out4life2016 Loc: Bellingham, Washington

currently i am shooting with a Canon 6D MarkII. I like to have my photos enlarged and put on metal or acrylic. I am looking to have some really large sizes done 36Lx48H. The problem i am having is when photos are blown up to the size they become really pixelated and look terrible. What am i doing wrong? Is my camera just not suited for that large print. The last print Photo I took with my T3 Rebel and it prints to a 24x36 and doesnt look pixilated..

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

Want to follow

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

First - those are great shots.
I only do up to 16x20 - for my own walls - taken with 16 and 20 mpx M4/3 cameras (I do try to fill the frames, and pay much attention to time of shot composition). Viewed at a normal distance (which, in my 16' rooms, means an average of 8') they are perfect. The only people who look at them more closely are visiting photographers!
In other words you should not look at a bill board from 3'!
Another important point (for me) is that I also have acrylic paintings on my walls. Very sharp photo prints look out of place near or next to the lesser detailed paintings. Hope this helps.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Have you tried using one of the post processing utilities designed for extreme enlargements, like Topaz Gigapixel AI? I find they can do an excellent job.

And I too think the images are great...well done!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The final waterfall image is sized 4272x2848 (12MP) that is much less than the original 26MP of the EOS 6DII (6240x4160). Was this image resized to 'show' on UHH? Or, is this the print file? We should investigate this image and maybe unravel a common issue in how you're processing your files for print.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

As usual, Professor Paul hit the nail on the head.
I used a full frame DSLR, 24 mpx for large (up to 30"x40") metal/acrylic prints. Larger prints have been from photomerged shots of up to around 30 frames with print up to 13' wide by 42"high.
Perfect Resize is another excellent program for upsizing for printing, but nothing beats a high megapixl original. Lightroom is better than Photoshop if LR meets the needs of the particular photo to be printed, because of the non-destructive nature of the program.
I've switched to a 45 mpx camera, but so far no truly large prints....

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"...Is my camera just not suited for that large print..." Oft said that it is a poor craftsman who blames his tools out4life2016

For those who wish to maximize the acuity of their captures working within the limits of your optic is an important first step to achieving excellence. When was the last time you calibrated your lens to your camera and ran a series of tests to determine the "Sweet Spot" of your Canon EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM on the Canon EOS 6D?

In the first image you shot at f/13 and with a SS of 5.2 seconds. Were you on a sturdy robust tripod? Did you lock the mirror up prior to release? Hopefully with either a remote release of timed release...

The Canon EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM does poorly when shot at 105 mm at f/13...
Don't believe this? Have a look at what DxOmark thinks about this piece of glass...

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-24-105mm-F35-56-IS-STM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-6D---Measurements__836

Do your homework before you start trying to place the blame for mediocre results...
You shot that glass well outside it's optimum range of excellence...

Please consider knowing the limits and potentials or your tool(s) out4life2016 if you hope to excel in this field... Also way too many variables in the mix here... Likely a myriad of factors in play... Again do your homework before you draw inferences about your kit..

Hope this helps or is at least food for thought...
All the best on your photographic journey out4life2016

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

Does that explain Pixelation the OP complains of?

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Mike the OP asked "Is my camera just not suited for that large print."
I responded to this query... Not going down the rat hole of PP errors...
Sorry... but I stay within my scope of knowledge for the hard data latent within this posted image for my answer(s).

You can address PP if you wish...

out4life2016 Loc: Bellingham, Washington

Actually as always i look forward to your advice and wisdom. The final waterfall was shot with a canon T3 two years ago and only edited on windows 10 edit program. I had it enlarged to a 24x36 and printed famed and matted and it looked great. Actually sold three copies for 375.00 each. AThe problem seems to be when i want to go bigger and since now im putting my work on either metal or Acrylic.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I'm out for the day. Too bad I picked the ringer in the set to look at. We'll try one of the others this evening.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I can't compete with these guys when it comes to intimate details but...Use a camera with a high resolution, high Megapixel sensor and good glass. Figure out what the "sweet spot" is for the lens, usually around f8 and use a tripod. I haven't printed as big as you are talking about but using my D850 with one of my Nikon FX prime lenses, I have no doubt that I could.

reverendray

I am mostly a landscape guy who does large blowups. The fundamentals are tripod, high pixel camera sensor, good glass. After that you are into the user issue part of the discussion. Many things at 5sec could cause your issues. Wind is often a nasty. Others you might miss are truck traffic if near a highway. I shoot a Nikon D810 with highly rated lenses. If a zoom lens they mostly have a sweet spot. These things and others are most likely to be the problem as mentioned here. Lens mirror up shooting is a must with delay. Go to a photo group and ask the question and don't discount anything you hear until you think it out. Write down what they tell you. I did all that and you will find your problem.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Starting with the first image, I see nothing in the pixel-level details that would be 'pixelated' in a 36x48 print. The image is currently sized 6240x4160px, for about a 130 pixel per inch (PPI) resolution at 36x48in. If this was the print file, there is the issue that the colorspace is not sRGB, but that should impact the printed colors, not the fine details of the print. Are you saying you got a printed copy back of this exact image file and there's problems, or something else?