How do you decide when an image is good enough for a poster-size blow-up?
Jan 13, 2018 13:48:31 #
wayne barnett wrote:
I use Roxio photo suite. For a first look at my shots it is the fastest on my computer. Also has most of the basic editing tools like straightening and some exposure tools. Do not do huge prints so have not tested to see where pixalation really begins. Usually reduce size of images to fit into publications or sending over web.
Roxio, huh, Wayne?
Is that a free software package?
Yeah, I reduce, mostly, too ...
But, it's always good to know how far you can go, the other way, Wayne ....
Jan 13, 2018 17:50:50 #
What is the typical poster-viewing distance? In my notes I wrote the viewing distance as 3/2 the poster diagonal. I am unable to find the original source. Visual acuity of 1 arcminute would then specify the least discernable dimemsion. Racking this dimension back to the camera sensor would define a circle of confusion based on visual acuity and thus be useful in calculating DoF.
DirtFarmer wrote:
Take a section of the photo that contains the focal point. Suppose you want the image to be 40 x 50. Print an 8 x 10 of a section that has 1/5 of the pixels in each direction. That way the resulting image will be the same size as the poster (but only a small part of it). If it looks OK (view it from the typical poster-viewing distance) then it will make a good poster.
Jan 13, 2018 18:02:08 #
John_F wrote:
What is the typical poster-viewing distance? In my notes I wrote the viewing distance as 3/2 the poster diagonal. I am unable to find the original source. Visual acuity of 1 arcminute would then specify the least discernable dimemsion. Racking this dimension back to the camera sensor would define a circle of confusion based on visual acuity and thus be useful in calculating DoF.
John ... this is a very interesting commentary ...
Do you have an alternate translation for this, we could ALL understand?
Jan 13, 2018 20:29:29 #
Jan 13, 2018 23:28:51 #
tcthome wrote:
Most likely a landscape pic.
Yup ... I guess that'd be my choice, too, TCT ....
Used to have a wall of Portraits ... but, not now ....
Too many remembrances, I'd just as soon forget ....
Now, it's either landscapes, or zilch ....
Jan 13, 2018 23:32:30 #
jaymatt wrote:
What makes it worth the effort is if you like it that well; that’s all that’s important.
Yup, Jay ... first and foremost - you have to please yourself ... if YOU like it, there's a better chance someone else will, too ....
Jan 13, 2018 23:38:30 #
Stephan G wrote:
The Brits should have incorporated Rugby with the game Cricket. And called it "By-Crickey-Cracky".
[Forgive pre-coffee madness.]
[Forgive pre-coffee madness.]
Rugby was the predecessor to American Football ....
Down Under ... they call it - Australian Rules Football ...
Now, here's the thing ... since you hardly ever kick it ... just carry it and run like hell ...
Why does ANYONE EVER call it football?
Should have left the name for Soccer Players ....
Jan 13, 2018 23:45:19 #
WayneL wrote:
If you truly like it that should be good enough. After all it's your money.
Yeah, but I did that once, Wayne ...
Really liked a shot I took with my Canon A1 ... went to a lab with it, because I couldn't blow up to 30x40 in my own darkroom ...
And, Boy ... was I disappointed .... shoulda taken it with my 4x5 ... or, at the very least - the Pentax 6x7 ...
The guy in the lab felt sorry for me ... so he made (and gave me) a second print ...
I mean ... if I didn't like the first one ... what made him think I'd like the second one - any better!!!!!?
Jan 13, 2018 23:49:33 #
carl hervol wrote:
When it look good to you
Now, there's a great answer, Carl ...
Why didn't I think of that ....
Jan 14, 2018 09:05:13 #
I find many of the replies interesting. I'm an old 35mm guy back in the day sharpness was the determining factor. I found the best candidates were those that were very busy with lots of subject matter. I have some pics taken from Heidelberg Castle looking down of the river surrounded by the densely packed town below. As a 4x7 pics the results were so so, when blown up to poster size the results were excellent. With digital, pixels need to be taken into the equation. My solution is a 32 inch 4 k monitor. You get a good idea what a blow up looks like. Bottom line the more info ( in the picture) the better the blow up will be.
Jan 14, 2018 09:25:39 #
My view has always been that a photo should be viewed at a distance that enables the viewer to see the entire scene at once. From that perspective, a picture that looks good 6"x4" will also look good 3'x2'
Jan 14, 2018 12:41:27 #
mckraft wrote:
I find many of the replies interesting. I'm an old... (show quote)
Yes, I think you're right, MC ....
There's a guy here in New England who makes a whole project of his shots ... like he was filming a movie ...
He usually does them in the middle of "busy" town roads ... but he MAKES them busy - by planting all the people in appropriate "busy" places ....
Then he does his shot ... and has several 40x60s made of it ... gets all his expenses back ... and paints the town red, after .... Good Luck to him!
Jan 14, 2018 12:44:22 #
rehess wrote:
My view has always been that a photo should be viewed at a distance that enables the viewer to see the entire scene at once. From that perspective, a picture that looks good 6"x4" will also look good 3'x2'
RE - it's one helluva jump from a 4x6 print to a 3' X 2' WALL-HANGING ....
There's gotta be a step in the middle, there - that'd confirm the end product would be worth tackling ....
Jan 14, 2018 12:58:15 #
Chris T wrote:
RE - it's one helluva jump from a 4x6 print to a 3' X 2' WALL-HANGING ....
There's gotta be a step in the middle, there - that'd confirm the end product would be worth tackling ....
There's gotta be a step in the middle, there - that'd confirm the end product would be worth tackling ....
You did say poster. That was the size of "posters" made by the company I sent my slide to 43 years ago - and I hung it in my dorm room over the bed so people would have to stand an appropriate distance away.
Jan 14, 2018 13:14:56 #
rehess wrote:
You did say poster. That was the size of "posters" made by the company I sent my slide to 43 years ago - and I hung it in my dorm room over the bed so people would have to stand an appropriate distance away.
Yes, I did say "poster" RE ... but I also mentioned three sizes, I thought to be particularly relevant ...
The smallest was 20x24 ... not really a poster for anything bigger than a dorm room ...
The second was 30x40 ... which is the size I think of, normally ... when I feel something is good enough for that size ...
Then I mentioned a 40x60 ... which is a commercial size ... not many would ever use in a house .... more than 3' x 5' ... that's pretty big!
You'd have to have a pretty big wall, spare - for something of that magnitude!!!!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.