What is the biggest I can blow up my photos?

[Morag2]

Hey all, I'm hoping to blow up some of my pictures to mount on my wall, however I only have a 5MP camera. The pictures I take are 2592 x 1944 pixels, now I know for perfect image quality (300DPI) I would need my pictures to be 8.64" x 6.48". Which isn't nearly big enough, I would prefer something far bigger, what do you think the biggest I can blow my shots up to before they look bad on a wall? They will normally be viewed from somewhere between 2 and 8 feet away.

Thanks all.

[Sintares]

The photographer Shay Stephens uses a formula

target ppi = 3500 / viewing distance in inches

So, 2-8 feet, average 5ft = 60 inches

3500/60 = 58 ppi

2592/58 = 45in , 1944/58 = 33in

So, in hisviewa 45inx33in photo would look ok from around 5 feet away..

However an A3 print 11.69 x 16.54 inches, would be reasonable from a 5mp camera for even arms length viewing..

[granthagen]

This is a bit subjective as everyone has a different idea of acceptable quality. Having said this, I've printed some stuff at 150ppi that doesn't look too bad -- especially when viewed at a distance. At 150ppi, you could have 17.28X 12.96 prints. Might look pretty good from 8 feet.

Another poster to this site said that they seem to start getting diminishing returns on print quality at about 185ppi. You could have 14X10.5 inch prints at that rez. Most people really can't tell much difference over 240ppi. At this rez, you could slap 10.8X8.1's on your wall.

Of course, the higher resolution prints will stand up better to close viewing than the lower rez prints.

"How big can you go," is up to your own standards of acceptable quality. One thing you might try is to make enlargements in the editor of your choice and then crop a piece out that has some good detail. Crop out enough so that you can print it on a sheet of 8.5X11 photo paper and then hang it on the wall and view it at the distance you would view the full-sized print that you cropped out of. That will tell you pretty much how the whole thing would look without paying the extra money for full-sized test prints.

Just experiment and see what you think!

Grant

[squirl033]

generally speaking, you need about 200 pixels per inch for a good print. much below that, and you start seeing jaggies and blurring. much more than that is wasted. more is generally better, but most viewers cannot see the difference between 200 ppi and 300 ppi.

for viewing at 2-6 feet, you really don't want much bigger than 11x14, which you can make with your 5mp images without interpolation. for viewing from 6-8 feet, you might want a larger print - 11x14, or perhaps even 16x20.i have a number of prints at that size shot with my 5mp FZ20, which look absolutely perfect. i have also made a very good 16x20 print from an upsized 5mp image, but upsizing carries the risk of some slight image degradation, especially if carried too far.

try printing at 11x14 without upsizing the image, and see how it looks. if the image is still sharp and clear, a little interpolation won't hurt it, and you can upsample it to make a 16x20...

Morag2 wrote:

Hey all, I'm hoping to blow up some of my pictures to mount on my wall, however I only have a 5MP camera. The pictures I take are 2592 x 1944 pixels, now I know for perfect image quality (300DPI) I would need my pictures to be 8.64" x 6.48". Which isn't nearly big enough, I would prefer something far bigger, what do you think the biggest I can blow my shots up to before they look bad on a wall? They will normally be viewed from somewhere between 2 and 8 feet away.

Thanks all.

Excuse me???

I've made many excellent 8x10 prints from a 2.5MP camera, & a lot more from 5mp cameras! I have them on my walls & even at 4 inches, I've never had one Pro pick out the cameras used, or resolution for an image. If you are having problems, consider Genuine Fractles for up-sampling......I've never had the issue come up.

[belgian pie]

I think it depends on how you out put the picture ... if done by a photo imager it could turn out worse than when you have it printed on a large printer,

A few years back I had a some posters (90x60 cm) made in 92 dpi printed on a big printer for advertising use and it turned out very well for it's use.

if I had it processed by an imager it wouldn't have been that good.

[DaiButsu]

Depending on what types of shots you are taking, you can also go to the extreme and combine a number of shots to create a single high resolutionimage that could fill a wall. Check out Max Lyons' work as an example: http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm

Of course at the gigapixelsize you have the problem of needing to find a printer that could print the image. However, combiningonlya few shots can provide sufficient resolution for some fairly large images that can provide detail at only inches away.

[Boily]

Hi Morag,

I had one of my picture (taken with the p850) printed at 12 x 18 !!

The results are very good and I am happy with the quality of the picture:-)

Wich picture do you plan to print?

Boily

[Morag2]

Thank you for all the advice guys, I believe I will have a high-quality printer (I'm getting them printed at a store). I think I will definately be able to get the size I want judging from what you guys have said. And Boily, I'm not entirely sure which pictures I should print, I don't have anything super amazing yet But I'm sure I can find something wall-worthy.

[DBB]

Kalypso wrote:

I've made many excellent 8x10 prints from a 2.5MP camera, & a lot more from 5mp cameras! I have them on my walls & even at 4 inches, I've never had one Pro pick out the cameras used, or resolution for an image. If you are having problems, consider Genuine Fractles for up-sampling......I've never had the issue come up.

Absolutely correct! The technique for printing large images Must include up-sampling and by using that there is very little limit on size. Landscapes from a five meg camera can be 10 feet wide if you so desire. Portraits will look "soft" but are also doable. I've printed from 2 Meg cameras at 16 x 20, and routinly print wildlife shots at that size from a five Meg camera.

They are perfect and even the details hold up quite well.

Up-sampling is NOT the same as a simple enlargement, and programs differ in the quality of up-sampling.

Dave