The Raw images from my Nikon D80 are 3872 X 2592 pixels and yields a document size of 12.9 X 8.64 with a resolution of 300 pixels/inch. This from a 28.8 mb file.
When I change the pixel dimensions to 7200 on the longest side I get a 99 mb file of 7200 X 4820 pixels and a document size of 24 X 16.06
Finally, I isolate the Document size and change the dimensions to 36 X 24 at a resolution of 200 pixels/inch.
When viewed at print size and sharpened the 36 X 24 images look very good. Even after intense scrutiny inches from the monitor I cannot see any artifacts. Not all images seem to work at this size and artifacts are clearly visible but I have at least several (so far) that appear promising.
Perhaps I am overlooking something in the printing process. Would a print digitally altered at this size work? If it looks good on my monitor would it look good on paper?
Naturally, I am going to put it to the test by getting the lab to crop an 8 X 10 from the 36 X 24 and see how it looks.
Perhaps this has already been tried and I would like to know if it worked for you.
Your thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Dan Borzynski on June 27, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Depending on the image, this may not be unreasonable. I have generally found that when looking at 100%, what I see on the monitor looks worse than what I would get in print.
A lot really depends on the intitial image. My best results have been with not a huge amount of detail, best lenses and best technique, and keeping in mind that a 24x36 is not going to be viewed by most people a nose length away like most photographers are prone to doing.
I recently saw a leopard shot printed to that size with I believe the same camera and it was simply stunning. I think my standards are pretty high - I have picked up shooting with 4x5 because 35mm wasn't good enough for landscapes for me. (Yeah, Danny Burk has been a bad influence on me! ). There is simply no way that image could have been printed in the past to that size, with anything even vaguely resembling nose to the paper quality from a 35 mm format. Film grain would have taken over.
I've seen enough of your photos here to know that technique isn't going to be an issue for you. I think you'll be very pleasantly surprised at the results.
(Edit: I should have added that if you did get right up to the leopard shot, you could see the limits of the technology. But is was still far better than it should have been and you still had to look for it.)
This is a good question. I think you will be surprised at how good they look. I've also been experimenting with Marc Adamus's web sharpening technique and applying the same principle to printing and that has also given me some pretty nice results. This may be subjective but it seems to work well. Has anybody else tried this?
I regularly do 20"x48" images cropped from my 20D. Most of the time, these are printed on a textured canvas or watercolor paper, that hides the "missing details" or softness. The surface of your paper can work for or against you. Adding some "noise" can also help with large prints, it fills in what your eye thinks it's missing and breaks up any banding that may show.
Many of my images are meant to be colorful and emotional, and not necessarily detailed, so I haven't had too many images that I could not enlarge. Like Dan said, you also have to take into account your viewing distance, and how it will be displayed.
I would say experiment with small slices and see what works for your images.
Posted by Richard Wong on June 27, 2007 at 2:19 PM
24x36 had better look good up close, I will find out in a few days. I added some film grain filter to it to give the print some texture since the cleanliness of digital can feel a bit weird when printed big, and I was more pleased with the file after that. It wasn't a high detail type of print so it helped by adding the grain in my opinion.
Don't forget you can upsize the image in the raw convertor of both CS2 and CS3. This give a image that is 6144 x 4113 or a 20x13 inch print before you start to upsize in PS itself. This is a much cleaner upsizing and I can only guess Adobe will keep working on the sizes you can go.
Dan, you can't beat a 4x5 for large prints. I have a 4x5 so why don't I use that for the big prints? The answer is that I have a few nice shots from my D80 and would like to find out how far I can do with those images.
Rob, I like the idea of using textured canvas which will give the print a painterly look, I think. I will get a test print made from that too.
I find the replies highly encouraging. I think it will work. Thank you.
I understand the comments about 4x5 vs the D80. I have the Canon 20D for anything I can't get with LF. Mostly this is my macro and insect work, which I have on several occasions gone to 16x24 prints and was shocked by how good it was. The main point about the 4x5 comment is noting how remarkably good digital cameras have gotten in the last few years, and what you can do with them now would have been just a seriously bad idea even five years ago, from both digital and film. Use the D80 - it is great camera!
Posted by Richard Wong on June 28, 2007 at 10:55 PM
It looks great! better than the file believe it or not. I think my client will enjoy it. Prints usually look better than the monitor anyway so I wouldln't worry about it too much if it looks presentable on your screen.
Don't forget that large prints are not made to be looked at 6 inches away with a magnifier. Large prints are usually looked at from 3-5 feet. So the resulting resolution does not need to be as good as for an 8 1/2 X 11.
Discussion
9 repliesWhen I change the pixel dimensions to 7200 on the longest side I get a 99 mb file of 7200 X 4820 pixels and a document size of 24 X 16.06
Finally, I isolate the Document size and change the dimensions to 36 X 24 at a resolution of 200 pixels/inch.
When viewed at print size and sharpened the 36 X 24 images look very good. Even after intense scrutiny inches from the monitor I cannot see any artifacts. Not all images seem to work at this size and artifacts are clearly visible but I have at least several (so far) that appear promising.
Perhaps I am overlooking something in the printing process. Would a print digitally altered at this size work? If it looks good on my monitor would it look good on paper?
Naturally, I am going to put it to the test by getting the lab to crop an 8 X 10 from the 36 X 24 and see how it looks.
Perhaps this has already been tried and I would like to know if it worked for you.
Your thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
A lot really depends on the intitial image. My best results have been with not a huge amount of detail, best lenses and best technique, and keeping in mind that a 24x36 is not going to be viewed by most people a nose length away like most photographers are prone to doing.
I recently saw a leopard shot printed to that size with I believe the same camera and it was simply stunning. I think my standards are pretty high - I have picked up shooting with 4x5 because 35mm wasn't good enough for landscapes for me. (Yeah, Danny Burk has been a bad influence on me!
I've seen enough of your photos here to know that technique isn't going to be an issue for you. I think you'll be very pleasantly surprised at the results.
(Edit: I should have added that if you did get right up to the leopard shot, you could see the limits of the technology. But is was still far better than it should have been and you still had to look for it.)
This is a good question. I think you will be surprised at how good they look. I've also been experimenting with Marc Adamus's web sharpening technique and applying the same principle to printing and that has also given me some pretty nice results. This may be subjective but it seems to work well. Has anybody else tried this?
Many of my images are meant to be colorful and emotional, and not necessarily detailed, so I haven't had too many images that I could not enlarge. Like Dan said, you also have to take into account your viewing distance, and how it will be displayed.
I would say experiment with small slices and see what works for your images.
I
Rob, I like the idea of using textured canvas which will give the print a painterly look, I think. I will get a test print made from that too.
I find the replies highly encouraging. I think it will work.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
It looks great! better than the file believe it or not. I think my client will enjoy it. Prints usually look better than the monitor anyway so I wouldln't worry about it too much if it looks presentable on your screen.