Large Prints

[Kyle Bybee]

How large can the XT1 sensor print without loosing too much detail?  Is it feasible to use the XT1 to print large landscape photos...say 30x40 inches and a little bigger? 

[Patrick FR]

Hi Kyle

You might be interested to follow this thread: http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/587-making-prints-from-fuji-x-trans-files/

[Dis]

How large can the XT1 sensor print without loosing too much detail?  Is it feasible to use the XT1 to print large landscape photos...say 30x40 inches and a little bigger? 

IMO you can print any size. 300dpi is relevant only when viewing from close distance. You won't be viewing 30x40" from 2'.16MP is enough to print 15x10" which is maximum format you want view from close distance. 24MP will provide some space for cropping while you need perfect conditions and best lenses at their optimal settings to resolve such high pixel count.

[Paul Crespel]

I regularly print A0 (850 x 1200 mm) for exhibitions, and even viewed closely, photos taken at 25,600 ISO are stunning.

 

Convert your file to a 300 dpi TIFF file first.

[jlmphotos]

I've printed so far up to 24" x 18".  And they are beautiful and I am a Pixel Peeper!  Now, with that said I use raw which I'll assume you do as well.  Also, the image was photographed on a tripod, self-timer, or remote (can't remember details), Fuji lens, optimal aperture, so on and so forth.  So there was quite a bit of work put in to the image before the raw was processed in LR.  I believe it all helps the final result.

[Paul Crespel]

Hi Jim, I shoot JPEG, hand-held, at night, ISO 25,600 (no RAW at that setting) and no post processing, just conversion to TIFF for printing.  The printer says he could print 2A0, which would be 47" x 66" with no problems - however, A0 (33" x 47") is as big as I need for most exhibitions. 
I cannot print that big from my Canon or Nikon files.

[Paul Crespel]

A0 portrait with subject - commercial - super quality - printer said he could have easily doubled the size of the print without any loss of quality.

[Paul Crespel]

A0 portrait with subject - commercial - super quality - printer said he could have easily doubled the size of the print without any loss of quality.  X100 series sensor, similar to X-T1.

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!

[Naddan28]

Wow, great to hear and see such large prints being made Fuji X cameras!

[Larry Bolch]

Pixels are much over-rated. A decade and a half back, I was shooting with a Coolpix 990, at 3.34MP. I shot a close-up portrait of a Macaw and a friend wanted a print of it so I gave him a copy of the file. I was shocked when he said he had it printed at 24×36! Eventually, I visited him and was amazed at the quality of the image. From anywhere in his living room where it hung, a casual viewer would never question the lack of detail. Certainly my X-Pro1 would show a lot more crispness and detail if prints were side-by-side and viewed at reading distance. At normal viewing distance, not so much.

[Reactivestills]

I travel to Thailand every year as my wife is Thai, One year we decided to go to Chiang Rai up north and we happened to stop off at a large shopping centre.

Upstairs there was a photography exhibition / store. It is owned by a couple I'd say in their early 50's with small to very large prints for sale all taken by this couple.

 

I purchased 3 prints to bring home they are that nice. I would normally not buy other peoples work to hang in my own house.

 

I was blown away at the beautiful images that were on display and we got talking - Turns out the gentleman and his wife had travelled all over Thailand for the past 15 years taking images on only point and shoot Olympus camera's with anything from 6mp to 8mp files. He had only just purchased his first dslr that month and was just getting used to it.

 

https://www.facebook.com/AniwatGalleryThailand/photos/ms.c.eJw9zskNRDEIA9CORjiErf~;G~;iiWOT7ZLJia23Ps3JsVP9DuUW1WctCbF~;u2zgHckx6zl2fJ~_M~;XzMi8lyE7502~_7O~_~_YP~;IvJ~;bb~;aVg~;dD9wFa~_~_Cv35tzf~_x80pD7~;Qf9e4z2Dw4MQYg~-.bps.a.189326117773622.47498.189309734441927/197949013577999/?type=3&theater

 

If you are ever in Chiang Mai Central airport plaza, they are on the top floor, superb images - The photo from the link is old and nothing compared to what I got to see when I was there.

[CRAusmus]

In a seminar I took last year, a professional photographer confessed that the photo he sells the most of was taken with a 3mp point and shoot camera.

 

Really wish the 24mp and up crowd could get this through their heads.  It won't make them better...If you are having trouble blowing up your pics now, perhaps its the photographer, and not the camera that's the problem...

[Paul Crespel]

I still regularly use my Epson RD1s.  It is 11 years old, and has 6MP.  I print and display up to A1 23" x 33", and I could double it without any problem.

As CRAusmus says, MP count is meaningless. 
Another thing to consider is the printed dimensions should never reflect the perceived importance of a photograph, but only the distance from which it will be viewed.  If you view a postcard from 2 feet away, or a 24 x 36 from 8 feet away, they will both seem identical in size.  Try it, put one small one in your hand, and stand 8 or 10 feet from a larger image, and move the small one backwards and forwards in front of your eyes until it seems to be exactly the same size as the larger one.
Size is for viewer distance, and also, with distance, printed dots become less critical.

Camera manufacturers use psychologists to advise how best to sell.  Adding "Pro" or increasing pixel numbers is a marketing ploy, and has very little real effect on the printed photograph, but people WANT to believe it, and just follow like sheep

[lysander]

How large can the XT1 sensor print without loosing too much detail?  Is it feasible to use the XT1 to print large landscape photos...say 30x40 inches and a little bigger? 

 

Watch this: 

How Many Megapixels In A Billboard

https://youtu.be/UCaZt5ndRW0

 

[milandro]

pretty accurate way of showing that facts and science cannot counteract urban legends or “ perception” .

 

As we have seen in politics, enumerating facts cannot seem to change the mind of at least a percentage of the general public who, no matter what and against all proof will stick to a political savior of their choice.

 

 

Same thing is for the pixel myth. There is no way to make people understand that if you buy a camera with higher pixel count that that is going to slow down your computer and require an upgrade which would be completely unnecessary for a great portion of the public.

 

 

I have yet to understand why people get so hung up buying the latest model when they shoot the same things that they shot (poorly at times) with their previous model, other than displaying their capability to do so.

 

Their motto is like in the ad “ not because I have to but because I can” ....

 

 

[Safari]

I have printed a few pictures from my X-M1 and X-T1 at 24" x 36", completely satisfactory.

The first few were jpegs right out of the camera, 72 dpi.  One printer told me he thought I might be "pushing it a bit" but really they were completely satisfactory at a viewing distance of less than 12 inches.

Since I now shoot raw+jpeg, I processed the next few files from raw to jpg at 300 dpi.  That same printer now tells me the largest he can print them is 4' x 6' - because his printer can't do larger, though the files are good enough.

 

I fondly remember my 2nd paid gig, food, with an 8 mp camera.  The "art director" expressed grave doubt as to whether the resolution could meet his standard - "Can't you please use film?"  In those days of dial-up modems I uploaded 100 highly compressed rough proof images (about 500kb each) with promise to give him edited high-resolution files when he made his selection.  Heard nothing for a month, so I followed up.  "What?  No, those were terrific, thank you!!!!"