How big can you print a M10 image

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What would you guys consider the maximum size you can print a M10 image still retaining excellent IQ

Neil

[pico]

26 minutes ago, NW67 said:

What would you guys consider the maximum size you can print a M10 image still retaining excellent IQ

As far away from the print you will you view it framed it between your outstretched fingers so it would be about 5x7" if on your lap.

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by pico

[Guest]

Thanks

[Herr Barnack]

I have printed to 16x24 inches and 24x36 inches with files from my M-P 240 and have been well pleased with the IQ of prints at this size - and I have a very critical eye for printed image quality.  The M10 files should also be able to print to those sizes and produce excellent IQ.

Printed image quality at the above sizes will depend on a number of variables such as -

1:  ISO, shutter speed and aperture used.  

2:  Was the image made using a tripod and cable release, a monopod or was it handheld? 

3:  Was a soft release used if the image was made hand held? 

4:  How much cropping, if any, will be done in post (always strive to keep cropping to an absolute minimum when printing large)? 

5:  Which printer, paper and inks will be used? 

6:  What will the viewing distance of the finished print be?

7:  How knowledgeable, skilled and experienced is the person doing the printing? 

If all the above variables are aligned properly, 24x36 inches with excellent printed IQ is possible with a full frame 24 MP sensor.  26x40 inches is probably be doable, but I'd want to see some test print strips at 26x40 inches equivalent before making the full size print. 

Beyond 26x40 inches, things may well start to get dicey.  Viewing distance of the print will become a much more critical factor.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Herr Barnack

[Jeff S]

Print as big as you like, and stand as far away as required.

Jeff

[Jeff S]

https://fstoppers.com/originals/how-many-megapixels-do-you-need-print-billboard-220239

Jeff

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

I have printed to 16x24 inches and 24x36 inches with files from my M-P 240 and have been well pleased with the IQ of prints at this size - and I have a very critical eye for printed image quality.  The M10 files should also be able to print to those sizes and produce excellent IQ.

Printed image quality at the above sizes will depend on a number of variables such as -

1:  ISO, shutter speed and aperture used.  

2:  Was the image made using a tripod and cable release, a monopod or was it handheld? 

3:  Was a soft release used if the image was made hand held? 

4:  How much cropping, if any, will be done in post (always strive to keep cropping to an absolute minimum when printing large)? 

5:  Which printer, paper and inks will be used? 

6:  What will the viewing distance of the finished print be?

7:  How knowledgeable, skilled and experienced is the person doing the printing? 

If all the above variables are aligned properly, 24x36 inches with excellent printed IQ is possible with a full frame 24 MP sensor.  26x40 inches is probably be doable, but I'd want to see some test print strips at 26x40 inches equivalent before making the full size print. 

Beyond 26x40 inches, things may well start to get dicey.  Viewing distance of the print will become a much more critical factor.

Thank you for the feedback. Both myself and Pico have learned something today. 

To give you some feedback the images in question were shot using a tripod and utilizing the 2 second timer. 

Minimal cropping. It will be me making the prints using my Epson P807. With Epson ink. I plan to use the Epson exhibition satin canvas as the photo media. 

As for viewing distance I would have a clue. 

Thanks again for taking the time to help me and Pico  

Neil

[Jeff S]

Printmaker (also posting in thread above) was making 40x60 inch prints with an M8. But Lars, as usual, made the most important point.  As for the other requirements for good printing, these have been discussed ad nauseam here.  There are many more good photographers than good printers, just as in darkroom days.  Neither is plug and play. But viewing distance is critical for display.  Billboards have been made for decades with cameras inferior to today’s machines (above link)..

Jeff

[adan]

The standard for excellent quality in a print has traditionally been 300 pixels per inch.

But that really grew out of high-end glossy magazine production from the first film scans 40-45 years ago (the first time "pixels" entered the picture, so to speak). It was assumed that to avoid pixelization or moires and such, with a safety margin, 2 pixels were needed for every printing dot (which were laid down at 150 dots per inch).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halftone

It is something of an "antique myth" that doesn't necessarily apply to modern ink-jet or laser/chemical prints. Or even traditional magazine printing from digital-camera originals. When National Geographic printed their first-ever* digital-camera pictures, they produced 10" x 14" two-page spreads from a 6-Mpixel Nikon - which comes out as 214 ppi. And readers could stick their noses in those.

It should also be remembered that inkjet-printer software and firmware resamples pictures anyway on the trip from Photoshop to the printer head. My experience is that Epson, for example, prints everything at 240 ppi, and simply up-samples or down-samples (and applies their own sharpening algorithm to) the picture you send so that at the final print size, it is printing at 240 ppi. So that their pixels-to-ink-dots math is the same for any print. The resampling tends to eliminate pixelization at large sizes - the pictures get fuzzy, but they don't get blocky or jagged unless oversharpened.

Anyway, I've printed saleable prints from the M8 at 21" x 14". The M8 pix at 150-180 ppi look a tiny bit softer in fine detail (but well within the quality range of "great photographs from history"). An M10 at 240 ppi = 25" x 16.7"

_______________

* not counting the publication of pictures from the Viking Mars lander in the 1970s, which were made with a "one-pixel-at-a-time" scanning camera.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_2

 

[Peter Kilmister]

I took a photo using an M240-P and developed it in B&W. I sent it to be printed by a subsidiary of Hewlett Packard (HP). I selected 20 x 30 (thinking that everyone is metric these days) and it arrived as 20 inches by 30 inches ... roughly 2.5 times my request. It is mounted in a frame and is on my study wall. HP are a US company and the US is the only country still using non-SI units. I am embarrassed to say that there are other examples; UK uses Imperial pints for milk and beer (love it! ... not a short measure US pint) and miles rather than kilometres. France uses "pouce" as a measurement for stone. A pouce is a thumb = an inch. The whole world still measures vehicle wheel and tyre diameters in inches. Curious!

Anyway, as normal, I digress. The 20 x 30 inch (52 x 76 cm) print has no visible grain and if that can be usable from the M240, what may be possible using the sensor of the M10?

A very small attachment has been added to give you some idea of what rural England looks like in March. Stark but beautiful.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Rick in CO]

On 6/24/2019 at 11:49 AM, adan said:

The standard for excellent quality in a print has traditionally been 300 pixels per inch.

But that really grew out of high-end glossy magazine production from the first film scans 40-45 years ago (the first time "pixels" entered the picture, so to speak). It was assumed that to avoid pixelization or moires and such, with a safety margin, 2 pixels were needed for every printing dot (which were laid down at 150 dots per inch).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halftone

It is something of an "antique myth" that doesn't necessarily apply to modern ink-jet or laser/chemical prints. Or even traditional magazine printing from digital-camera originals. When National Geographic printed their first-ever* digital-camera pictures, they produced 10" x 14" two-page spreads from a 6-Mpixel Nikon - which comes out as 214 ppi. And readers could stick their noses in those.

It should also be remembered that inkjet-printer software and firmware resamples pictures anyway on the trip from Photoshop to the printer head. My experience is that Epson, for example, prints everything at 240 ppi, and simply up-samples or down-samples (and applies their own sharpening algorithm to) the picture you send so that at the final print size, it is printing at 240 ppi. So that their pixels-to-ink-dots math is the same for any print. The resampling tends to eliminate pixelization at large sizes - the pictures get fuzzy, but they don't get blocky or jagged unless oversharpened.

Anyway, I've printed saleable prints from the M8 at 21" x 14". The M8 pix at 150-180 ppi look a tiny bit softer in fine detail (but well within the quality range of "great photographs from history"). An M10 at 240 ppi = 25" x 16.7"

_______________

* not counting the publication of pictures from the Viking Mars lander in the 1970s, which were made with a "one-pixel-at-a-time" scanning camera.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_2

 

I agree with ADAN.  I have several 16x20 inch prints from over the years on my walls.  My long-gone M8 was a stretch to get 16x20, my M9 barely did it, and my M10 gets it done nicely.  

[rjsphd]

I have a ~24x40 inch  print hanging in a place that it is viewed from about 8 ft. It was professionally printed by a well-known lab in my town.  I get compliments on it all the time.  Even up close it is sharp enough that pixels do not come to mind at all.  It was shot with a M240, hand-held, from inside a boat.  And it is cropped.  

[Revolver]

I have been printing 11x14 this year with images taken on the M10 and they look great up close and far away. Just use a good printing service and I’m sure you can do twice that size and still get a good image.

[Gobert]

1 hour ago, Revolver said:

I have been printing 11x14 this year with images taken on the M10 and they look great up close and far away. Just use a good printing service and I’m sure you can do twice that size and still get a good image.

Cm’s?

[mradey]

I’ve had 24x36” prints turn out very nicely from my M10 (and M Monochrome). Certainly good enough to hang on my walls at home. 

[ERA23]

Hey to kind of revive this topic. I have recently printed a 60 x 80 cm picture of tokyo city scape from my Canon 70D (20MP, shit low light performance) and it turned out amazing. Next time i'll defently do a gloss print but overall you can notice any IQ problems other than the lower MP count from a APSC sensor and lower pixel count. 

You also have to remember that when you hang it you will always stand 1m away (3 feet ... 'murica does it worse) so your eye doesn't have the ability to see the difference. Print away my friend the bigger the better in my opinion especially with Leica IQ! Also make sure that when you export from Lightroom CC you select the correct PX!

 

To further expand have you ever considered image enhancing software ? Like affinity or Photoshop, you can upscale images like that! I Does anyone here know about it and could advise ?

[jaapv]

Photoshop is totally simple: set to the desired print size, ppi 240 and the interpolation to  "automatic"

[mike3996]

I have a couple of 20"x30" prints taken with 24-megapixel Q and MP240 cameras. You can really pixel peep these with a loupe if you wish. Makes me very confident I could pull 30x45 easily because the assumption is that you don't peep larger prints.

 

Of course you shouldn't peep a 20x30 either, what's the point. I fully subscribe to the golden rule of "8 megapixels suffices in every normal case*" ... that's what is essentially needed when you look at a print at a "proper" distance. https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/minimum-resolution-calculator/

 

* The distinct exception being when you make these huge "Where's Waldo" type of detailed prints. Then you need 100 MP very quickly no matter the system.

[Jeff S]

And much less than 8mp needed for billboards.... see above link.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Herr Barnack]

On 7/6/2019 at 7:17 AM, rjsphd said:

I have a ~24x40 inch  print hanging in a place that it is viewed from about 8 ft. It was professionally printed by a well-known lab in my town.  I get compliments on it all the time.  Even up close it is sharp enough that pixels do not come to mind at all.  It was shot with a M240, hand-held, from inside a boat.  And it is cropped.  

Most of the time there is no need to print larger than this.  When there is, the Q2 with its 47mp sensor comes to mind, if the 28mm focal length will work for the subject in question.

We Leica photographers are in the promised land, as the M240, M246, M10 and Q2 certainly get it done in terms of high quality big prints.

The holy grail of "small camera, big pictures" is alive and well; the big pictures will only continue to get bigger and better as M camera technology soldiers on.