Technical printing question.

[Neil]

I would like to make a print of the picture I posted here.
I took it at ISO 800 with a 6 megapixel camera. (The image is 2800 x 2100 pixels) Normally I would have used an ISO of 100 but had set it to 800 when taking pictures at dawn and then forgot to reset it. I like the grainy effect but am wondering how big a print I can get away with.

 

[lumberzac]

I would like to make a print of the picture I posted here.
I took it at ISO 800 with a 6 megapixel camera. (The image is 2800 x 2100 pixels) Normally I would have used an ISO of 100 but had set it to 800 when taking pictures at dawn and then forgot to reset it. I like the grainy effect but am wondering how big a print I can get away with.

If you print it at 14" x 10.5" the image will be at 200dpi. This normally gives good quality from a inkjet printer. I've actually blown up photos from my 5mp camera up to 16x20 without any noticeable pixelization. I've been sending my print to Mpix.com, which will allow you to send files in uncompressed TIFF format.

 

[Neil]

Interesting! I was just going to take my pics to the drugstore. I suppose there's a big difference in quality. Btw. which paper would you use from Mpix for the print I'm thinking of?

 

[lumberzac]

Interesting! I was just going to take my pics to the drugstore. I suppose there's a big difference in quality. Btw. which paper would you use from Mpix for the print I'm thinking of?

So far I've only printed on the Traditional E-Surface Paper. I prefer a matte finish on my photos.

 

[Neil]

I've been sending my print to Mpix.com, which will allow you to send files in uncompressed TIFF format.

I'm going to try Mpix. My pictures are all in jpeg format on my PC but I can convert them to .tiff. Should I?

 

[Halite]

Interesting! I was just going to take my pics to the drugstore. I suppose there's a big difference in quality. Btw. which paper would you use from Mpix for the print I'm thinking of?

I've had great results with a landscape printed by Mpix on the metallic paper. (this image:

)

The paper really makes colors pop. It's not the right choice if you are looking for a more watercolor, painterly effect. In that case, you might want to try another place that'll print on fine art paper.

Mpix will accept jpegs and print them fine.

 

[Neil]

Mpix will accept jpegs and print them fine.

I was wondering about final print quality (Ie. jpeg vs. tiff).

 

[lumberzac]

I'm going to try Mpix. My pictures are all in jpeg format on my PC but I can convert them to .tiff. Should I?

If it's already a jpeg there is no reason to convert it to tiff, unless you are planning on doing more post processing to the image that would require multiple saves. Both my jpeg and tiff prints from Mpix have come out fine.

 

[Halite]

I was wondering about final print quality (Ie. jpeg vs. tiff).

Did you take the pictures as jpegs? if so, you're not going to get any better data from conversion to tiff. If not, saving at a maximum quality jpeg setting of 10 (12 is overkill) will provide all the data the printer needs (as it has been explained to me.)

 

[Grumpy]

I have made some very satisfactory 16” X 20” prints from digital files produced by a Nikon D1H camera, which uses a 2.75 megapixel sensor, with the camera set at ISO 400 or higher.

The prints were done by a local one-hour consumer lab, using their poster-printing capability. I delivered the photo file to them as a corrected and carefully sharpened jpg, on a CD.

Viewed with a loupe at the print surface, these are not very good. But from normal viewing distance they look great.

So take into consideration the normal viewing distance for a print.

The usual “formula” for “normal viewing distance” is 1.5X or 2X the length of the print’s diagonal measurement. This puts an 8” X 10” print at about normal text reading distance. A 16” X 20” print is best viewed from about 3 ft or 4 ft.

You can find some interesting discussions in respect to this by Google-ing “photo viewing distance.”

G.

 

[DougPaul]

I've never made any prints from digital myself, but Ken Rockwell has some interesting comments:
How to Make Great Prints: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/printers.htm

All about Film and Printing:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film.htm

Doug

 

[darren]

I'd go with ezprints.com or mpix.com. I've had pretty poor results with local drug stores.

Good print size depends on the original image. Noise and camera shake are going to show up in bigger prints. If you get in the habit of making bigger prints then you will get in the habit of hauling a tripod around. With a tripod and low ISO, I've made prints from a 8MP camera up to 20"x30" that look tack sharp. I've also taken 1/3 of a frame crop and blown them up to 8"x12" and they look tack sharp.

If the image looks pretty good, you should have no trouble blowing it up to 8x12 or even 11x14. When you get to 16x20 you start needing a high quality original.

- darren

 

[Neil]

I've been running through all my pics and have done some cropping into all sorts of ratios. How will this impact the print dimensions? Will I need to specify that I want the aspect ratio to be maintained?

 

[Grumpy]

Neil, if you crop your photos to odd (non-standard) dimensions or length:width ratios you may have trouble getting them printed without processor cropping at the typical consumer lab service.

Some standards are 4 X 6 (inches), 5 X 7 (inches), 8 X 10, 8 X 12, 11 X 14, 16 X 20, 20 X 24, 20 X 30 ... .

Say, for example, the best crop on a picture runs at a ratio of 6 X 13 (inches). A pro lab would print this on 11" X 14" paper, leaving wide white margins or borders on the two long sides. The consumer lab most likely would print it on 8" X 12" paper, blowing up so the 6" dimension became 8" and the ends of of your composition would be lopped off.

I've also seen some images "squashed" into a new shape by Photoshop when someone neglected to specify "constrain proportions."

All confusing at the beginning, but after playing with this stuff a bit it will snap into focus for you.

G.

 

[Peakbagr]

One of the most informative digital photography threads I've seen in a while.
Thanks to all,
Alan

 

[darren]

Another way to deal with the non-standard crop issue is to create a new file with "standard" dimensions larger than your non-standard crop. Make sure the file is the same ppi as your picture and just fill it with white. Then copy and paste your image into the middle of the blank image.

For example, say you cropped your photo down to a 6" x 6" square format. Create a new image that is 8"x10" and the same ppi as your cropped image. Fill the new image with a white background. Copy the 6x6 and paste it into the blank 8x10. Order and 8x10 and when you get it you can just trim the white off with scissors and frame it in a 10x10 frame.

Side rant....why the heck is 8x10 or 5x7 or 11x14 or 16x20 "standard" print / frame sizes???????? 35mm cameras are in the vast majority and they produce images in the 2:3 ratio.....8x12 etc. I cant stand the fact that you pay big bucks for a wide angle lens and then if you use "standard" prints / mats / frames you throw away the wide part of the image. It's why I always pay extra for full frame prints, cut custom mats, and pay for or make my own custom frames. UGH! ---rant off---

- darren

 

[Grumpy]

Another way to deal with the non-standard crop issue is to create a new file with "standard" dimensions larger than your non-standard crop. ...

Thanks for that workaround solution. I'll have to give it a try.

As for Darren's "side rant" ...

For the life of me, I don't know why 5x7 and 11x14 are "standard" print (or photo paper) sizes. I guess "they just are," and don't fret about it much. I do understand why 4x5, 8x10 and 16x20 are "standards," though, based as they are on the proportions of "the golden rectangle." (11x14 comes close to the golden rectangle proportions, at a ratio of 1:1.27 rather than 1:1.25).

BTW, 4x6 has become a standard print size, and that one does match the proprotions of a 35mm full-frame neg (24mm X 36mm). Maybe another oddity to contemplate is why the full-frame 35mm negative was conceived to deviate from the golden rectangle proportions.

G.

 

[DougPaul]

BTW, 4x6 has become a standard print size, and that one does match the proprotions of a 35mm full-frame neg (24mm X 36mm). Maybe another oddity to contemplate is why the full-frame 35mm negative was conceived to deviate from the golden rectangle proportions.

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from...

I read somewhere that the guy who "invented" the 35mm camera in the 1930s? chose that shape to maximize the negative area. The 35mm was so that he could use 35mm movie film.

Besides, wide screens are all the rage now... (Does that mean that he was ahead of his time? )

Doug

 

[Papa Bear]

If you print it yourself, you should do two things

1) Use photo quality paper: I use HP "Premium Photo Paper"
2) Use the photo color ink jet cartridge (#58). This is vital for correct colors. It has 2 more colors plus "true" black and it replaces the black cartridge (#56). Together with the 3 color cartridge (#57) it gives you 5 colors plus black.

 

[Grumpy]

Grumpy Has Feet of Clay!

Wow! Was I ever off the beam in respect to the “golden rectangle” business I posted above.

A little research into the 35mm negative format, reveals the format with its 1:1.5 proportions (or “aspect ratio”) actually comes very close to the true “golden rectangle” proportions of 1:1.6.

One source suggests that Oskar Barnak (credited as the 35mm camera inventor) chose the 1:1.5 aspect ratio for the 35mm negative because it approximates the proportions of the true (not Grumpy’s) “golden rectangle."

I just don’t know from where and how the idea that 1:1.25 was the ratio for a golden rectangle came to me. Maybe it’s because in 40 years of working at photography I’ve shot a fair amount of 4x5 film, and made more 8x10 prints than I ever could count. That, and age may be creeping up … .

Maybe this is a life lesson about not shooting off one's mouth with purported knowledge of esoteric stuff until one has checked and verified some facts. One never is too old to learn.

Anyway, please accept this correction, which is humbly submitted by your faithful servant …

G.