1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Your largest print

Discussion in 'Printing' started by Craig, Apr 1, 2011.

  1. Craig

    Craig New to Mu-43

    Nov 27, 2010
    I'm a fairly new GF1 owner and this is my first post.

    I am curious to know what the largest print was you made from your GF1 files?(RAW or JPG)

  2. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    I have made 16x20 inch prints from my E-P1 and they look fabulous. Certainly they can go bigger, which is not surprising as print size has nothing to do with how many pixels an image has.
  3. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    13x19 with pretty heavy cropping
  4. mick / Lumix

    mick / Lumix Guest

    Oct 3, 2010
    Now where did I put that old 2mp heap ? !
  5. John Jarosz

    John Jarosz Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 29, 2010
    Chicago Area
    11x14 from the largest jpg. Printed at 100%. I think the prints are fantastic.
  6. Diane B

    Diane B Mu-43 Regular

    Nov 8, 2010
    I've done a number of 16x24 on my Epson 3800. I mostly print 13 x19 or 11x 17 though. I feel it depends upon the image/subject matter and processing.

  7. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    My understanding of this is pretty rudimentary so I can't go into specifics, but trust me when I say this is wrong.

    Here's a link from HP that explains some basic print sizes based on pixel counts and quality levels. How megapixels affect photo print size - HP Digital Photography Center

    I hope that clears it up.
  8. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 15, 2010
    16 X 22 from an in-camera processed jpeg on an Epson 4000 and it looked incredible.
  9. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman Subscribing Member

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    while hikari may have over stated the case - the number of pixels required and the size of print are only vaguely related - you do have to factor in how far away you are viewing the picture from - and also how the picture is being reproduced - printing in newspapers and magazines use a process called halftone = in my days of teaching desktop publishing the rule of thumb was you needed 2 x the linescreen value from your image file.... typical linescreen values were 80 for newspaper up to 150 for things like national geographic

    so for high quality reproduction in national geographic you would need 300 pixel of data for each inch of the printed page.

    the bigger you print the further away your image will be viewed

  10. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    Actually, it is right. Trust me. :wink: You can see Kevin's post as well. This is a relative resolution problem, not an absolute one. An 8x10 @ 300 dpi from 10" (standard viewing distance) will look the same as a 16x20 @ 150 dpi from 20" (also standard viewing distance). In fact, the 8x10 at 10" is where the 300 dpi number comes from, but with many things, the only things folks remember is the 300 dpi.

    I use Epson printer to make 6' prints quite often. Throw in fractals and you can print large very easily. Many printer RIPs interpolate images anyway--hard to fine a good printer that actually prints at 300 dpi, it is usually a lot higher--my Epson is 2880 dpi.

    I had a 24" print up in my center that always amazed folks with its quality. No one could believe it was captured with a 4MP microscope camera.

    The same is true for film as well.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    I've heard arguments to this effect before, but never seen it first hand, so I'll take you at your word. It just doesn't make any sense, frankly. But a lot of other things that I know to be true don't make sense either.

    I just read up a little bit on interpolation so I have a better understanding of it now. Thank you.
  12. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    It is about what your eye can resolve, or more to the point, what it can't. So a dot 1/300 inch is too small to resolve from 10" away. At 20" away, a 1/150 inch dot will have the same angular size for your eye and it will still be unresolved. Where you stand is just as important as a specific dot size. It comes down to the angular resolution of the human visual system--a baseball can look the same size as a basketball if the basketball is further away.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    Well that much I understand. But I have seen some people frame large prints and hang them at eye level in small rooms. Recommended viewing distances aren't necessarily built into print sizes..... ;) 
  14. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    Sure, there are no "viewing distance" police. Some peoples eyes are better than others. The theory presents a model for how we perceive things and then there is how a specific image is used. For example, tviewing distance does not work well with maps as they are viewed at very close distances. But it is really a relative problem and you can adjust the criteria to the situation. Print as large as you want and have fun.
  15. Luke

    Luke Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 30, 2010
    Milwaukee, WI
    You have opened my eyes Hikari. I owe you one.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.