Poster Size Prints

I use slow film, like 50 or 64. The funny thing is to process it into a large print some places scan the film. They did this with my k-chrome 64 and it looks great. I would talk to the lab that does it and ask them for samples.
"Barney" wrote in message

Is it better to use digital or film to produce a poster size photo? I know there may be a lot of "depends" in the answer but I’d like to understand

in

a brief way, what the trade-offs are.

Barney

final pixel count is all that matters.
http://northstarmultimedia.mye-pix.com/help/ResolutionGuide. asp

"Barney" wrote in message

Is it better to use digital or film to produce a poster size photo? I know there may be a lot of "depends" in the answer but I’d like to understand in a brief way, what the trade-offs are.

Barney

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 07:44:02 -0800, "stupid_idiot" scribbled:

final pixel count is all that matters.
http://northstarmultimedia.mye-pix.com/help/ResolutionGuide. asp

Pixel count vs. print size is so bandied about and so
distorted that the only way to really tell is to try it and see what the quality looks like. The site above states
you can get an ‘outstanding’ 11×14 print from a 2MP
camera while other sites say you can’t get over 8×10
and some say 8×10 is too big for a 2MP image to have
decent quality. I just saw an advertizement for a 5 or
6 MP camera and it said "for prints UP to 11×14" so there’s no way to trust any of these arbitrary numbers
except for trial and error.

"Barney" wrote in message

Is it better to use digital or film to produce a poster size photo? I know there may be a lot of "depends" in the answer but I’d like to understand in a brief way, what the trade-offs are.

Barney

Not only that, but two people can disagree over what "great quality" even means.

Sometimes at one shop I freelance at, the customer gets some pretty lousy jobs, and yet they are happy with it.

JD

Pixel count vs. print size is so bandied about and so
distorted that the only way to really tell is to try it and see what the quality looks like.

<snip> The site above statea you can get an ‘outstanding’ 11×14 print from a 2MP camera while other
sites say you can’t get over 8×10 and some say 8×10 is too big for a 2MP image to have decent quality. </snip>

What it ACTUALLY says is with my printer and with their rip software a person only needs 768 pixels
by 1024 for an outstanding 8 X 10 print.

Obviously, if the shot is not exposed correctly or poor composition, the printing results with reflect that.

Everyone has different opinions. After a lot of reading and experimenting I have come to the conclusion that a professional quality print needs 300 pixels per inch when printing. Quality goes down with less, but still may be acceptable depending on what you think good is. A 3 megapixel camera produces an image 2048 X 1536. If you divide 2048 by 300 pixels per inch you get about 7 inches. 1536 divided by 300 is about 5 inches. So you can get a professional quality 5X7 print with 3 megapixels. I have printed 8 X 10’s with a 3mp file and it is acceptable but not great. To someone else it might be great but I am very critical.

"Barney" wrote in message

Is it better to use digital or film to produce a poster size photo?

I know

there may be a lot of "depends" in the answer but I’d like to

understand in

a brief way, what the trade-offs are.

Barney

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 19:23:20 GMT, Voivod wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 07:44:02 -0800, "stupid_idiot" scribbled:

final pixel count is all that matters.
http://northstarmultimedia.mye-pix.com/help/ResolutionGuide. asp

Pixel count vs. print size is so bandied about and so
distorted that the only way to really tell is to try it and see what the quality looks like. The site above states
you can get an ‘outstanding’ 11×14 print from a 2MP
camera while other sites say you can’t get over 8×10
and some say 8×10 is too big for a 2MP image to have
decent quality. I just saw an advertizement for a 5 or
6 MP camera and it said "for prints UP to 11×14" so there’s no way to trust any of these arbitrary numbers
except for trial and error.

And the other point that I think always gets missed – viewing distance changes depending on the size of the final image. A 7 x 5 is viewed much closer normally than say a 40×30 poster. So the output dpi is different for the same effect.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

What it ACTUALLY says is with my printer and with their rip software

a person only needs 768 pixels

by 1024 for an outstanding 8 X 10 print.

Obviously, if the shot is not exposed correctly or poor composition,

the printing results with

reflect that.

So if you divide 1024 by 10 you get 102 pixels per inch. Trust me it will look terrible. At least 200 PPI are needed for an acceptable 8 X 10 and that won’t be great.

I like big, slow, film. Use 11" X 14" Ekta 100, drum scan. Wonderful quality and allows cropping of original if necessary. Print mural size with amazing clarity.

On 4/18/04 7:49 AM, in article qAwgc.170578$, "Harvey L" wrote:

I use slow film, like 50 or 64. The funny thing is to process it into a large print some places scan the film. They did this with my k-chrome 64 and it looks great. I would talk to the lab that does it and ask them for samples.
"Barney" wrote in message

Is it better to use digital or film to produce a poster size photo? I know there may be a lot of "depends" in the answer but I’d like to understand

in

a brief way, what the trade-offs are.

Barney

—
J Vee

I scan @ 4500×3000 pixels from 35mm neg, and 9000×6000 from slide. The slide quality is definately better just at A3.

HTH

Peter

"BF" wrote in message

Everyone has different opinions. After a lot of reading and experimenting I have come to the conclusion that a professional quality print needs 300 pixels per inch when printing. Quality goes down with less, but still may be acceptable depending on what you think good is. A 3 megapixel camera produces an image 2048 X 1536. If you divide 2048 by 300 pixels per inch you get about 7 inches. 1536 divided by 300 is about 5 inches. So you can get a professional quality 5X7 print with 3 megapixels. I have printed 8 X 10’s with a 3mp file and it is acceptable but not great. To someone else it might be great but I am very critical.

"Barney" wrote in message

Is it better to use digital or film to produce a poster size photo?

I know

there may be a lot of "depends" in the answer but I’d like to

understand in

a brief way, what the trade-offs are.

Barney

"Peter Nixon" wrote in message

I scan @ 4500×3000 pixels from 35mm neg, and 9000×6000 from slide.

The slide

quality is definately better just at A3.

HTH

Peter

I am assuming that is the final resolution. So using my 300 pixels per inch as being professional quality you would be looking at a 30" X 20" professional looking print from your 9000 X 6000 file. That would be a 54 megapixel camera.