I am looking to print a few files as a gift for someone and am trying to figure out how large they can print. I thought that depended on DPI and pixels. I am feeling disappointed in what I just read straight from the X-T10 Owner's Manual. It states that the Image Sizes 3:2, 16:9, 1:1, when selected, will print sizes up to 34×25 cm (13.5×10 in.) I am using Fine jpegs. How can this be? Surely the files can print with decent resolution larger? I must be missing something; hopefully. I know I am a digital misfit and surely what I read must apply to something else?
Fuji's advice looks way too conservative to me. Specifications for a Large, 3:2 image from that camera is 4896 x 3264 pixels. So a print at 13.5" x 10" would have about 360 pixels per inch. I don't think anyone would claim that you need more than 300 pixels per inch to make an excellent print - so about 16" x 11" would be a conservative recommendation. Even 200 dpi should be enough resolution to make a good print. For your camera, that would be 24" x 16" Depending on the distance at which the print is viewed, even less resolution may be enough. You should probably consult with with whoever is going to make the print about what they recommend.
The camera manual is using an old out-dated standard for print resolution of 300 ppi. Back in the good old days of dot screens it was necessary to keep the ppi high to avoid visible patterns (moire) appearing in the image from the screening process. We don't do that anymore -- computer generated stochastic screening solves that old problem. Runswithsizzers is correct that 200 ppi will easily do the job. In fact if you print even larger you'll find that you view the print from a further distance and that reduces the need for higher res -- I regularly make very big prints with the ppi down to 150.
I print 16x20" all the time from a 16MP Fuji camera and an audience of fairly critical photographers doesn't complain . The more accurate answer is the classic lawyerly "it depends." What type of image is it? What type of post processing will you be doing? What is the viewing distance? What is the printing technology and paper being used? How good is the initial exposure? The technology for raising the resolution of images has also evolved nicely. There are PS based methods and third-party apps if you run into a problem. In my mind with Epson pigment based inkjet printers, 180 pixels per inch is ok. Depending on circumstances, you can push beyond this, but it serves as a fairly good rule of thumb. I would of course prefer to have 360. Which is why I need the 100MP Fuji MF camera for 24x36" prints. I'm writing this in case my wife or Fuji are reading this . YMMV.
So 13.5" on the long end is a conservative figure I would be quite happy with and 27" on the long end is a size I would be ok with.
Are you printing these yourself or using a print service like Bay Photo, Whitehall, etc. If you are going to use a print service, then look so their web page for recommendations.
If you want to try on the cheap before ordering a large print, crop your image down to 1/4 its size (2488x1632 pixels) then have an 8x12 printed from that file. That will give you a very good idea what a 16x24" print would look like from the whole file. You'll be able to judge sharpness, contrast and color.
Ah, I feel so much better after reading these posts! There is hope for a decent size print after all! My mind is still stuck in film mode. I feel like an old dinosaur learning new tricks!
Even more, if you think your prints are viewed not closer than their diagonal size (as is common in most cases), then a good 16Mpix image can be printed in any size!
Good point. I bet most people will not tell the difference between 6 Mpx and 16 Mpx print from this distance. It is a shame that cameras get better and better but our eyesight doesn't...
Back when the first DSLRs came out we were told by Very Intelligent People Online that the maximum print size from a 3 megapixel camera was 5x7 inches. I was making 24x36 inch prints and they looked pretty darn good hanging on the wall. The Please login or register to view links. It looked pretty darn good right up close, and amazing from the proper view distance. (It was a backlit transparency set up on a stage.) After seeing that I stopped worrying about print sizes from the Fuji.
@kenbennett I remember that from the time of your original post. I liked it but didn’t “like” it like I should. Thanks for the reminder. Very impressive.
