The largest i have gone is 40" and that's at 240dpi as that's what my print lab requires.
Also the place where it was getting framed couldn't do any bigger.
The print looks fantastic and I have no hesitation in printing bigger, matter of fact my next print is going to be 40x50.
I have a few 30x90 prints in my studio that were shot with a D700. Looks fine. You have more resolution than I did, so you will be just fine.
I never understood why people worry so much on large prints? As long as it is exposed right, sharp and is an overall good photo. Then it should print just fine.
I remember when I shot Canon and had a 4 megapixel sensor. I had a killer shot from a hockey game that they ended up wanting on a 12' banner. It printed ok. So dont worry dude, just print it.
paparazzinick wrote:
I wouldnt worry about it. Print it!
I have a few 30x90 prints in my studio that were shot with a D700. Looks fine. You have more resolution than I did, so you will be just fine.
I never understood why people worry so much on large prints? As long as it is exposed right, sharp and is an overall good photo. Then it should print just fine.
I remember when I shot Canon and had a 4 megapixel sensor. I had a killer shot from a hockey game that they ended up wanting on a 12' banner. It printed ok. So dont worry dude, just print it. ...Show more →
+1
I always thought these weekly "how big can i print with XXmp??" threads would end after the D800 came out, but apparently not. People still want to know if they can print 100" wide and put their nose to it...... **rolls eyes**
Thanks for the feedback guys. I guess I was worried cuz I can't print at the original 300ppi. But looks like I shouldn't worry about it and just print it!
Smridevan wrote:
Thanks for the feedback guys. I guess I was worried cuz I can't print at the original 300ppi. But looks like I shouldn't worry about it and just print it!
Or just uprez it in PS like the entire rest of the world does...i'd rather uprez and have a 300 dpi 48" print than not resize and have a 150dpi 48" print...i could tell the difference...maybe not from across a large room, but from less than 6' i could see the difference..which is prob too close to view a 48" print anyway...but still, prints do get seen from that close sometimes, which is why i always size my files to print 300dpi, no matter how big or small...a properly uprez'd and sharpened file will always look better than not doing anything...
This image is not mine, but answers your question perfectly. It was shot by Jim Wilson (see Jim Wilson Photography). Jim is a world-class photographer, and one of the world's top two or three shooters in aviation in addition to the other work he does. Check out some of the portfolios on his website -- it'll be time well spent.
Here's the photographer's comments on that image in a later post within the same thread:
JWilsonphoto wrote:
BTW, the big shot is a Nikon D800 file, handheld at 140 knots at 8,500'. Standing two feet away you can practically read the highway signs. I acted like it was business as usual as my client ooohed and aaaahed, but behind the scenes I was amazed by how well the image held up. This was the acid test for my D800 and their 24-70, my hat is off to Nikon.
Someone asked about printing specs, and Jim replied:
JWilsonphoto wrote:
Dunno exactly, cuz I have "people" who worry about that stuff...... The booth is 12' x about 8' tall. My guess is the aerial image is around 8 x 10. The dpi on anything over 40" goes down to 150 dpi I believe. I do know that the file could have gone several times the size and still held up at viewing distances over two feet.
Jim has mentioned several times that he and his favorite print lab -- the one he uses for all his prints -- have tested the DPI issue to hell and back, and they've concluded that they prefer to let the resolution drop to as low as 150dpi instead of upsampling, because that's how they believe the images look best.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Jim has mentioned several times that he and his favorite print lab -- the one he uses for all his prints -- have tested the DPI issue to hell and back, and they've concluded that they prefer to let the resolution drop to as low as 150dpi instead of upsampling, because that's how they believe the images look best.
I'd love to see the actual printed comparisons, b/c when you do photoshop comparisons, with "view print size," where it takes into account the DPI of your display, and gives you a 1:1 representation of how the photo will print, it's DAMN hard to tell the difference between 150 and 300 dpi, and personally i feel 300dpi looks better from up close, and from far away, well it doesn't really matter...
paparazzinick wrote:
I wouldnt worry about it. Print it!
I have a few 30x90 prints in my studio that were shot with a D700. Looks fine. You have more resolution than I did, so you will be just fine.
I never understood why people worry so much on large prints? As long as it is exposed right, sharp and is an overall good photo. Then it should print just fine.
I remember when I shot Canon and had a 4 megapixel sensor. I had a killer shot from a hockey game that they ended up wanting on a 12' banner. It printed ok. So dont worry dude, just print it. ...Show more →
NathanHamler wrote:
I'd love to see the actual printed comparisons, b/c when you do photoshop comparisons, with "view print size," where it takes into account the DPI of your display, and gives you a 1:1 representation of how the photo will print, it's DAMN hard to tell the difference between 150 and 300 dpi, and personally i feel 300dpi looks better from up close, and from far away, well it doesn't really matter...
Should be easy to do some of your own printed comparisons.
I'd be leery of trusting anything displayed on the monitor as a faithful representation of a print. Backlit vs. reflective, ink drops vs. pixels, pigment color vs. RGB, etc.
binary visions wrote:
Should be easy to do some of your own printed comparisons.
I'd be leery of trusting anything displayed on the monitor as a faithful representation of a print. Backlit vs. reflective, ink drops vs. pixels, pigment color vs. RGB, etc.
Well the backlit vs reflective thing is easy, just turn your brightness down to the proper level, about 90 cd/m2....
pigment color? what's that? RA4 all the way!!
Ink drops vs. pixels, that's about the most valid argument, except that RA4 prints dont show ink drops either...they're pixels as well......BUT, i've found that monitors display noise a lot worse than you ever get on a print, so if it looks noisy on screen (at print size), you generally wont notice it on a print....prints are way more forgiving than a monitor....that being said, my monitor matches my prints VERY well, prob by about 98% or better, when it comes to color, density and sharpness....not even an expensive monitor....dell ultrasharp....it's not hard to do and be comfortable with......
I think it's easy enough to do your own comparisons, that everyone ought to do it themselves if they're curious.
I intend to do the same, but haven't gotten around to it. Since my initial bias is that upsampling "should" look better, that's what I've been doing so far. We shall see whether actual tests confirm my bias or change my mind. But I'm very curious, since I value Jim's judgment very highly.
You can print any file at any size that you want to. Whether or not it will look decent is the big question, and the answer to that is "it depends on what you're looking for". I've been making test prints with a D800e for the past week. With a sharp file, I'd uprezz as much as 80%, which would gets me a 36"x24" print assuming a full size FX uncropped image. I can go a good amount above that before it really starts to fall apart at nose length, but I feel the image becomes too soft for my tastes. 30"x20" prints look amazing. However, I'm coming at this as a landscape photographer who usually shoots 4x5.
paparazzinick wrote:
I wouldnt worry about it. Print it!
I have a few 30x90 prints in my studio that were shot with a D700. Looks fine. You have more resolution than I did, so you will be just fine.
I never understood why people worry so much on large prints? As long as it is exposed right, sharp and is an overall good photo. Then it should print just fine.
I remember when I shot Canon and had a 4 megapixel sensor. I had a killer shot from a hockey game that they ended up wanting on a 12' banner. It printed ok. So dont worry dude, just print it. ...Show more →
I have a 8mp (canon 30d) image printed at 40x30. Looks great..
The booth is 12' x about 8' tall. My guess is the aerial image is around 8 x 10. The dpi on anything over 40" goes down to 150 dpi I believe. I do know that the file could have gone several times the size and still held up at viewing distances over two feet.