How many MegaPixels to print 8X10

"John Enockson" wrote
Using my Canon A40 Powershot I recorded macro photos of a shell at about
1.4 megapixels. Putting this file through photoshop and setting the
resolution at 300 DPI I created several examples that were now 200-300
megabytes in size and printed out as 24X36 posters. The color,
resolution and contrast were all manipulated in Photoshop and the
resulting prints show no sign of pixelation. The input is somewhat
immaterial if you have the ability to manipulate the output and have
access to a quality printing service.
John

Yeah okay, sure pal. Your 1.4 MP camera is just as good as a 1000 MP camera.
I suggest you're better off investing in eye glasses than a quality printer.

"tk" wrote in message news:DJSVc.33854$Fg5.30664@attbi_s53...
I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the minimum
amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.

For Photographyc resolution on photographyc paper(without fractal or
bicubic interpolation):
6 mpxl for a average/good print
8 mpxl for excellent print

Ciao
Germano

tk wrote:
I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the minimum
amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
Many of
the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is this
accurate?



It all depends on how picky you are about image quality.
In general, MORE pixels are better....BUT...
I have made nice 8 x 10s with my 2 MP camera.
I have made better 8 x 10 images with my 4 MP camera.
Your print quality is also highly dependent on the printer AND the paper
you use to print on.
A rule of thumb many of us use for excellent quality prints is:
At least 240 pixels/inch. (8 x240) X (10 x 240)= 4.6 MP
However a good photo editor can resample your image from 4.0 to 4.6 MP
with NO discernible degradation in quality.
Good 4-5 MP cameras are so reasonable today, that I would go for a 4-5MP
rather than try to save a few bucks by dropping down to 3.2
Bob Williams

tk wrote:
I am looking into buying a digital camera and would like to know the minimum
amount of megapixels it would take to print a good quality 8 x 10 print.
Many of
the manufactures literature state that 3.2 megapixels is enough. Is this
accurate?



It all depends on how picky you are about image quality.
In general, MORE pixels are better....BUT...
I have made nice 8 x 10s with my 2 MP camera.
I have made better 8 x 10 images with my 4 MP camera.
Your print quality is also highly dependent on the printer AND the paper
you use to print on.
A rule of thumb many of us use for excellent quality prints is:
At least 240 pixels/inch. (8 x240) X (10 x 240)= 4.6 MP
However a good photo editor can resample your image from 4.0 to 4.6 MP
with NO discernible degradation in quality.
Good 4-5 MP cameras are so reasonable today, that I would go for a 4-5MP
rather than try to save a few bucks by dropping down to 3.2
Bob Williams

grim wrote:


Yeah okay, sure pal. Your 1.4 MP camera is just as good as a 1000 MP camera.
I suggest you're better off investing in eye glasses than a quality printer.


Hey Grim...
Open your mind to possibilities. Even a relatively cheap flatbed scanner
and a grossly under exposed negative can produce what you say cannot be
done. http://www.technoaussie.com/big_prints.htm

Ryadia

grim wrote:


Yeah okay, sure pal. Your 1.4 MP camera is just as good as a 1000 MP camera.
I suggest you're better off investing in eye glasses than a quality printer.


Hey Grim...
Open your mind to possibilities. Even a relatively cheap flatbed scanner
and a grossly under exposed negative can produce what you say cannot be
done. http://www.technoaussie.com/big_prints.htm

Ryadia

Ron Hunter wrote:

Ron Hunter wrote:

NOT my theory, just the concensus of the pros in the newsgroup. Most
people would be happy with 150 ppi and up, but then most people don't
routinely print 8 x 10 (certainly I don't), and if they do, they view
them from a few feet away, rather than scrutinizing them with a loupe as
the pros seem to do. BTW, ANY time you print from the computer, the
image data is modified by the driver software, and again by the printer
hardware.

It's called interpolation, Ron.

Your insinuation that "Pros in the newsgroup" are somehow different from
Pros who make a living from their work is putting down people you don't
know. A major part of my business is taking relatively small image files
and producing 8x10 and larger photos from them. I charge for the
service. I doubt I could sustain that part of my business in the area I
trade, if the quality was not there.

If you ever bothered to explore the process of enlarging digital images,
you just might realise that company's like Durst (who produce the Lambda
laser powered photo printers) or their customers who pay $250,000 for
the equipment, could not exist without interpolation software. They
could not exist either if they had to rely on "Pros in the newgroup" who
are all too willing to post messages claiming what these machines do,
cannot be done. I think they put their Loupe in the wrong end of their
body most of the time.

The purpose of a loupe in a professional photographer's kit is to check
sharpness of transparencies and "see" what the trannie has without first
getting a print enlarged from it. There is absolutely no value to
anyone, to use a loupe of any magnification on a print you can't even
see the edges of unless you stand back to look at it.

Ryadia,

The printer is the weakest link. If you are using a dye sub printer 3.2 is
great. Some ink jet printers may not be able to produce a good 4 x 6.
Commercial labs can print a very good 11 x14 or even 16 x 20 from a 3.2 MP
camera.

EF in FLA wrote:
Why is that tree branch blocking the lighthouse on that calendar cover shot?
That pole on the left side should have been cropped out too.

ef

Because it is not a picture of the lighthouse! The lighthouse is a
'prop' in the scene, just as the people sitting in front of it are. The
picture is of a recrational area in the Redlands of Queensland
(Australia) and that is what the photos inside the calendar seek to
portray...
This is a picture of the lighthouse:
http://www.technoaussie.com/gallery/...s/lighthouse_1

Ryadia

Often one does not want "detail." I have taken lots of informal portraits at
the lowest definition setting on my camera. The 8 x 6 " prints look quite
nice, and are kind to complexions.
rjf

"grim" wrote in message
...
"Ryadia" wrote

If what you say is true Ron (and it is not) a Canon 10D with a 6 Mp
sensor could not produce an 8x10 print. Rubbish! I frequently make A3
and A2 size prints from my 10D files. The new printer I have, along with
Photoshop produces prints (so far) 20" x 34" with no evidence of digital
break up.

Then your pictures don't have much detail in them. A 6MP camera making
20"x34" prints will be using about 83 ppi. At that resolution, an image
with
detail in it (like a landscape) would certainly show blurring. If you hang
the print on a wall that's a fair distance away from the observer, they
wouldn't be able to tell. But close up, it would not look very crisp.

Then again, different people have different standards, so if you're happy
with it...