieve the best 20x30 print results, but then again not even a 5D or 1Ds could either if judged against a MF or View Camera.

Artisticly if the image is Focused and composed well , processed with quality techniques, with intersting or meaningfull subject matter for the viewer the 10D print will be just fine.

wilvoeka wrote in post #2712968
The image was soft to begin with, go download it for yours self and see.

The print is very exceptable and has no noticable loss of detial from the original.

It looks alot better than prints made from many taken with 100 ISO speed film.

As soon as you take an image above its original size you will start to see the quality go down. Even 4x5 25 ISO prints start to show some loss above 11x14.

You are arguing the Technical aspects of large prints based on scientific facts, and you are 100% correct. Some judge prints on thier technical merit adn some judge them on thier Artistic merit.

The question never was if a 10D could produce the Highest quality 20x30 print, it was could a 20x30 print be made from a 10D that looks good. This would be highly subjective on wether the viewer was judging it technicly or artisticly.

Technicly a 10D cannot achieve the best 20x30 print results, but then again not even a 5D or 1Ds could either if judged against a MF or View Camera.

Artisticly if the image is Focused and composed well , processed viewer the 10D print will be just fine.

True and I see your point...we all agree that composition trumps technical aspects of a print...of course.

But this is not to say that one cannot have both, yea?

Lets. Have. Both.

I want my fine art posters to NOT resemble snapshots. A great fantastic awesome composition is robbed by distractions such as noise, or soft focus, or pixelation, digital artifacts, that sort of thing....this robbing of the virtue of the composition distracts the viewer, making him lose or degrading the point of the image. I don't want the viewer to be "fine" as you say...I want the viewer to be blown away.

Steiglitz wrote in post #2713283
True and I see your point...we all agree that composition trumps technical aspects of a print...of course.

But this is not to say that one cannot have both, yea?

Lets. Have. Both.

I want my fine art posters to NOT resemble snapshots. A great fantastic awesome composition is robbed by distractions such as noise, or soft focus, or pixelation, digital artifacts, that sort of thing....this robbing of the virtue of the composition distracts the viewer, making him lose or degrading the point of the image. I don't want the viewer to be "fine" as you say...I want the viewer to be blown away.

You're arguing far beyond the original scope of the thread.