minimum mp's for 11x14

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Pacovsky, Jul 26, 2003.

  1. Pacovsky

    Pacovsky Guest

    for a decent 11x14 print lowest possable mp required, thanks in advance john
    Pacovsky, Jul 26, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Pacovsky

    Tom Thackrey Guest

    On 26-Jul-2003, "Pacovsky" <> wrote:

    > for a decent 11x14 print lowest possable mp required, thanks in advance
    > john


    This is a very subjective question. I think the minimum ppi for OK printing
    is 180, therefore an 11x14 would require 5mp. If you think 300 ppi is the
    minimum, 14mp would be required. The formula is
    mp=(height*ppi*width*ppi)/1,000,000

    --
    Tom Thackrey
    www.creative-light.com
    Tom Thackrey, Jul 26, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Depends...on your standards and the printer you will use and the software.
    But....say you want 300 pixels per inch...that works well....3300 x 4200=
    13860000...or 13.8 megapixels.

    However...using genuine fractals I have done very nice work with posters and
    a 4 mp camera. I can see the difference...but most users cannot.

    "Pacovsky" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > for a decent 11x14 print lowest possable mp required, thanks in advance

    john
    >
    >
    Gene Palmiter, Jul 26, 2003
    #3
  4. Pacovsky

    Bernard Hill Guest

    In article <>, Pacovsky
    <> writes
    >for a decent 11x14 print lowest possable mp required, thanks in advance john
    >
    >



    Reckon 300dpi for great quality, 250 for good quality, 200 for OK
    quality, 150 for acceptable, 100 for nearly acceptable. (!)

    So at 150 dpi

    11x150 x 14x 150 = 3.46Mb

    VERY rough guide, and it varies by picture, by camera, by lens and by
    printer.

    But why not take part of your picture and print smaller but at the scale
    which would be required to see how it looks.


    Bernard Hill
    Selkirk, Scotland
    Bernard Hill, Jul 26, 2003
    #4
  5. Pacovsky wrote:
    > for a decent 11x14 print lowest possable mp required, thanks in advance john


    I printed a stunning 11x17 using a 6MP file from my D100. Printer was
    Epson 2200.

    I did not resample at all, just printed the PPI that were available.

    The printer may have done a lot of magic, I don't know. I just know
    it's beautiful.

    Ironically it's the first thing bigger than 8x10 I have ever printed in
    25 years of photography.
    Andrew McDonald, Jul 26, 2003
    #5
  6. Pacovsky

    HRosita Guest

    Hi,

    I just created a new file in photoshop 11x14, at 240 PPI.
    Comes to 2640 x 3360 pixel and a file size of 25.4 MegaBytes.
    Rosita
    HRosita, Jul 26, 2003
    #6
  7. "Pacovsky" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > for a decent 11x14 print lowest possable mp required, thanks in advance john


    In a short answer: many are happy with 200dpi when printing, all are
    happy with 300dpi.

    So at 200dpi you need a camera that does 2200 by nearly 3000 so you'd
    want just about 6MPix. If you want to use 300dpi, well that would be
    14Mpix.

    Obviously you can upsize the images through interpolation, starting
    with a lower resolution imagine, using something like Photoshop, but
    that isn't quite the same.

    Roland.
    Roland Wooster, Jul 26, 2003
    #7
  8. It depends VERY strongly on the type of picture you take and the effect you are
    trying to create.
    I shot a semi-abstract of an architectural scene with a 2MP camera and converted
    it to gray scale.
    Cropped and Resized in Photoshop to 11 X 14 at 240 ppi and printed it on Epson
    Heavyweight Matte.
    It was quite professional looking.
    I doubt if you could get an acceptable 11 X 14 with only 2 MP, shooting a color
    portrait or a scene with a lot of detail.
    Normally I send the printer a 4 MP high resolution .jpeg ( via a Canon S45)
    resized in PS to 8 x 10 at 240 ppi.
    They look as good as prints (actually better--- because of editing) I used to
    get from 35 mm film.
    Bob Williams


    Pacovsky wrote:

    > for a decent 11x14 print lowest possable mp required, thanks in advance john
    Robert E. Williams, Jul 26, 2003
    #8
  9. Pacovsky

    Don Stauffer Guest

    You are of course getting widely varying opinions, and this is
    reasonable because of one important fact - the answer depends on the
    subject matter, which you did not state. Are we talking landscape,
    here? People - machinery- abstract stuff? It really does depend.

    Pacovsky wrote:
    >
    > for a decent 11x14 print lowest possable mp required, thanks in advance john


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
    Don Stauffer, Jul 27, 2003
    #9
  10. Tom Thackrey <> wrote:

    >
    > This is a very subjective question. I think the minimum ppi for OK printing
    > is 180, therefore an 11x14 would require 5mp. If you think 300 ppi is the
    > minimum, 14mp would be required.


    is it better to do a print at 200 dpi WITHOUT interpolation or at 300
    dpi WITH interpolation?

    or let's say something in between with less interpolation?

    considering same size print.

    stefano

    --
    my photography
    http://stefanogiovannini.com

    remove "DONTSPAMME-" to reply
    stefano giovannini, Jul 27, 2003
    #10
  11. Pacovsky

    Jim Townsend Guest

    stefano giovannini wrote:

    > Tom Thackrey <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> This is a very subjective question. I think the minimum ppi for OK printing
    >> is 180, therefore an 11x14 would require 5mp. If you think 300 ppi is the
    >> minimum, 14mp would be required.

    >
    > is it better to do a print at 200 dpi WITHOUT interpolation or at 300
    > dpi WITH interpolation?
    >
    > or let's say something in between with less interpolation?
    >
    > considering same size print.


    Your printer software does interpolation and smoothing to a degree.

    The software that comes with most image editing programs does a decent job and
    there are additional programs that do a better job. Genuine fractals is one.

    Interpolation done properly will result in a less jaggy picture, but there will
    be NO more detail than there was in the original image. The only benefit to
    making up extra pixels is for smoother output.
    Jim Townsend, Jul 27, 2003
    #11
  12. Pacovsky

    Guest

    In message <1fyrcve.a8iygw1h4z9j8N%>,
    (stefano giovannini) wrote:

    >Tom Thackrey <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> This is a very subjective question. I think the minimum ppi for OK printing
    >> is 180, therefore an 11x14 would require 5mp. If you think 300 ppi is the
    >> minimum, 14mp would be required.

    >
    >is it better to do a print at 200 dpi WITHOUT interpolation or at 300
    >dpi WITH interpolation?
    >
    >or let's say something in between with less interpolation?
    >
    >considering same size print.


    200 PPI (not dpi) is high enough a resolution that blocky pixels are not
    usually a big problem. Having 300 PPI of real data is always better
    than having 200 PPI of real data, not just because of the possible
    pixellation at 200 PPI. Interpolating from 200 PPI to 300 PPI is
    actually may *lose* a small amount of fine detail, even though you are
    eliminating the potential for blocky pixels. If you print at 200 PPI,
    and can see the pixels, resample to 2x the resolution (400 PPI), not 300
    PPI. This will preserve more image detail.

    Any time that you upsample by a non-integer, you are scattering
    information in the image, softening the detail. This is especially true
    if you're working with any data that has already been downsampled from
    the camera's CCD resolution, or with computer-generated additions, as
    they can have very high contrast from pixel-to-pixel.

    Also, remember to do any sharpening *after* you reach the final
    resolution.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Jul 27, 2003
    #12
  13. Pacovsky

    carl Guest

    "Pacovsky" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > for a decent 11x14 print lowest possable mp required, thanks in advance john



    Like everyone says, it depends.

    I have a Canon S30 (3.3 mp) and I've done 8x10s which I think are just
    great, so I'm sure an 11x14 would be at least good. I've even done a
    20x30 poster which turned out fantastic (admittedly it's an
    impressionistic photo of my kid going down a slide, so detail was not
    important).

    So I'd say if you're regular type person, 3+ is fine (heck, 2+ might
    be ok). If you're a serious photographer, you'd obviously want to go
    higher. And as they all say, how much detail do you want?
    carl, Jul 28, 2003
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Airline Pedestal

    FA: 8x10 ART COLOR NATURE PHOTO 11x14 FRAMED NEW

    Airline Pedestal, Aug 8, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    517
    Airline Pedestal
    Aug 12, 2003
  2. brian

    Image Shot With 11x14" *Digital* Format

    brian, Nov 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,769
    Chris Brown
    Dec 1, 2003
  3. larrylook

    Best way to print borderless 11x14

    larrylook, Dec 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    702
    Conrad Weiler
    Dec 20, 2004
  4. HIKER4LIFE

    11x14, no way??

    HIKER4LIFE, Dec 31, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    1,005
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    Jan 7, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    701
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page