Size Matters

[Wes]

I have a D70, which as we all know is 6.1mp. Assuming that I'm shooting in Fine mode on the largest image possible, what is the largest that I could expect to be able to enlarge the picture without it looking noisy or pixelated? I stopped by Wolf Camera the other day to pick up a new battery for my camera and asked the guy behind the counter the same thing. He showed me a shot taken from a D50 (same size sensor as my D70) that had been enlarged to 24x36, and the image was razor sharp. I'm a bit skeptical.

[rott]

I have a print on the wall that is 24x36 from my XT (8.0mp), and it's not razor sharp, but it's pretty darn good. We have a 20x30 or so from our wedding that was shot on a Fuji (5 or 6mp, can't remember now) that is also very impressive -- almost sharper than my XT print.

Just depends on how picky you are.

General rule is that most printers will want 300dpi, so if your camera's sensor is a 6.1mp (3008x2000, I think), you can absolutely expect a tack sharp 10" x 6.6" print. Beyond that can get subjective. I don't know at what resolution the average human eye can start detecting resolution change.

[pippin]

Wes, come into my store (preston & forest).

We've got a printer on site that will do 24x36 without any problem (and we do not resample the images). Guarantee that you'll have no problems.

Now, it all comes down to what exactly you took, how you took it, how sharp it was etc... but i've got plenty of images printed with no pixelation. Remember you won't be looking at it from a few inches. You'll be standing back and you won't see the pixels.

PM me and we'll be happy to put your doubts aside. You'd be surprised.

[PeteQ]

To me, the first question I would ask you is... How far away will you be viewing the image from? They have made billboards out of D70 sized images but obviously you will be viewing them at a distance. Same goes for prints. I have made several 20x30's from my D70 and were very pleased. They stood up to close up look scrutiny. Maybe not with a 20x loupe, but if someone pulls out a loupe and crawls over your couch to view your print...well, you may have bigger problems.

That being said... a 24x36 is no problem for the D70. Once you go above that size you start interpolating and then the quality is dependant on the software that does the number crunching. There are several programs that will do a much better up-sizing than Photoshop. Take a look at Genuine Fractals. They say they can interpolate up to 800% before degradation begins. If you need a wall sized print I would look at them.

[jeffkohn]

Short answer: "it depends".

Longer answer: What is your subject type? (portraits and abstracts can withstand more enlargement than detailed landscapes) How good is your glass? How good is your shooting technique? (tripod, MLU, cable release, etc). How good is your post-processing and print-prep? All of these factors will play a role in the final print quality, as well as your own personal quality standards.

Maybe I'm an anal SOB but I can't imagine being happy with a 24x36 print from a 6mp JPG. In fact I wouldn't go that far with a 12MP NEF. When I shot a D70 the biggest I was willing to print was 12x18.

For me, large prints usually means landscapes with lots of detail in them. My personal rule of thumb is that 175PPI (before interpolation) is as far as I'll go for these types of images. 200 PPI or more is even better.

Generally speaking, with my D2X files I'll limit myself to 16x24 prints for landscape shots. Of course, an image of sand dunes, a close up of a flower without much texture, or other images any real fine details in them should be able withstand greater enlargement (which is why my short answer is "it depends").

I did get a 20x30" from Costco shortly after getting the D2X, just to see what it would look like. Setting aside the awful color rendition, IMHO the print looked "OK" from a distance but even at arms length I wasn't really happy with the sharpness/detail and there were some artifacts visible.

Keep in mind, interpolation (whether done by you or the printer) can't produce detail that wasn't there in the original image. If you push it too far you may not see any pixelation but you will see artifacts, and IMHO these give the image an unpleasant "digital" look.

You can say that large prints are viewed from further back and don't need to be as detailed; but I want to be able stand close enough for the print to fill my field of vision. I've also noticed, people do stick their noses in large prints when given the opportunity. I've got 16x24" and 13x32" prints hanging in my office at work and when people see them they initially look from a few steps back; but then they always step up closer to get a better look. I do the same thing when looking at my prints or those of other photographers. And while I don't necessarily think prints have to look razor-sharp when you stick your nose in them, I do prefer that they not look like mush, either.