clownfish1 Loc: Orlando, FL (32808)

What is important for high quality print results. eg: 10x20
minimum- MB, DPI, etc.
thanks for feedback

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

For printing your digital image, Pixels are the difference where bytes and dots have nothing to do with it.

Review the pixel dimensions of your image file and compare those to the gold standard of 300 pixels per inch (300 ppi). Your 10in by 20in print will need an image file that is 3000 pixels by 6000 pixels. You can get by with less, say 250 ppi, particularly as your print gets bigger and bigger beyond 20 inches on one side.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Required ppi varies with viewing distance. John Paul Caponigro demonstrated prints as low as 180 ppi that, when viewed from a distance, look as good as 300 or 360 ppi prints. It all depends on whether your viewers will be able to stick their nose into the print.

FYI, native print resolution of Epson printers is 360 dpi and HP and Canon natively print at 300 ppi. I'm not sure how this plugs into the equation of how many ppi to send to the printer as I have used both for my Epson printers with equal results.

bleirer

Deleted

MrMophoto Loc: Rhode Island "The biggest little"

I print most of my work at an image size of approx. 11" x 17" with 300 PPI (pixels per inch) which is essentially the same as DPI (dots per inch). PPI indicates color display with a monitor while DPI indicates color rendering in a printed form. When I refer to the image size, that's the actual image size, I could print these larger but then the pixel count would be less or more accurately the pixels would be rendered larger. Pixels are not a fixed size. MB simply refers to the overall file size which should only be a factor when digitally transferring the file from one place to another (the bigger the file generally the longer it will take), in rare cases file size may be a factor when memory is limited.
Finally, I don't print my finished images. I use a local print house that can print up to a 6' wide image (yes six feet wide). I don't think I'll ever use that but the printers they use are much higher quality than anything I could afford and I don't have to maintain them. I've read a number of reviews and comments on various printers and have come to the conclusion that with high end printers, unless you are doing a lot of printing yourself the print heads have a tendency to dry up and clog. This means constant cleaning and wasted inks. Besides there are so many printing service companies both online and locally I don't see the need for a high end printer. I do use a multi function unit for printing day to day stuff. I should tell you I don't print a lot and those 11 x 17 prints cost $20 - $30 each depending on quantity and paper quality, but I do get a great quality print and the customer service is exceptional

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Of course, the dots play a important role in a print!

John Maher Loc: Northern Virginia

The answer should be in the resolution of the viewing eye measured in arc-minutes (actually a fraction of an arc-minute) for a specific distance.

Good discussion at:
https://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I guess it depends on high you want to go with quality. Assuming you start with a sensor in the 24 mp range or better and a quality lens, your best results will come from a dedicated photo printer and quality paper.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Hi. First you need to understand that digital print sizing and the "standard of old" print sizing (i.e., 8 x 10, 11 x 14) are different. Your camera is most likely set to a 3:2 ratio, although some cameras do shoot at a different ratio. So, you have to decide at what size you want to print. Let's say, for this conversation, you want to maintain the original 3:2 ratio and fit the image into a 16 x 20 standard frame. Your print size would then be 10 x 15. Most printers consider the standard of 300 ppi to produce a "high quality" print. To find the correct size in pixels for this print you would need to multiply 300 by 10 and 300 by 15. You would then come up with 3000 pixels by 4500 pixels as the size you need for a high quality print, this sizing can generally be "fudged" a little but it does depend on the overall quality of the original image. If you were going to print this image much larger you could print it at a lower print resolution, but generally for what most of us do, not below 245 ppi. I normally print at 300 ppi as I don't do wall murals. Most outside printers will use 300 ppi. Having decided on the print size you would then need to choose a 16 x 20 inch mat with the appropriate opening for the printed image. Other things that are needed for a "high quality" print would be that the original image was created in a "high quality" way. I'm sure you've heard the old adage, "garbage in, garbage out." Good exposure, good composition, great colors, etc., etc., all help to lead to a high quality image in general.

Dayton

Expozer claims they can print large wall murals with a minimum of 80-ppi. The reasoning is that for large prints the viewer's nose will not be touching the print like it might be with a 5x7. Don't know if their claim is true or not but I am preparing to send them a file with 112-ppi and find out.

rcarol

Are you talking feet or inches?

photodoc16

Via The Lens (may I call you Via?),
Your comments were very helpful. As someone who doesn't enlarge much over the 8.5 x 11" prints I get from my Canon Pixma multifunction printer (which I find surprisingly good), I find that getting bigger prints does raise questions for me. I will make a print at home (8.5 x 11) and then measure it's size in inches. The size is usually not 8.5 x 11 since some cropping is inevitable either by me for the original and by the computer when printing (crop to fit or not). By maintaining the exact proportions I will then calculate an enlargement depending on the size of the frame I have in mind. That is why I was confused when you mentioned that the print size for a 300dpi image in a 16" x 20" frame would be 10" x 15" leaving 6" of excess mat on the short and 5" on the long side. If my print was actually 8" x 10," couldn't I enlarge it by 70% to get a 13.6" x 17" print with much less unused mat?
Thanks for any insights.
Photodoc16

smada2015

I have worked in a print shop most my life, am 56. I have done many tests with many printers, inkjets/large format and laser printers as well as computer to plate or film for printing on press. At where I work, we consider 300ppi to be the standard (at finished size). Double checking my last test on a Epson Stylus Pro 7900 and a Konica high end 4 color digital printer that uses same tech as laser printers. Using a photo of flowers with lots of curved edges and contrast, I can lower the ppi to 160 and not see any difference in the image from 3-4 feet..viewing distance. When a customer comes to us with image/images lower than that, we pull out the tests and show them what to expect with the images they are providing. Keep in mind that solid colors like text on a photo will quickly show stair stepping below 160 at 3-4 feet. If the image is to be viewed in printed material or at arms length the ppi goes up to 220 minimum. These are more or less the standards we use as a business and when talking to or (dealing) with the customer. And of course we want the best looking images and printed materials for our customers, these are what I follow as my rules day to day. With all that being said, yes an image printed on a photo printer at 300ppi will look better than one at 200ppi

Mongo Loc: Western New York

+ to smada2015 Good information and good perspective.