What resolution for an image to be printed on a wall?
Discussion
As above, it depends what you're after.
Any image can be printed to any size but if you want to retain close up detail then you're going to need a very large res file.
That's not to say a 10mp image wont look good, but it's going to be soft close up. But then you have to think, if you're printing something so big, it's not going to be viewed close up. You wouldn't be able to see the whole thing from 2ft away.
For reference.. ^ that is a 16mp image to scale on the size of print you need, so you can see just how much it would need to be enlarged. Even the highest res of cameras is going to need enlarging.
Any image can be printed to any size but if you want to retain close up detail then you're going to need a very large res file.
That's not to say a 10mp image wont look good, but it's going to be soft close up. But then you have to think, if you're printing something so big, it's not going to be viewed close up. You wouldn't be able to see the whole thing from 2ft away.
For reference.. ^ that is a 16mp image to scale on the size of print you need, so you can see just how much it would need to be enlarged. Even the highest res of cameras is going to need enlarging.
Edited by MysteryLemon on Wednesday 22 January 15:15
This is a really good question/topic.
Try to imagine that image size and resolution are linked and are inversely proportional.
Remember when you were a kid and you drew on a balloon when it was inflated? Then you deflated it and the image/whatever took on a super dense detailed little illustration.
And inversely, you drew again on the flat balloon - yet when you blew it up, that image became super thin, weedy and unimpressive?
That's the direct correlation between resolution and size. You can trade off size and res for your requirements, within reason.
Large res with low size means you can trade off some of the large res for an increase in size - lets say 600dpi at 10x10 could then go to 300dpi at 20x20
Large size and low res means you can reduce the size and increase the res - 100dpi 6x6 could go to 300dpi at 2x2
Having said that, magic things can happen whereby, for example a 10x10 image at 300dpi could be upscaled to maybe, or even past 15x15 at 300dpi - this would involve the use of specialist photoshop plug ins or by getting a good repro place to handle the size change.
300dpi is accepted as minimum for hi res/print. Basically you want to make sure your image is effing massive at, say 72dpi, then trade off some of the massive size for an increase in res.
For example, a 10ft x 10ft image at 72dpi will trade off to be about maybe 3.5ft x 3.5ft @ 300dpi. But then again I'm still on CS1 so photoshop might automagically take care of all this these days... best you ask a pro!
Try to imagine that image size and resolution are linked and are inversely proportional.
Remember when you were a kid and you drew on a balloon when it was inflated? Then you deflated it and the image/whatever took on a super dense detailed little illustration.
And inversely, you drew again on the flat balloon - yet when you blew it up, that image became super thin, weedy and unimpressive?
That's the direct correlation between resolution and size. You can trade off size and res for your requirements, within reason.
Large res with low size means you can trade off some of the large res for an increase in size - lets say 600dpi at 10x10 could then go to 300dpi at 20x20
Large size and low res means you can reduce the size and increase the res - 100dpi 6x6 could go to 300dpi at 2x2
Having said that, magic things can happen whereby, for example a 10x10 image at 300dpi could be upscaled to maybe, or even past 15x15 at 300dpi - this would involve the use of specialist photoshop plug ins or by getting a good repro place to handle the size change.
300dpi is accepted as minimum for hi res/print. Basically you want to make sure your image is effing massive at, say 72dpi, then trade off some of the massive size for an increase in res.
For example, a 10ft x 10ft image at 72dpi will trade off to be about maybe 3.5ft x 3.5ft @ 300dpi. But then again I'm still on CS1 so photoshop might automagically take care of all this these days... best you ask a pro!
Wow! May need a rethink.
Its just for a small shop. Theres a really plain white wall on one side of the shop which we were considering covering with some sort of picture - maybe of a skyline of some sort. People walk right past the wall close up but I was considering getting the picture and having a designer friend apply some filters or blurs to the picture to hide the lower resolution since its more to cover up the blank wall than like a high quality piece that people will study.
Failing that I'm really not sure, lol.
Its just for a small shop. Theres a really plain white wall on one side of the shop which we were considering covering with some sort of picture - maybe of a skyline of some sort. People walk right past the wall close up but I was considering getting the picture and having a designer friend apply some filters or blurs to the picture to hide the lower resolution since its more to cover up the blank wall than like a high quality piece that people will study.
Failing that I'm really not sure, lol.
ReaderScars said:
Having said that, magic things can happen whereby, for example a 10x10 image at 300dpi could be upscaled to maybe, or even past 15x15 at 300dpi - this would involve the use of specialist photoshop plug ins or by getting a good repro place to handle the size change.
Thats pretty much what will have to happen.If we could only print images at the resolution they are taken at at 300dpi, we would never be able to do anything sensible with them. For example. A 4:3 ratio image at 16mp would roughly equal a 15" x 11" print at 300dpi. We can enlarge this to whatever size we like using interpolation but because you are using a computer to draw in the extra pixels you don't have, it can only take a good guess at it and so we end up with soft and pixelated images.
Walk right up to any large format (as in billboard) poster and you will see that any photograph will indeed be soft and pixelated. Viewd from a foot away, it will look s
t, but viewed from 30m away, like it's supposed to be, it will look as clear as the original 15x11 print would have.ItsTony said:
Wow! May need a rethink.
Its just for a small shop. Theres a really plain white wall on one side of the shop which we were considering covering with some sort of picture - maybe of a skyline of some sort. People walk right past the wall close up but I was considering getting the picture and having a designer friend apply some filters or blurs to the picture to hide the lower resolution since its more to cover up the blank wall than like a high quality piece that people will study.
Failing that I'm really not sure, lol.
So get a decent res image (the original, uncompressed, from the camera, not something you like the look of on google images) and get it enlarged and printed to the size you like. Its just for a small shop. Theres a really plain white wall on one side of the shop which we were considering covering with some sort of picture - maybe of a skyline of some sort. People walk right past the wall close up but I was considering getting the picture and having a designer friend apply some filters or blurs to the picture to hide the lower resolution since its more to cover up the blank wall than like a high quality piece that people will study.
Failing that I'm really not sure, lol.
For your purposes, it will likely look awesome.
Simpo Two said:
I bet that's at 300dpi though - you could drop to 100 IMHO, making it 9x larger instantly.
Still not a goer though.
Irrelevant though as if the printer prints at 300dpi, their software will interpolate the 100dpi image to 300dpi before printing and you'll end up with much the same result.Still not a goer though.
You might as well provide them the 300dpi image. Of course, it depends at what res the printer prints at. They may only print at 150dpi etc.
The DPI you need will depend on the viewing distance. Print a billboard and you could get away with 75 or 100 DPI as the viewing distance will be further than a photo hung on the wall of a gallery where viewers will be right up viewing it.
To get a reasonable photo resolution viewable close up to fill a wall that size you'll need a huge resolution, which will need the output from either large format film, or the latest digital backs, Phase One IQ series or Leaf Credo.
Two real life examples, at Go Outdoors in York they've got a landscape down the back wall behind the tills, it is huge, and from further back in the shop looks great. When you've paid and are heading out you get close to it and realise it looks st as it is a small file blown up.
On the other hand Phase One has a display stand they use at Photokina and similar exhibitions, it is a cityscape taken with one of their high res backs and fills an exhibition stand. You can be stood right next to it and still picking out the tiniest detail, as it will have been shot on an 80Mp back.
To get a reasonable photo resolution viewable close up to fill a wall that size you'll need a huge resolution, which will need the output from either large format film, or the latest digital backs, Phase One IQ series or Leaf Credo.
Two real life examples, at Go Outdoors in York they've got a landscape down the back wall behind the tills, it is huge, and from further back in the shop looks great. When you've paid and are heading out you get close to it and realise it looks s
t as it is a small file blown up.On the other hand Phase One has a display stand they use at Photokina and similar exhibitions, it is a cityscape taken with one of their high res backs and fills an exhibition stand. You can be stood right next to it and still picking out the tiniest detail, as it will have been shot on an 80Mp back.
MysteryLemon said:
Simpo Two said:
I bet that's at 300dpi though - you could drop to 100 IMHO, making it 9x larger instantly.
Still not a goer though.
Irrelevant though as if the printer prints at 300dpi, their software will interpolate the 100dpi image to 300dpi before printing and you'll end up with much the same result.Still not a goer though.
You might as well provide them the 300dpi image. Of course, it depends at what res the printer prints at. They may only print at 150dpi etc.
ItsTony said:
Wow! May need a rethink..
Maybe you should take to a repro/print outfit before writing anything off. Copy the image to a USB stick, ask them to assess it to see how big they could take it before it start to break up.Alternatively hire a camera with the best image size capability and take a photo with that? Then see if the repro/print shop can scale that up instead?
MysteryLemon said:
Walk right up to any large format (as in billboard) poster and you will see that any photograph will indeed be soft and pixelated. Viewd from a foot away, it will look st, .
I've no idea how these huge prints were shot or printed:t, .http://www.flowersgallery.com/exhibitions/flowers/...
but I went to see them yesterday and the close-up detail of the lives that go on IN these high-rises
is unbelievably sharp.
Simpo Two said:
Nikon D800 (36Mp) is probably the best bet this side of MF-land. And/or take several shots and stitch?
The multi shot option could lend itself to a more creative image or display.Each section of the image could have a different hue and they could be arranged in a non regular layout or something, maybe individually framed individually. Just a thought.
Elderly said:
MysteryLemon said:
Walk right up to any large format (as in billboard) poster and you will see that any photograph will indeed be soft and pixelated. Viewd from a foot away, it will look st, .
I've no idea how these huge prints were shot or printed:t, .http://www.flowersgallery.com/exhibitions/flowers/...
but I went to see them yesterday and the close-up detail of the lives that go on IN these high-rises
is unbelievably sharp.
EDIT
Seems I was wrong; have done some digging and from this site
https://www.lensculture.com/articles/michael-wolf-...
it seems that he used a digital film back on a view camera:
"Wolf positions himself on rooftops or in the windows of opposing buildings to get the most amazing vantage points for each scene. He waits for perfect light at the time of day when twilight and interior light render the building walls nearly invisible. An incredible large format camera with a 112-megapixel digital back captures and reveals exquisite details. It's a stunning combination."
Edited by AnonSpoilSport on Wednesday 22 January 20:35
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff