How big can i print out my digital photos ?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hello i have a Fuji S304 and i've taken photos on the highest setting of
3.2M Fine.

How big can i get them printed off and can someone recommend a good place to
get that done either shop or online.

thankyou.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

thanks - know anywhere good in the uk anyone ?

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112980597.973125.314640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> SirRinket wrote:
>> Hello i have a Fuji S304 and i've taken photos on the highest setting
> of
>> 3.2M Fine.
>>
>> How big can i get them printed off and can someone recommend a good
> place to
>> get that done either shop or online.
>>
>> thankyou.
> There is a lot of debate as to how big photos can be printed, it all
> depends on what you are after. For a 3.2 MP camera 4 x 6 prints will
> look great and 8 x 10 will look very good most of the time. How good a
> photo looks will depend on how close you are to it when looking at it.
> Photographers like to put their noises right up to even a large
> photograph, but most people are happy to just look at it.
>
> I get my prints done at Costco, they are inexpensive and very good.
>
> I would take one of your better photos and have it printed at both 4 x
> 6 and 8 x 12 and see how you like it.
>
> Scott
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

There is a photography tutorial on this at Cameratown.com
http://www.cameratown.com/guides/t [...] hurl/id|73

If you search the word "PRINT" on the page you'll find more on the subject
as well.


Photoshare



"SirRinket" <rinket@widdler.com> wrote in message
news:rAy5e.6749$Uc7.2685@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>
> Hello i have a Fuji S304 and i've taken photos on the highest setting of
> 3.2M Fine.
>
> How big can i get them printed off and can someone recommend a good place
> to get that done either shop or online.
>
> thankyou.
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Do you have a local supermarket for example ASDA / Tesco that has a minilab?
A lot of them do, and with a Fuji Frontier minilab for example there's so
little maintenance required that the results should be no worse than from a
lab running the same machine. Oh, and they'll be much cheaper!

Craig.

p.s. Viewing distance for a print is three times the diagonal (of the
print), as a rule of thumb.


"SirRinket" <rinket@widdler.com> wrote in message
news:2qz5e.6766$Uc7.3740@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> thanks - know anywhere good in the uk anyone ?
>
> "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1112980597.973125.314640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> SirRinket wrote:
>>> Hello i have a Fuji S304 and i've taken photos on the highest setting
>> of
>>> 3.2M Fine.
>>>
>>> How big can i get them printed off and can someone recommend a good
>> place to
>>> get that done either shop or online.
>>>
>>> thankyou.
>> There is a lot of debate as to how big photos can be printed, it all
>> depends on what you are after. For a 3.2 MP camera 4 x 6 prints will
>> look great and 8 x 10 will look very good most of the time. How good a
>> photo looks will depend on how close you are to it when looking at it.
>> Photographers like to put their noises right up to even a large
>> photograph, but most people are happy to just look at it.
>>
>> I get my prints done at Costco, they are inexpensive and very good.
>>
>> I would take one of your better photos and have it printed at both 4 x
>> 6 and 8 x 12 and see how you like it.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I must just not be fussy enough. I get what I consider excellent 8x10 from
my 3.2 MP Canon. Even cropping, I very much like the results.

Haven't printed anything from my 6.1 MP camera yet, but I'll let you know
what I see for a difference.

mike

"Pete Fenelon" <pete@fenelon.com> wrote in message
news:suf63d.fko.ln@fenelon.com...
> SirRinket <rinket@widdler.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello i have a Fuji S304 and i've taken photos on the highest setting of
>> 3.2M Fine.
>>
>> How big can i get them printed off
>
> As big as you like. The quality might start suffering though.
>
> You'll get very good 6x4s and *maybe* tolerable 10x8s from it. Going any
> further will probably disappoint you unless it's a carefully chosen
> picture.
>
> pete
> --
> pete@fenelon.com "Send lawyers, guns and money...."

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SirRinket wrote:
> Hello i have a Fuji S304 and i've taken photos on the highest setting of
> 3.2M Fine.
>
> How big can i get them printed off and can someone recommend a good place to
> get that done either shop or online.
>
> thankyou.
>
>
You can paper a whole state with one, if you are willing to pay for it.
If you want reasonable quality, stop at 8x10. Try Ofoto (now Kodak
Easy Share online). They are said to do good work.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I took a photo of my mate using a cheapo Nikon CoolPix2000 with a whopping
2Mpixels. I was astounded at the result when my mate's brother blew the
image up to slightly larger than lifesize as part of his bestman's speech!!
It was printed on one of those vertical display banners and I'm sure if it
was a detailed landscape scene it would have looked awful - but it wasn't
and it didn't.

Craig.


"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m2wtrc6484.fsf@gw.dd-b.net...
> "mike regish" <mregish@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> I must just not be fussy enough. I get what I consider excellent 8x10
>> from
>> my 3.2 MP Canon. Even cropping, I very much like the results.
>>
>> Haven't printed anything from my 6.1 MP camera yet, but I'll let you know
>> what I see for a difference.
>
> 3 megapixels is something like 1500x2000 pixels. 1500 pixels into 8"
> is 187 pixels per inch. So it falls considerably short of the 300
> pixels per inch rule of thumb.
>
> I've actually printed entirely acceptable 8x10 prints from a 2
> megapixel camera, and had a lovely 16x24 print done from my 6
> megapixel camera.
>
> What works depends on the image. If you take a highly detailed and
> ultra-sharp landscape photo with a medium-format film camera and with
> a 3 megapixel digital, and print an 8x10 from both, I rather think
> you'll see the difference. If it's a flattering glamor portrait,
> quite possibly you *won't* see the difference. It depends
> tremendously on the images.
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/>
> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> "mike regish" <mregish@comcast.net> writes:
>
>>> I must just not be fussy enough. I get what I consider excellent 8x10 from
>>> my 3.2 MP Canon. Even cropping, I very much like the results.
>>>
>>> Haven't printed anything from my 6.1 MP camera yet, but I'll let you know
>>> what I see for a difference.
>
>> 3 megapixels is something like 1500x2000 pixels. 1500 pixels into 8"
>> is 187 pixels per inch. So it falls considerably short of the 300
>> pixels per inch rule of thumb.
>
> That 300 ppi figure is a bit dubious IMO. I think it's based on the 6
> lp/mm Leica "gold standard" for film, but digital cameras are
> different in that they are perceptually sharper at their resolution
> limit. A tack sharp digital image at 200 pixels per inch can look
> really good if those 200 pixels have high contrast.

300 ppi is certainly no better than a rule of thumb, and like most
such, thumbs shrink or swell over time :-).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>