how big an image can i get from a raw file??

[edwin]

hi all,

i am a new s-2 owner. when i shoot raw and convert to tiff, i get a 4256 x 2848 pixel file. at 300 ppi, this equates to 14.2" x 9.5". this clearly will make an 8"x10" print.

at 240 ppi--17.7" x 11.9"--this looks like an 11"x14" would work.

how big an image are you all able to print? i am a professional portrait photographer, and i don't know yet how big an image ( with excellent quality) that i should be able to expect to get from this camera.

anyone doing this professionally? and on what printer??

anyone interpolating up using programs like genuine fractals, and what are your results?

thanks for any input,

edwin

[t.hanz]

I have printed to the max (13x19) on my Epson 1280 with outstanding results. I have been tempted to have larger images done just to see the results but haven't done so yet. I also shoot portraits and sell alot of 11x14, 10x8 and never have a question of quality. Good Luck!


Todd

[Swampy]

I've printed to 24x30 from Fine JPG 12mp with outstanding results. I used an online printing house to do it, and I can't seem to remember the name of it. Ron Greene Suggested them. ezprints.com I think?

I've had them do matte and high gloss finish. The matte came out better looking I think though. That may all boil down to subject matter though.

[CSI-453]

I JUST HAD SUNRISE SHOT PRINTED AT 30x40, PICTURE WAS TAKEN IN RAW FORMAT AND CONVERTED TO 8 BIT.
I TAKE ALL MY ENLARGMENTS TO A LOCAL LAB HERE AT THE BEACH AND DROP THEM OFF SO I AM NOT SURE ABOUT THE PPI ALTHOUGH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE LOW 100'S DUE TO THE SIZE.
THE PRINT DOES LOOK AMAZING AND HAVE SOLD TWO FOR 150.OO US. I WILL TRY AND FIND WHAT RES. THE PIC WAS AT WHEN THEY PRINTED IT.

[KPRussell]

How big is relative ...

How far are you viewing and are you running through a RIP that will do the image and justice.

Mine so far:

33"x50"

Shot RAW, Converted in PS 7 to 8 bit TIFF

Run through JAWS RIP to Lightjet photographic output.

Looks great and is in Model home of a new neighborhood in suburbs of Atlanta.

[Linda G]

How are you going to print it? If you are using a home inkjet printer, you'll need to set it up differently than if you are using an outside lab.

Ask the place you're going to have it printed how large they recommend. We print from lg jpg all the time to up to 30 x 40 because the software for our printer (ZBE Chromira, laser print on photographic paper, through traditional photographic chemicals) takes the original file and interpolates it up, line by line, giving the best possible results. If someone sends in an image that's been interpolated up by photoshop, genuine fractals or any other program, we sometimes run into problems with a soft image due to the extra pixels made by those programs.

As for your original question, it depends on what you plan on doing with it...close up viewing...how critical the sharpness must be and how good your original exposure was.

[kari]

i have printed 40*28" just very fine from normal jpeg file 1600. just resize it in ps. large print you need the less dpi's it requires. that file size was less than 100 mbs. very good very nice.

[AndreK]

Although this is an old thread people might be interested. Gary Fong at http://www.digitalphotographers.net/ who is a pro shooter use these JPG settings. Mind you, none of these are RAW.

OK here's your resolution settings:
1440 setting -great for internet emailing images, and prints up to 4x6
2304 setting - great prints up to 10x15. Larger resolutions show no visible improvement.
3204 setting - great prints up to 24x30. Larger resolutions show no visible improvement.
4256 setting - great prints up to 40x60. Larger resolutions show no visible improvement.

[Ted S]

Any opinions on this controversal subject?

[Swampy]

Ted, I'm sure there's a few threads on this subject under the photoshop or software (other) forums. This probably isn't the best place to start a new subject. :)

Yup. Sure enough. Under the Photoshop forum here:
http://theswampbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3414

[Ted S]

Here's Mine:
>>8 1/2x11.........360ppi
>>13x13..............300ppi
>>13x19.............240ppi (with 5% upsampling.
>>I'm printing with a epson 1280, and a canon S900, and getting superb results.
>>Regards
>>Ted S

[toners]

I shoot in RAW, ISO 100, and let the camera interpolate up to its 12 million or so pixels. I am printing to 12 x 18 on 13 x 19 enhanced matte with a 2200 and am enthralled with the results at a "normal" viewing distance. But as I squint and get my nose closer to the print surface, which is generally my habit when taking a second look at a print (kind of like testing the "nose" of a wine after checking the color and giving it a swirl), limitations become obvious. Stairstepping in lines, such as a minor blade of grass against a dark background. Breakup or a patternlike noise in shadow areas, especially where a curve adjustment has been made to enhance contrast. Yes, even when working in 16 bit. So I would hesitate to go larger, unless for display in a setting where the viewing distance would be sufficient to hide these things.

After reading this I realize I've never viewed an S2 print larger than 12 x 18, so I am talking through my hat in a way. I guess the test would be to go larger until the image fails to be acceptable, and those criteria differ with all of us. What would be ok for a portrait might not work for a nature photo, for example.