Without losing quality or pixelating. The camera would of course be on the highest quality settings. I would imagine an 8X11 would be fine but any bigger?
2007-03-29 04:03:19 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
In general, 8x11 (8x10) is about the limit of 6.1 megapixels. As others have said, there are factors that play into whether you can stretch another inch or two out of it. My list would include:
- If you shoot in RAW. You can probably go an inch or two more, espcecially if using sharpening tools.
- If you have a sharp photo by using your camera lens' sweet spot (f/8 for 35mm dSLRs, f/4 for smaller digital. cameras). You might be giving up Depth of Field however.
- If you used a tripod.
- If your ISO was set low (~100). Lower ISOs will give you less noise. Higher ISOs show noise that is very noticeable when blown up.
- If you made a good exposure. If you use the histogram, the portion of your subject should be lined up to the right side of the curve (without clipping). If your subject is on the left side of the curve, you will probably see more noise when the photo is enlarged (see reference link).
- If your expected viewing distance to the framed photo is long. Say you are mounting the photo up high where no one can get a close-up view of it...in this case, I would say go ahead and try the 20x30 if it doesn't cost a lot.
- If you don't mind grain (noise). Some people like this look.
As a reference, 8 megapixels can reach a 11x17 print size without losing significant quality or sharpness.
Also, remember that a matted 8x10 print (say, with a 2" border all around) will occupy a much larger frame, so it can actually appear proportionate and appropriate for home decor. A small photo with a huge mat looks elegant and has the effect of inviting (drawing) your viewers in...small can be very nice!
2007-03-29 09:35:27 · answer #1 · answered by Ken F 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First off digital slrs and digital point and shoot cameras are not created equal and you don't say which one you have. If both are 6.1 mp you will get better results and larger prints from the dslr. With that said... I have a 6.1 dslr and I have a 20x30 printed from mpix.com hanging over my mantel that is absolutely gorgeous, not a pixel in site and it is shot at the highest quality jpeg. I have never printed larger than that because I don't have the need, but feel I could if I need too. I carried a 3 mp p&s with me daily until recently (upgraded to a 8 mp) and I have printed many 11x14's and a couple larger ones with no problems and no pixelation. The main thing is to start with a good, sharp picture in the first place and to use a quality lab. I used to get very nice 8x10's off of my old 2 mp p&s! So don't let the # of mp's fool you! If the picture is sharp and the lab is of quality, you shouldn't have any problems.
2007-03-29 07:12:21 · answer #2 · answered by tan0301 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends mostly on the type of camera used and the quality of paper and printer used to print it. I have a point-and-shoot 6.3 MP that produces superb 8X11 printed on a Canon MP600 photo printer. Also if you are shooting in RAW you will always have better quality at that MP range at say 20X30, as others have stated. Just remember JPEG is a compressed format so you'll experience the most loss the larger you decide to print from 8X11 in that format. Post processing with photoshop, for example, makes the world of difference.
2007-03-29 08:15:54 · answer #3 · answered by mixedup 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are many answers to this question depending on who you are. I can say though, if you print a 6.1MP photo the size of a school bus, it will still look good as long as you stand back a few metres.
Using photoshop to enlarge it, you can print quite a large photograph without pixelating. But in the end, I wouldnt take a 6mp photo past 8x12 if I wanted it to stay sharp when viewing close up.
http://www.straightshots.co.nz
2007-03-30 11:29:31 · answer #4 · answered by Piano Man 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Believe it or not, I've once have a 24X36 poster made using my Fujifilm S5100 4MP camera shooting in RAW mode. And the result is much better than I expected. People who look at the poster cannot believe it came from a 4MP camera. Of course, it will not be razor sharp and crystal clear when look at it in very close distant, but as long as you don't try to smell the poster, larger print should not be a problem even in lower megapixel.
2007-03-29 12:37:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As the owner of one of the Canon Digital Rebels (SLR Digital) ... I can definitely state that having an image printed on the 8.5" by 11" size ... it is definitely clear and beautiful (and I shoot in the .raw mode).
With .jpg mode (and I am assuming that you are NOT shooting .raw) .. it is dicier ... and yes, much bigger than this size, it does seem to be pixelated and start blurring. So any larger, and I would start to worry at that point in time.
so .. take my experience with the Images that I have taken in mind here .. and try for yourself. IF your camera has the .raw mode (where, basically, more data points are recorded, and there is not the compression of the data (and loss of details that .jpg has inherent in its format)), then there is the possibility of being able to print something larger.
By the way -- the 8.5" by 11" is a comfortable size for most framing/displays in one's home (which is where I display most of my Images anyway) or their personal office space (yes, I've done that too).
2007-03-29 06:50:49 · answer #6 · answered by sglmom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have a 6.1 mp camera and whenever I've uploaded my photos to Shutterfly.com it tells me that they are best printed up to a 20x30 size
2007-03-29 06:41:20 · answer #7 · answered by Vanessa O 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Megapixels have nothing to do with size. Resolution settings control that. You can go 640x480 for digital, 800x600 for most printed pics, and up it to 1024x768 for full -page.
2007-03-31 14:35:52 · answer #8 · answered by Michael R 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
8x11 for sure is OK
2007-03-29 15:49:12 · answer #9 · answered by dand370 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋