Biggest print of a bird photo?

[Romy Ocon]

Just curious... how big you guys and gals have printed bird photographs, and the feather detail is still good at close viewing distances (say from about a foot away)?

I normally print 12"x15" from crops, and if the capture is pixel sharp, I can use files as small as 4 MP natively (about 150 native ppi before upressing to 300 ppi) and detail is still good when viewed at the eyes' minimum focus distance. I've also tried a couple of 20"x30"s from 20D full frame shots, and feather detail still holds up well at about 120 native ppi if I did my job well in the capture.

Today I tried to push the limits by sending a 12800x7200 pixel file (upressed from a 40D FF capture of 3888x2592 pixels) to my printer for a 24"x36". I wonder how the feather detail looks up close once the print arrives tomorrow..... the native resolution is down to 108 ppi before upressing. :)

Regards,

Romy

[Alfred Forns]

Romy I would have to say very large !!! A while back Artie had a couple made for Canon for a trade show I think they were form the old 1Ds and the prints were 72 inch long Amazing quality. Can't even imagine what you could do with the 1DsMk3?

Last year during one of the IPTs we had John Shaw as a guest Conversation turned to printing and file size, John told us about the prints he used to make with the D1 which was only 2.7 MP

[Robert O'Toole]

Romy the results should be fantastic.

What was the file size of the image? I have worked on files around that size up to and over 2GB. Results should be great really!

I used to make sharp 13x19s with my 3.0 MP Canon 30D in 2001. Even "professionals" thought the origional was film, some even guessed medium format.

Robert

[Robert Amoruso]

Though not specific to the topic, I generally don't print a bird larger than real life. I once saw an image of a sparrow that was the size of an eagle. A bit disconcerting.

[Robert O'Toole]

Hey thats funny Robert I never thought about that. The birder mag covers with warblers look okay to me at 300% larger than lifesize.

Viewing distance is important also though, most people print huge images and view them at less than arms length:confused:

Whats the unofficial rule, the diagional of the image is the minimum distance at least? or is that the viewing distance of TV monitors?:)

Robert

[Alfred Forns]

Though not specific to the topic, I generally don't print a bird larger than real life. I once saw an image of a sparrow that was the size of an eagle. A bit disconcerting.

Would have never given that a thought !!! Something to think about !!!!

[Van Hilliard]

I've thought about what Robert said regarding size but decided I would only apply that rule to small birds. I love big pictures of big birds.
I have a photo in a show right now that is 40 inches wide. It is a crop from a Nikon D2H 4-meg image..

[Romy Ocon]

Though not specific to the topic, I generally don't print a bird larger than real life. I once saw an image of a sparrow that was the size of an eagle. A bit disconcerting.

Yup.... I've printed pics of small birds (4" - 4.5" total length) to about 3x lifesize, and while feather detail in the print is still excellent, the bird is not natural looking when viewed up close - the feather strands are just too big, etc. The experience reminds me of looking at extreme macros of bugs. :)

[Romy Ocon]

Thanks for the very informative responses, folks. Looks like a 24"x36" from a full frame 10 MP capture (108 ppi native res) is not yet "pushing the limits." I'm actually not looking at printing larger than 24"x36" very often, but more on how far I can crop a capture and still print it to reasonably large size (say 12"x15" or so) with good close up detail, given the less native ppi available.

Romy the results should be fantastic.

What was the file size of the image? I have worked on files around that size up to and over 2GB. Results should be great really!

I used to make sharp 13x19s with my 3.0 MP Canon 30D in 2001. Even "professionals" thought the origional was film, some even guessed medium format.

Robert

Hi Robert,

IIRC, the 10800x7200 pixel photo (for a 24"x36" print) was a little less than 500 MB as 16-bit TIFF during processing, which I converted to circa 250 MB 8-bit TIFF before sending to my printer.

Romy

[David Kennedy]

...Viewing distance is important also though, most people print huge images and view them at less than arms length:confused:

I made some large prints back in college when one of the art professors let me have my own Epson 9600 for a semester. He provided all paper and ink. (I went to a small liberal arts college with a 1 billion dollar endowment!!!) It was always frustrating--too weak a word, really--to watch people get up within inches of a 40x60". Seriously, people, what do you glean from staring at a 3x3" section of a 40x60"???????? I really wanted to place a rope line so that people wouldn't do that at one of my shows, but I was told that would be tacky. I still think I should have done it :p

[Roger Clark]

I It was always frustrating--too weak a word, really--to watch people get up within inches of a 40x60". Seriously, people, what do you glean from staring at a 3x3" section of a 40x60"???????? I really wanted to place a rope line so that people wouldn't do that at one of my shows, but I was told that would be tacky. I still think I should have done it :p

Hi David,

While I think everyone here knows composition, subject and lighting are paramount to a great image, resolution matters: sharp images get more attention than soft images, unless deliberately very blurred. Here is my experience with very high resolution prints

The wow factor: large prints that are sharp, e.g. 20x30 inch at 180+ ppi (20+ megapixels).

The "knock your socks off WOW" factor: Large sharp prints of spectacular subject in superb light printed at very sharp resolution, e.g. 30x40 inch prints printed at 300 to 400 ppi.
In a gallery, watch a person approach a print:
1) they stop at a distance where they can see the whole image,
say 3 to 4 feet for a 30x40-inch print.
2) realizing the image is sharp, they move in closer, to a couple
of feet, and you hear them say "wow!"
3) Still realizing they can't see all the detail, they move
in only a foot or so from the print, exclaiming "WOW!"
Then they proceed to move around the print at close distance
to get it all in. Then they move back to see the whole
image again, and move close again.....

Of course you need large format film or large digital mosaics to achieve that resolution.
That's why I still work with 4x5 film, even mosaicking multiple 4x5 images together (see the mesa arch pano in the panoramic images forum, for example).

Roger
http://www.clarkvision.com