printing image

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

socialism001@yahoo.com writes:
> I have a 1024x768 color photo. Whats the largest I can print this
> before noticing poor image quality. I'd like something like 2 feet x
> 1.875 feet.

You'll see some softness up close at that size but for noncritical
viewing from normal distances it will look fine. Pay no attention to
the megapixel freaks.

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

<socialism001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114983802.081424.295480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I have a 1024x768 color photo. Whats the largest I can print this
> before noticing poor image quality. I'd like something like 2 feet x
> 1.875 feet.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris

If you do a little math you can blow up a portion of the image and print it
out on any inkjet printer to match exactly what a 2ft x 1.8ft photo will
look like, or at least what a portion of it will look like. Personally, I
think you're really pushing it, but at least you'll know what the end result
will look like.

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

socialism001@yahoo.com writes:

> I have a 1024x768 color photo. Whats the largest I can print this
> before noticing poor image quality. I'd like something like 2 feet x
> 1.875 feet.

For close examination, it'll stand up fine to about 3 inches by 4
inches.

Depending on how close the viewers will be, you may be able to print
it *much* bigger. But it's very unlikely that you can print it as big
as you want and have it look good to most viewers from the sorts of
distances I think of as normal for a print that big (as little as 3
feet, maybe even only 2 feet).

It's pretty easy with all the software *I've* used for editing and
printing photos to print one sheet of the photo at the size you want
(i.e. a fairly small part of the image). Then you can put that on the
wall, stand various distances away, and see what you think.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;

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

<socialism001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114983802.081424.295480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|I have a 1024x768 color photo. Whats the largest I can print this
| before noticing poor image quality. I'd like something like 2 feet x
| 1.875 feet.
|
| Thanks,
| Chris
|

You're joking, right?

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

socialism001@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have a 1024x768 color photo. Whats the largest I can print this
> before noticing poor image quality. I'd like something like 2 feet x
> 1.875 feet.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris

There is no really good way of answering that question. The important
thing to remember is that an print that size is not going to be viewed from
6 inches, it is more likely to be 6 feet. We don't notice the loss in
detail at 6 feet like we do at six inches. At six inches next to 4x6 inch
print, you will see image loose.

All I can say is try it and see. I think I would generally want more
resolution that that so I shoot a lot higher, but you don't have that option
now.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

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

If you have this printed by a lab such as www.bigphotohelp.com you will have
a print that when viewed at the proper distance, say three feet, will look
very good.

Only those purest who look for pixilation with a 10X glass at a 4 x 6 inch
5 or 6 megapixel print complain.

"If it looks good..It is good"

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

Arthur Small wrote:
> If you have this printed by a lab such as www.bigphotohelp.com you will have
> a print that when viewed at the proper distance, say three feet, will look
> very good.
>
> Only those purest who look for pixilation with a 10X glass at a 4 x 6 inch
> 5 or 6 megapixel print complain.
>
> "If it looks good..It is good"
>
>
There are two issues here- soft resolution (lack of resolution) and
pixelation. Upsampling can reduce pixelation, though it won't do much
for resolution.