Print size question (Page 3): If in doubt on a image, in the past I have used Walgreens (I get photo emails with discounts all the time) quite often I can get 60% off deals on posters...

NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

If in doubt on a image, in the past I have used Walgreens (I get photo emails with discounts all the time) quite often I can get 60% off deals on posters it's not a high quality framing print but it gives me a good indication of how it would look and my elderly parents in the nursing home enjoy the change of pics.

Bill_de Loc: US

burkphoto wrote:

img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)

I think somebody just hit the nail on the head as far as what the end user would be interested.

---

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

Depends also how far away you looking from

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

Depends also how far away you looking from

Amazing how that works, eh?

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Elmo55 wrote:

I need some clarification: My understanding is that if you take the pixels dimensions, and divide by 300 that will give you the size that you can safely expect to be able to print. i.e. for example, if the size is 6000X4000, then you can print it 20"X13.3". Keeping that same ratio, can you print it larger? Say 60X39.9(or 40 for round numbers). Thinking primarily about landscape pano's.

dpi of a print that is acceptable to most depends primarily on the viewing distance. John Paul Caponigro has printed as low as 160-180 dpi on some images and when viewed from several feet they look find. Up close not so good.

A panorama is a special use situation. It depends primarily on whether it is a stitched pano with very high resolution or a single image cropped as a pano with a lower pixel density.

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

That's a good 'standard' rule to be guided by but I've made exceptions more than once and ended up with fine results. Of course, the distance they will be viewed from is an important factor. Many years ago I had a landscape photo which I took using a little 5 meg pocket camera, blown up into a three foot wide wall mount and it turned out surprisingly good - gaining many favorable comments. Take a chance on one and YOU be the judge on how presentable they are.
God Bless,
Papa Joe

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Papa Joe wrote:

That's a good 'standard' rule to be guided by but I've made exceptions more than once and ended up with fine results. Of course, the distance they will be viewed from is an important factor. Many years ago I had a landscape photo which I took using a little 5 meg pocket camera, blown up into a three foot wide wall mount and it turned out surprisingly good - gaining many favorable comments. Take a chance on one and YOU be the judge on how presentable they are.
God Bless,
Papa Joe

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

When we were at the time of 6pxl, I was having a pro lab make 24" for my client.
These were architectural images.
Today I can still print 6pxl 24" better quality then back in the '90's.

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

When we were at the time of 6pxl, I was having a pro lab make 24" for my client.
These were architectural images.
Today I can still print 6pxl 24" better quality then back in the '90's.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Wallen wrote:

Some billboards you see pasted on streets or buildings are taken with 12megapixel cameras.
Viewing distance is what limits the the size you can print.
The further the distance, the bigger the file can be printed and still look good.

Just to push the idea, consider that previously, monitors are just 72dpi or has only 72 distinct dots in every inch to show an image at a table top viewing distance, and it was perfectly acceptable.

Just as a side note, the only monitors that were actually 72 PPI (not dpi) were early Apple monitors that matched the 72DPI of the associated Apple printer. No PC (ever) or Mac in the last 30+ years have been 72 PPI.

mikenolan Loc: Lincoln Nebraska

When I worked for a publisher years ago, their images were built at 2400 dpi, and yeah, the files were HUGE!

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

TriX wrote:

Just as a side note, the only monitors that were actually 72 PPI (not dpi) were early Apple monitors that matched the 72DPI of the associated Apple printer. No PC (ever) or Mac in the last 30+ years have been 72 PPI.

72ppi was the old standard of apple & apple compatible monitors.
Apple also makes PC's (Apple II) back then even up to the present times.
I believe that only after they advertise themselves as a different entity from Windows that the public got niched into the division of PC and MAC. The majority of computers today including the apples (which also run word, excel, etc. and open/manipulate the same standard images files) are personal computers.
Although DPI is correctly about printer resolution and a Pixel (hence PPI) is the smallest element in a raster image file, they been often (wrongly) used interchangeably.
A monitors pixel is totally different from a files pixel and I diliberately used the term DPI to discuss subpixels of the old CRT monitors that actually use dots to represent each RGB element.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Bridges wrote:

I made a 40x60-inch print that was hung on a wall behind the reception desk where I used to work. It was taken with an 8 GB camera and turned out so well they wanted to keep it after the area was remodeled. The wall where it hung is now filled with merchandise so they moved the print to an upstairs seating area. From that experience, I learned it doesn't take 45 GB to make good prints.

I have to assume you meant 8 MP and 45 MP camera. My 16 & 24 MP cameras both produce RAW files of about 18 GB at 300 Pixels/Inch. As Paul says, Bytes have no importance.

I agree with what I think you meant to say. You don't need huge files to make good prints.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

burkphoto wrote:

img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)

I consider the term Pixel as an advertising jargon. They actually mean subpixel when refering to monitors, and as each pixel is made up of 3 subpixels, a 4K TV should actually have only 1280x720 pixels.

Same goes to the camera sensor which in a bayer filter one would actually be weird to count as there are more green subpixels. We actually only get to count each site as a pixel which contains all three colors after the demosaicing process.

JBuckley

Good info.

I've always wondered how to calculate the (size of prints), before I wasted my money
on having a company print out a "fuzzy" image at a high price.