Limits of 10mp camera

I'm curious how large of a file I can print with descent results from my Rebel xti. I know there can be many variables involved, but lets just say for a wall hanging photo that won't be viewed from closer than 4-5 feet.

I know if you follow some of the printshop guidelines they say 16x20 is about the limits of a quality print. I'd like to do something larger, like 24x30 or so, and I'm curious if it would look okay.

Anybody have experience printing larger files from a similar file size?

thanks,
Kevin

Kevin, you're going to get differing perspectives from different people.

I generally us 8 Mp cameras, and I've printed to 20x30 regularly with excellent results (and some excellent prints at larger sizes, too), either interpolating (adding pixels) in photoshop about 5 percent at a time as I climb in size, or sending the unprocessed image to the print lab, depending on which lab I'm using.

Ultimate print size depends only partly on Mp count. Other factors include how much busy detail there is, what iso was used in the capture, sharpness of the lens used for capture, and whether it was exposed correctly. Busy, detailed images start to fall apart faster as you increase print size than images with large, broad sweeps of color. I also believe a RAW image ultimately can be printed larger than a JPEG. While I've done side-by-side tests on 20x30 with RAW vs JPEG, and can see some differences, I think it's only at larger sizes the differences become more apparent.

So those are my thoughts on that. Why not get prints made at a variety of sizes up to 24x30 and see how you like the results? At that large size and larger, people do tend to stand farther from the art, so that helps.

Kevin,

I have a couple of prints hanging in my gallery at 30x45 taken with the Rebel XT and customers (as well as many photographers) can't tell that I've pushed it beyond the norm. It is really image dependent. One which relies upon a lot of detail to communicate will certainly be found wanting but others that are about form or color as their main subject will be just fine at the viewing distance you listed. Just my $0.02

Thanks for the opinions guys, I appreciate it.

Here is the image I'm thinking about printing larger for my home.

Shot at iso 100 in RAW
I plan to follow some guidelines to interpolate and sharpen at the size I need.

I've made large poster sized prints (20x30) from my old 6MP Canon 10D that came out absolutely stunning.
Of course, proper equipment, field and 'darkroom' techniques were followed, but I sent the uninterpolated file to El-Co Color Labs and let them interpolate the file using a sophisticated printing RIP resampling method.
At those prices, what do you have to lose by trying them?
Every single person whom I've recommended this service to has raved about the results!
If you have any questions, these folks are happy to answer them.

This is a real nice image to enlarge, although I think that some further 'darkroom' tweaks are needed to make it look its very best.

thanks for the link John, for those prices its worth a shot for sure!!

I might just send them my file after a bit of tweeking and let them print it out. I'm excited to see the results.

I've printed 20X30 prints from my Rebel XT. They look really good, but don't compare to the 4X5 at these sizes when there is detail in the image. One of my large 35mm prints is from an image fairly similar to the one you're thinking about.

I've printed up to 16x24 from my 5 megapixel camera, so it can be done. Everyone here has had good advice, but I've got one thing you can try - Once you've resized the file to the proper dimensions, you can always crop out a relative sample, and have that printed smaller and cheaper to see how it's gonna turn out. Like cropping a 5x7 area out and printing that. It should give you a good feel for how the larger image will look.

David, that makes good sense in principle. However, a 5x7 print in your hand invites much closer inspection than a 20x30 on the wall. Looking closely at the 5x7 will indeed show you the ultimate detail if you examine the larger print from one foot away, but in the real world it doesn't matter as much because people stand much farther back to view a large print.

Kevin,
Nothing to add to the good advice you've already gotten but...
is the image Crater Lake above Maroon Lake near Aspen? You have to do a little off trail hiking to get to that side of the lake.

Nice photograph.

Rod

Thanks for all the advice guys.

Rod, yes that is Crater Lake. I attempted to do the Four Passes Loop, but was unable to in July because of the snow, so we spent a few days camping around the lake and doing some casual hiking in that area. It was beautiful.

My two cents is that the photo would certainly be worth displaying in large form on a wall

John, what sorts of tweaking would you do, for example? Would love to know.

Thanks,
Linnet

Steve - Good point, but if the person realizes what you said, they can still get a good idea of how a print will look. Of course, it depends on the image, since one that doesn't have small details won't work as well.

Linnet - I don't know what John had in mind, but my first thought was to remove a bit of the green cast, brighten a bit overall with curves, and perhaps brighten and add more contrast to the left 1/4 of the image to even it out a bit with the rest. Just my two cents, and maybe Kevin will find it helpful.

That's exactly what I had in mind, although I saw a slight yellow cast.

It might be yellow John - I am a bit colorblind! Especially when it comes to pin-pointing color casts.

I don't make a lot of large prints, but I do have a 24x36" print from a 6mp dSLR that looks pretty darn good to me. Everything is in my favor though: it was two dimensional subject (petroglyph panel), shot with a good lens, in harsh light on a textured surface, the print is hung in such a way that I can't get closer than 3 or 4 feet....of course the fact that I love the subject might color my glasses.

Pete D.