greymule Loc: Colorado

Can a good quality 20x30 print be made from a Tiff File 53 MB?

Inquiring minds want to know.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Megabytes don't matter. What are the pixel dimensions?

greymule Loc: Colorado

Thank you for the question.

4282 x 2164

at 300 pixels per inch resolution.

big-guy Loc: Peterborough Ontario Canada

You would be better advised to give us the pixel dimension of the file as 53 Mb can mean so many different things. Once you have the pixel dimensions you can simply divide each dimension by 300 (dpi or dots per inch) for photo quality. In other words, if your file is 6,000x9,000 pixels and you divide each by 300 you will end up with 20x30 inches at photo quality (photo quality is somewhat subjective but 300 dpi (dots per inch) is an industry accepted measurement. If you were to choose to print that same file at 150 dpi you would end up with a print that is 40x60 but only at approx half photo quality. 200 to 300 is good quality, 100 to 200 is fair and it just gets worse from there on.

If your file is 3,000x4,500 and you chose to print at 300 dpi you would end up with a print size of 10x15.

Caveat, the larger the print size the further away most people will view it so that space between the dots will go mostly un-noticed. The next time you're feeling adventurous, climb a billboard and look at the photo close up. The dots and the space between are huge. But from 100' away you tend not to see that.

addendum - a pixel is what your monitor shows, a dot is what the paper print shows. Both are equal but distinctly different.

big-guy Loc: Peterborough Ontario Canada

With the given choice your print would be 4282/300=14.27" by 2164/300=7.21" In this case to achieve your 20x30 you would need to print at 142 dpi. Acceptable but not good quality. Now if the file is bang on as far as exposure goes you will end up with a better print than a poorly exposed photo. Why not try an 11x17 or 16x24 to start and see what you think?

Photocraig

Just to put a 20x30 print into context, unless you're wrapping it on the edges of a frame--like a canvas print, a print is usually matted with a at least 2-3 inces around the boarders, plus the frame width, so for the object on your wall will likely be 28-30" by 38-40" or 2-1/2 feet by 3-1/2 feet. And while we're on the subject with glass this will be a heavy object on that wall, too, so it will need to be anchored into a stud--which will influnce your positioning.

Happy Viewing

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

You're chasing rabbits, Craig, and not totally right either. A 20 X 30 print can be done in all sorts of ways that are not heavy. Even if matted, framed and glass added, I have seen few instances that would require placement for anchoring into a stud.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Very easily.
Forget all this talk about ppi and print size.
PPI is pixels on your sensor;
DPI is dots per inch printer resolution;
The two have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other and do not directly correlate in any way. This is one of the MOST misunderstood concepts out there when it comes to printing an image.

TheDman Loc: USA

No, ppi is the number of pixels you wish to cram into an inch of paper space when you print the image.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Now back to square one, Grey. A 20 X 30 print is a 2:3 ratio which your image is not. You first need to chop pixels off the short sides which reduces your working pixels to 3246 X 2164. Now at max quality (300 dpi) you can print an 11 X 7. Or... you can blow it up to 20 X 30 at a resolution of 108 dpi. Really bad.

Third choice, you can use interpolation programs to fill in with more created pixels. For a usable print, viewed a few feet away, printed at 200 dpi, you need to up the pixels to 6000 by 4000, and honestly I don't think the results will be good.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Totally and absolutely incorrect!

Photocraig

I agree, Oddjobber, that there are options and differences. I wanted to be sure the OP really puts a 20x30 print into context. It takes a big and otherwise previously blank wall with no windows, themostats, etc. to hang that up. And print sizes seem different in dimensions than what they look like on the wall or desk or dresser top space.

I also think, now that I've downsized, that a nicely matted and framed 8x10 or 11x14 is a good display of a good photograph.

greymule Loc: Colorado

Okay. I think the 20x30 is out. What would be a good size for a nice quality print?

Don Fischer Loc: Antelope, Ore

I think there's a lot of rubbish here. I just opened up an old full res photo with my old D70, 6mp, and ran it into my printer program and got that I could do a 13x16 and get a good photo. I've taken that same camera years ago and had a 16x20 made of a buck deer. Came out great and the shop that printed it claimed it could have gone to 20x24 and still got a good print.

With the first photo at 3008x2000, 6mp, ussing the formular to figure out print size it came up with 6.6x10. That is a long way from 16x20. Your talking about a camera with about 16 pix. That should make 20x30 easily. Come to think of it, I've got a panoramic of one of my dog's on the wall from that old D70 printed to 12x30; everybody love's it! You won't know unless you try it!

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

My dumb dog won't stay on the wall long enough for me take his picture! :lol: :lol: