Print Size

I am fairly new to photography, and I just got a Canon 40D for my first camera. I was wondering, what resolution (300dpi, 250dpi, 200dpi etc) you guys recommended for large prints. And also what do you think would be the largest I could print with the 40D (RAW mode, 10.1mp, 3888px x 2592px) and still look good? Is RAW really all that much better than JPG (Fine quality)? And one last question...Is there a certain size that people like (ex. 20x30, 18x24)

Sorry if this is a lot of questions.

Thanks,
Daniel M

There are two schools of thought you usually hear with regard to printing :

1) Size your file so that you are printing at the printers native res (or a multiple - usually 300 dpi or 360 dpi).

Programs like QImage will do this for you, or many people do it themselves. This is usually because the interpolation to get to that size causes the file to need some re-sharpening for optimal output.

2) As long as you're between 180 dpi and 480 dpi on the print, allow the print driver to resize for you

If you already have a properly sharp file at something lower, like 180 or 240, I don't think there's really much benefit from do the upressing yourself. Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe make this point in particular in the Luminous Landscape videos (I don't know if it's also on luminous-landscape.com somewhere).

As far as the largest print, that completely depends on the image and the expected viewing distance. I would guess that you could pretty easily get 18x24 with a little upressing, but it really depends on the file itself. I've had 16x20 prints made from my 5 MP camera, but I also have images that look bad at 8x10. Proper exposure, sharpness, and processing give you the most leeway here.

And for RAW vs. JPG, I'd do a google search. There are many articles going through why you should (almost) always shoot RAW if possible. OK, here are a couple :

http://www.all-things-photography.com/raw-or-jpeg.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/raw_vs_jpg.shtml

And I really have no idea on what large size prints people like, as I don't sell anything, and friends and family mostly want small shots - 5x7, 8x10, etc.

Optimal print resolution depends largely on viewing distance. You can print a 2' X 3' poster from your camera at 180 dpi (careful how you grow it, no more than 10% at a time) without any loss of quality. That would stand up to fairly close inspection. You can print something the size of a billboard at a lower resolution and it will look great from a car 50' away. Your printer has an optimal print factor that will allow it to print without doing a lot of math to redistribute dots. My Epsons work well in multiples of 60, so 180, 240, 360, etc. work best.

You can print huge things starting from your 10 Mp file. Take is slow in PS or use something like Alienskin Blowup.

RAW is definitely the way to go. jpeg begins by tossing information about the capture on the floor. You lose data, lose bit-depth, and lose control over your white balance, and let the camera computer make choices about color correction. Take control. Shoot RAW.

I sell 100 small prints to 1 large. 8X10 and less tends to be king. Once I get to 11X14 things start to slow down. 16X20 is about the largest order I get on a regular basis. I have had only one 24X36 request.

One thing about what you mentioned Kelly. I assume by "no more than 10% at a time" you mean to upres in increments? Meaning do several passes growing a little each time?

If that's the case, I have to say that that is unecessary. Apparently a few years ago, there was real advantage to doing this in PS. However, since then, Bicubic Smoother has been altered (added?) to do the same thing in one step. From what I've read, there is no advantage to incremental upressing anymore with other algorithms either.

Of course, the proof is in your final prints, and if you're happy with a particular technique, and it works, more power to you.

With a digital file from the current batch of cameras, unless I am printing at 8x10 or smaller, I am fine with printing at 240 dpi. I use 360 dpi religiously with film origin, but digital starts so much cleaner I don't feel there is any advantage to printing at 360 dpi with digital capture.

I've printed 16x20's (or 16x24) fairly regularly from the Canon 20D (8 megapixels). The files are not nose to the print sharp at that size, but from a non-photographer viewing distance, they look great.

For print sizes that people like, it tends to vary. My most common sale size is 8x10, simply because of price. 11x14's tend to be sold less often, maybe a 1 to 5 ratio. Once a show, I'll sell a 16x20. By the way, everything is matted, although I do offer unmatted prints as a special order.

Why those sizes, and not the 2:3 aspect ratio of the sensor or film? For a very practical reason: easily available, cheap frames for people who buy the prints. A dumb reason, perhaps, but it works for me.

Also, some images simply shouldn't be printed at certain sizes. I have one shot of Split Rock Lighthouse where the sky is the star of the picture. I don't offer it as an 8x10 as it just doesn't work at that size. It has to be printed large. Similarly, I have an owl closeup that I offer at 8x10, for a largest size since it gets pretty creepy looking bigger than that.

If you are used to the limitations from 35 mm film, in terms of print size, forget them. Digital *easily* goes bigger.

Good info to have David. Thanks!

Thank you all! This really helps. When I get something good enough to print, I will let you guys know how it comes out.

Thanks again for all you input!

-Daniel M