P.Beau Loc: EG.RI

Can anyone either give me link or tell me what file size in MB or Pixels are needed to print different Panoramic shots I have? I can not find any references for Pano pics all the online 'shops' give mostly standard formats. Thanks in advance for any help. Most of my shots are in the 1.1Mb range. paul

RVTZ4

Drop off your mini disc at Costco. They can print on canvas or paper in VERY wide format at low cost. Let them look at the file and decide.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Size in pixels (horizontal by vertical) is all that matters. FORGET size in MB. That tells us absolutely nothing useful.

How big a panorama do you want to make? What is the subject matter? What is the anticipated viewing distance? How sharp is the original? And what is the CROPPED size (again, in pixels) of the ORIGINAL, un-interpolated image, in the same aspect ratio as the panorama you wish to make? (OR, how wide is the original image in pixels?).

jak86094

I haven't printed panoramas in a while. I had two done by White House Custom Color (WHCC.com) in a 10"x30" size. One was of a road winding East of the Sierras in California. The other was of several of the monuments in Washington DC. Both came out great. Once I knew the sizes they could print, I converted copies of the finished photos to the sRGB color space and cropped and resized the photos using 300 dpi...so they became 3000 x 9000 pixels in size. I also did one where it had a 1" white border around the photo, so I first resized the photo to 8" x 28" (2400 x 8400 pixels), then resized the canvas in Photoshop to be 10" x 30", and saved it as an sRGB image. I downloaded both to WHCC online and about 10 days later received beautiful framable photos. The biggest constraint was finding out the image sizes the company can produce. 10" x 30" was the largest panorama size they produce. Maybe they could have done others on a custom basis...I never called to ask. Hope this helps. I think saving in sRGB is pretty standard. I also think sizing at 300 dpi is a safe option (though you could also use 360 dpi or maybe as low as 250 dpi, depending on the resolution of the original photo). Good luck. Hope some of this helps. Sorry I don't have either of those photos on this computer to share.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Use the resolution suggested for viewing distance on this website:

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

If you anticipate a print will be viewed at 8 ft, then around 50 ppi will be enough for good, and 100 ppi will knock your socks off.

I will suggest that a larger file, measured in megabytes, will have less compression artifacting and a better overall image quality, and I would think that 1.1 mb is a highly compressed image.

jak86094

If only we could rely on people viewing our photographs to stand at the right viewing distance. I assume that people will stand much closer when viewing my photos, so I err on the side of a higher print resolution than the table referenced above. In fact...I'm likely to stand closer myself.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

FYI...ppi=pixels per inch and is used with digital images and digital printing. dpi=dots per inch and is used with four-color press printing.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

How does that work when you have a mural that is 60 ft wide. Or a museum where 40x60 prints (and larger) are displayed having been made by 35mm film cameras. Yes, they don't look their best at 18" but when you stand back to appreciate the image they look more than fine. The table is realistic and science-based. Only photographers would stand so close to an image so as to see the grain pattern, and not experience the image in it's entirety, as it was intended.

But, if you read my post carefully, it is up to the individual to anticipate average viewing distances and print at the appropriate resolution. If you are printing 40x60 at 300 ppi, then that would likely be completely unnecessary. So, what would you print your 60x90 prints at?

When you go to the local multiplex theater do you sit in the front row?

jak86094

I don’t disagree...especially in the more extreme situations...e.g. 40’ x 60’ and yes, I was aware of the difference between DPI and PPI. Thanks for keeping the discussion accurate.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I meant a 40x60 at 300 ppi -

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

I used my D850 for either a 5 or 8 image panorama - had it printed by Office Depot "as is", that is straight out of the camera with no cropping. Resulted in a 24" height by 8' long print. Number of people looked at it and though they were well qualified to do so none offered no criticism about the print. I did not have the impression that they were just being polite.

Note - got lost so I can offer no details...

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I would love to see a 216 MP camera! It would be wholly unnecessary for 99.99% of us, but you could pixel peep an image for days, and not see all the details.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Right!!!

I only get that kind of resolution when I do large single and multi row panos, and I still downsample the image to get a bit less noise and better contrast and detail. As you can see, Bill, this is one of the more misunderstood concepts in digital photography - how much resolution is actually necessary.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Oh yeah. We used to make 40” by 60” Epson inkjet prints from (interpolated) 5.2 to 8.2 MP APS-C Canikons, back in 2003. At the normal minimum viewing distance of six feet, head and shoulders portraits looked fantastic. Large group photos didn’t work, because people get closer, to see individual faces...