print size

what is the max. print size possible from a consumer digicam like lets say Rebel/350? I know the resolutions et al but what about upsizing?
Thanks

I did a test print from a really good file from my (former) XT at 16x24, and while you could see a little evidence of the telltale "digital look" from right up close, it looks excellent at or below what one would consider normal viewing distances. I also did this before I was as well versed in working with digital files as I am now (still no expert, but better than I was), so I could probably get a better looking print at that size from that same file today.

My 5D, on the other hand, gave me a spectacular 20x30 print that rivals, if not surpasses, anything I've ever gotten that size from my RB67 MF camera.

I've seen images from 6mp cameras enlarged to billboards and sides of buildings. It's hard to give an exact size - it really depends on the specific image and the intended use.

Guy

It also really depends on the viewing distance, the farther away the viewer is, the bigger you can print it.

I think that the general rule of thumb is the the viewing distance is typically equal to the hypotenuse of the print. So, for a 24"x36" that would be a viewing distance of 43"... At that distance, a 24"x36" would probably hold up fairly well, especially if it were mounted above and behind a desk in a office setting. But, if you walked right up to it, 12" away you'd probably see some of the effects.

I know that I really felt this way when I went to Galen Rowell's gallery in Bishop. His work is awesome, but IMHO printed too large for 35mm slides when viewed close as in a gallery setting.

While many large images don't hold up a couple inches from your nose, I think its only us photographers that are looking that close. I have printed many large images that I have not been particularly happy with, but others were astounded by.

As Guy said it depends on the specific image. I have 20x30's from a d30 that look great...but they don't have a lot of intricate detail either. While I have images from an 8mp that I don't think will hold up past an 11x14.

So I guess my toughest decision is where do you draw the line? What is good enough? As Christian said some of the Rowell's work might not hold up as well as large as it is. From a proper viewing distance I think it is still fantastic. As I said, its probably just us photographers that view it from so close. I have never once seen my wife stick her nose up to a print at Mountain Light or any other gallery. She just enjoys the image.

On the other hand I feel I have a reputation to uphold and wouldn't want stuff floating around that was technically sub par. But then again what is sub par...if I was as critical as I feel about my work I would hardly print anything.

So here I go talking in circles. Sorry Prashan, I am probably not much help, but maybe we will both learn something in the process.

I agree with what has been said above...you could go to at least 20"x30" with a good, sharp, well exposed file and viewed at a reasonable distance, it will look great. Now, stick your nose against the glass and you will see that it lacks fine detail. But - who does that except us photographers?

My best advice - get a test print made at the size you are considering and judge it for yourself. I think that you will be pleasantly surprised...

Good luck,

Bill

I've had no problems printing from my XT at 13X19. That's as big a printer as I've got right now.

thanks everybody!
Sorry for not using precise words. I do not print larger than 20"xY". If it goes upto that I'm happy. Slide development increased by more than 30% and 350D dropped by 25% has made me think in this direction. But this was going to happen someday.

also drop the resolution to as low as 180 ppi before you start upsizing the file,
this way you will retain the smaller details better.

Wim