? Print size from Jpeg

[Namie]

I know this is a newbie question, but I'd love some help. I have some high resolution jpegs from an 8 megpix camera. How large of a print can I do without adding lots of noise?

Thanks,

[tommas4]

Properly exposed picture = no noise.
Printing large doesn't add noise, underexposure (and then auto correction at your print place) does.
Anyway, if you by high resolution mean full potential of your camera (~3500x2200pixels),
then you'd be fine even at 20x30 print.

Beware, there is deviation called "pixel peeping", refers to going over large print with magnifying glass and looking VERY close at it. First, I don't think you would do that, second - you'll be looking at 20x30 from 5 feet+, third - only solution for pixel peepers is something called digital back, costs about the same as nice Porsche . . . .

Tomas

[Namie]

Thanks. I'm not wanting to do a 20x30 but a friend wants a copy of one of my pictures, and was wanting like a 12x18 or 14x16 if I could do it. I wanted to double check before committing myself!

I appreciate the help.

[kenw]

I routinely print 24x36 from low compression jpg files running 2.1MB in file size from a 10d (6.3MPixel)

[jeffkohn]

second - you'll be looking at 20x30 from 5 feet+,

Different strokes for different folks I guess. Call me a pixel-peeper, but I have a 13x30" pano hanging on the wall of my office, and the natural viewing distance is about 2 feet. That's not just me, I've watched other people when looking at it. They may start out at 4 feet or so, but inevitably move closer. At 2 feet it mostly fills your field of vision but you can look it it without having to turn your head side to side. In fact when I tell them it's a stitched shot (and explain what that means if they're not photographer types), they'll often stick their noses right in the print looking for the "seams".

only solution for pixel peepers is something called digital back, costs about the same as nice Porsche . . . .

There is another option: stitching. It's not just for panos, you can do multi-row stitching to end up with a more traditional aspect ratio.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by Namie

Thanks. I'm not wanting to do a 20x30 but a friend wants a copy of one of my pictures, and was wanting like a 12x18 or 14x16 if I could do it. I wanted to double check before committing myself!

I appreciate the help.

There's no definite answer since it really depends on the image: not only the type of subject but also how careful you were when shooting. For the most part you should be OK printing 12x18 from an 8mp image unless maybe it was handheld and there's visible camera shake.

[Namie]

Actually the picture that she's wanting is one I resized to use as my avatar.

I've never shared much of my work - although the photography class I'm taking is helping me get more used to it - and I've never printed much on my own, so I'm pretty clueless when it comes to that issue.

[xseption]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

There is another option: stitching. It's not just for panos, you can do multi-row stitching to end up with a more traditional aspect ratio.

Can you explain the multi-row stitching or a link ?

thanks!

~ edd

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by xseption

Can you explain the multi-row stitching or a link ?

thanks!

~ edd

example:

4 photos to merger to 1 image

top left , top right
bottom left , bottom right

merge or stitch these together to get one big photo. it just goes on from there. you could do 9 photos of 3 per row for 3 rows

James

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by xseption

Can you explain the multi-row stitching or a link ?

James already explained it; instead of shooting a single row of images to stitch, you shoot mulitple rows and stitch it all together. Most pano software can handle stitching these no problem. The file sizes do get pretty big though, so depending on your computer post-processing can become rather cumbersome. For instance, even with overlap and final cropping this shot ended up being just over 70mp, and that's only two rows. The PSD is 420mb without layers, and at 300ppi it would print at about 25" in the short dimension.

I haven't shot too many of these yet, but it's something I plan to do more of in the future. The one problem with these mega-mp panos is that depending on the scene you start running into depth of field issues, because you're using a longer focal length for the invidual shots. So you have the same DOF limitations as a large format shooter would (they use much longer focal lengths compared to 35mm), but you don't have the tilts and swings that a large format photographer can use to compensate for it.

[tommas4]

Sorry, I stirred the water and left - but have a good excuses, lol
I knew I'll be whooped for that remark.
And - I have some bits to add - I think panoramic images lead people to view them from closer distance, if not stick their noses in it. I shot 5 feet for 20x30 judging from galleries and prints at my home. If you go close, there ARE problems with it, true.

But it depends, print by print. Pano of mountain skyline tends to be viewed up close, cacti flower on 20x30 tends to keep people at good distance.
The stitching is excellent tool for large prints, can't agree more.

So, why my remark?
For fun? Nope, more of poking bee's nest with stick issue, he he.
Seriously, couple years ago, I decided for myself to - cut down postprocessing to half or third, along with spent time by computer. It was tough, but I now really spend less than half time behind screen than I've used to. And, it is quite some hour amount per month.
I devoted this saved time to shooting and perfecting the "nail it in camera" thing. Frankly, it works for me so far. Hope this explains my thoughts, open to debate of course.

Thanks,
Tomas

[kenw]

no argument here, Tomas......;)

if people are looking at a pic to find flaws, they can usually find some.....