Buying a large format printer doesn't automatically guarantee big prints. Understanding what "big" really means and the considerations involved in producing large-scale photographs is crucial, particularly if you're planning to print at exhibition sizes.
Coming to you from Keith Cooper, this practical video looks at what it genuinely takes to produce enormous prints using Epson SureColor SC-P20500 printer, capable of handling 64-inch wide paper. Cooper walks you through a single-shot image taken with the Fujifilm GFX100S, illustrating precisely why choosing the right camera and lens combination matters when aiming for detailed, large-format prints. Using Epson Premium Luster paper, Cooper demonstrates not only the technicalities involved in printing but also discusses the practical challenges, such as handling large prints without damaging them. The video further highlights the importance of accurate exposure settings to retain details, especially avoiding clipped highlights in challenging lighting conditions. Understanding these nuances helps you avoid common pitfalls when scaling up your photography.
Cooper also explores the raw processing techniques that contribute significantly to the quality of such substantial prints. He shares insights into using Adobe Camera Raw cautiously, emphasizing the avoidance of excessive highlight recovery due to potential halo effects. The conversation about using DxO PureRAW for preprocessing to manage shadow details and noise reduction adds valuable perspective, especially if you're struggling with image quality in large-format prints. Additionally, Cooper explains the advantages of using software like Gigapixel AI, which enhances resolution effectively for printing at higher pixel densities. This practical advice about software choices and image preparation techniques is directly applicable if you're looking to maintain sharpness and detail integrity when printing at scale.
Expanding on this, Cooper provides a compelling example of converting a large color print into black and white using Nik Silver Efex software. The technique he discusses—going back to the original raw file rather than converting an edited color image—offers significant control over tone and contrast. This method ensures you retain the intricate details necessary for impressive monochrome results. Cooper’s tips about paper selection also add another layer of valuable expertise. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Cooper.
"What It Takes to Make Truly Huge Prints".... a really huge printer.
I'm not sure why his emphasis on technical image qualities is any different between a small print and a really large print. I certainly don't approach making my photograph with the intention of a large print in mind. Highlight and shadow detail are important, no matter the print size. Of course chromatic aberration, or color fringing, and halos become more noticeable at larger sizes, but it's generally easily fixed in raw editing of the original, no matter the print size.
A few additional thoughts:
Really large prints of the size he's talking about are often made for wall murals on some sort of wallpaper vinyl or canvas, not fine art paper. The Epson printer he's using in this video is a pigment printer... great for fine art prints, but prints that large don't generally fall in the category of fine art. Wall murals or large canvases are typically printed on latex or eco-solvent printers where the number of ink cartridges is less, but the durability and fade resistance of the ink is greater. And for those jobs, print resolution is almost always lower than when printed on a fine art printer, in which case, a 36-45 megapixel original upscaled in Topaz Gigapixel AI to the size of the print at 150 PPI will work just fine.
I've sold numerous floor to ceiling wall murals on vinyl, but I've only had one customer since I can remember buy a fine-art print at the size larger than my 44" printer. That was a 60" x 90" and when they got the cost estimate from the picture framer for the acrylic, they nearly fainted.
Oh… one more thing. He’d like to sell you that big print, but told you in the beginning that the Epson print head hadn’t been cleaned, and left some flaws in the print. A print made at an Epson demo center no less. Good grief. If ruined prints from clogged print heads drive you nuts, buy a Canon printer. Their wide-format pigment printers (mine is the 4100, since replaced by the 4600) incorporate an ink system when if one nozzle is clogged, a backup automatically takes its place, all on the fly. In the slightly less than a year that I’ve owned this printer I have not had a single ruined print because of a clogged print head.
I get what you mean about technical image qualities between small and big, and your saying generally it shouldn't matter. What I find is that when I take a shot to my larger TV screen, all of sudden I might see a technical issue I may have missed even on my 24' smaller monitor. Sometimes you probably need to zoom into every section of the photo. On the other hand: If one is just posting to the socials, or fstoppers where your photo is being softened anyway, and a HD version is not being printed large or seen large anywhere, one does not need to scrutinize it so much. I think the world photographers generally live in, is the latter, and less so the former. Prints are a luxury...
No such thing as a typical photographer. We all have different expectations, and customer requirements if selling our images. Of course posting to social media or anything electronic lowers the bar. But once you get into selling prints, the requests for sizes and printing substrates are all over the place. Unless you create a website with just a couple size and paper options, or use a print-on-demand provider which essentially takes care of all that, people inevitably want to purchase larger prints.
For my commercial art buyers and interior designers, the sweet spot is typically about 24*36, but every so often, they want something really large. If my picture is not sufficient quality and resolution to print well to at least 40*60, I don't post it on my website. Virtually all old photos pre Nikon D800 are excluded. For wall murals, we always have a discussion about their expectations because nobody except other photographers examine them up close.
Speaking of viewing distance, I'm not sure how you can edit photos on a large TV screen. I would think it should be the other way around where you would do the detail work on a 24" 4K, or 27" 5K monitor. PPI is more important for what I see on the monitor than overall size.
I must completely disagree about the size helping your work flow. It happens to me often where I'm editing my photo on my 24' monitor. But it's not until I see it on my 50', that I go... 'Oh wow, I missed that issue that needs repair here and there'. or 'Man, I didn't see that'. My HDTV is also connected to my computer, a 50' Visio with really great color and black levels, I forget the model, and does really well about showing you an overall feel what the picture would look like at 2 to 3 feet wide, as if printed. On the larger screen you can stand or sit in front of it and just gaze and think about aspect changes, or spots to remove, lighting to improve. Generally I'm doing that after the wife goes to bed, because this is her living area. A 4KTV or Monitor has a resolution (generally 3820x2160 pixels), if your PPI comments are trying to say that a larger screen would not have enough 'Pixels per inch' at 4K? I would definitely argue against this.
The best way to check is to print a draft. You can start with the areas of the work you're unsure about, using a calibrated printer you have access to, and only then print the full piece. I haven’t found any other way to achieve the desired result.
But it truly is a luxury. The production cost of a large-format work, when following this kind of process, can easily reach $3,000—especially when mounting and framing are included.
Printing large prints is not difficult. I print my works ranging from 80x120 cm (32x48 inches) to 180x120 cm (70x48 inches). The issue is not technical, although the camera takes on special significance. What comes to the forefront are entirely different questions:
How does scale work? How does the perception of the piece change, and how should one shoot to ensure the enlargement justifies the effort put into it?
How does the perception of colors, contrast, and saturation shift with the increase in photo size?
How should the work be presented to enhance the impression? Mounting, framing, printing full-size drafts—everything matters.
And finally, how to package the work so it reaches the buyer safely. Perhaps, that’s the most important part. :-)
The main issue with trying to do large prints, are that there are no cameras available that can offer enough resolution to hold up to such a large print size. It effectively needs a stitched image to get at least get a few gigapixels.
With that in mind, a big print for a GFX100s that would still look reasonably sharp, would probably be more in the 20x15 inch range though that would still be pushing things.
This question is a bit more complex. In my experience, the 60MP sensor of the Leica SL3 is sufficient to create a detailed piece sized 70×47in (180×120 cm) at 300dpi without any perceptual flaws. But in most cases, that level of resolution is excessive, since no one views works of that size from a distance of just 20 inches (50 cm). And the larger the piece, the farther the viewer tends to stand. That’s why for very large-format prints used in exhibitions, 100dpi may be perfectly adequate.
Theoretically, a 24MP image is sufficient to produce a 60×40in (150×100 cm) print at 100dpi—adequate for an undetailed photograph intended to be viewed from a distance of 5 to 6.5 feet (1.5 to 2 meters). However, the subject, the style, and the quality of micro-detailing required in the print is crucial.
Here is me and my 70x47/300dpi draft )
The viewing distance, subject of the photo, printing substrate, and customer expectations all impact how large I feel like I can print one of my images. Impressionist images like yours here could probably go as large as anyone could ask for, and upscaling software will fill in the pixels just fine.
The Fuji GFX100s captures a resolution of 11648 x 8736 (102 megapixels). If you print that image at 300PPI, you'll get a print size of 38" x 29" so I'm not sure where you get such a small print of 20" x 15" as "pushing things." You could take a 20 megapixel camera and make a perfectly sharp 20 x 15 inch print.
I've been printing fine art prints ("TruLife" non-reflective acrylic in AdobeRGB) with exquisite detail, and no, you don't need 300 dpi. Any professional lab will tell you that over 240 is overkill, and your eyes will max at around 200 anyway.
I'm showing a 20x30 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw4DmobSRK0
and also a 22x40" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOq4svw1gJk
at time point 14:17 which was printed from a less than 20 megapixel crop and has more detail than the average person will notice.
And various other large and medium size that I've shown over time, 6-7 years ago I was showing 13x19s excellent prints from a 5 mp pocket camera.
Most of my "high res" prints that the average person needs a magnifying glass to see all details are not over 180 dpi. (for reference, a 32" 4K monitor is 140 ppi).
I did my first few large prints (20x30 and 24x36) in 1989-1994, alas I left them in Greece.
But the MOST IMPORTANT thing in a large print, it has to be personal and interesting (your life, not just generic "walmart" landscapes).
It has to be playful too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N763qPGTuig
PS. I NEVER used "gigapixel" or AI (for most of my prints they didn't even exist at the time) - in only 1 print I used traditional Photoshop upscaling without any tricks. People with no experience in large prints always tend to do "too much", a lot more than a detailed and elegant print requires.
I agree that some techniques or strategies employed in making a print are overkill. However, the manner of upscaling is not one of them. I never felt that upscaling in one step with Photoshop produced satisfactory results... and certainly not compared to other methods. Before Topaz Gigapixel, there was Genuine Fractals Perfect Resize, and then OnOne Resize. I've used them all, with visibly better results than Photoshop. Even without 3rd party software, I would get a much better enlargement by upscaling in Photoshop at 10% increments, rather than a single step leap from one size to another.
I only used upscaling once (for the 22x40) for the sake of intertonal details. Not by much, because it was unpredictable (at some point a 40% increase with 180 ppi was better than a higher one - details in the image started to become different things, if they were not ultra clean from the beginning).
But I didn't have to use it ever since. Prints like 20x30" are not an everyday thing. And the smaller ones (13x19 and smaller) don't even need that many pixels.
Can you tell the difference between 150 ppi and 300 ppi? Because what maters is the dpi of the printer, not the ppi of the image, if it's 150 and above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxHYOjEo89Y
"Can you tell the difference between 150 ppi and 300 ppi?"
Might depend on the paper. As said earlier, I don't need more than 150 PPI on canvas, vinyl, or jobs printed on other flat bed printing where, as you say, the resolution of the printing device is lower.
As far as the work that I do on my inkjet printers at higher resolutions, I think I could tell the difference between 150 and 300 PPI images, but I would not bet the house on it for every last picture. I can certainly test that though, and will be happy to follow up with the results.
Definitely depends on the paper, and most papers don't really respond to high resolution anyway... if one prints with the typical cheap luster, it's impossible to expect visible resolution higher than 110 dpi, regardless of printer settings.
On my "good prints" I prefer high quality bright metallic paper (even at night the prints look almost illuminated) and thin non-reflective acrylic coating.
I use that metallic even for small prints and they look like little pieces of art. And it matches my monitor exactly in luminance at 100 cd/m2.
Of course, for the large 5x7 holiday batches it's just "cheap lab and luster" :-)
But one mistake many do is luminance. Most YouTubers I've seen produce dark, moody prints, because i) their monitors are too bright, ii) they forget that prints are not back-lit, iii) they underestimate the importance of bright colors and good paper. That cheap $1.5/print luster looks incredible if you hit it with a bright file (even if the same file looks too bright on the monitor).
That's an interesting video. I've used Artbeat Studios for metal prints and it's the first time I've seen a print provider state 150 ppi as a recommended image resolution instead of 300. I went to their website and, sure enough, 150-300 is what they advise. Makes sense for dye-sub metal prints... I'd still be surprised if it holds true for glossy paper.
In my experience, bright high gloss metallic and you can tell between 140 and 300 if you look closely. You can still tell from a distance from the overall feel of the print (although you may end up choosing the lesser one, for aesthetics)... But you can't tell, even with an ordinary magnifying glass, between 180 and 300. The difference in size without upscaling is huge:
A) 27x18 @300 = 45x30 @180.
Every file that I've send since 2017 for 13x19 and over, as long as it's around 150 at least, I don't touch it further. I know that the lab printer is set higher than that, so all of the 150 pixels will be printed (but with more dots).
Ideally if printing, wouldn't you want to print at (and have the resolution to back it up) the highest DPI your printer is capable of? Usually when most people view an image, while they may look at the whole image from a small distance, usually the next step is getting much closer and examining some of the smaller details.
While it is a difficult goal to reach given how limited current sensors are, it will go a long way to making prints pixel/dot peeping friendly.
Printing at the highest resolution that your printer is capable of may, or may not, have visible benefits. You really have to know your printer, and printing is as much art as science. I've had both Epson and Canon inkjet printers and they define resolution in their print drivers differently. My Epson gave specific numbers for print options: 720, 1440, or 2880 dpi. For the most part, I could not detect any difference in detail between 1440 and 2880. The only occasion where 2880 was noticeably beneficial was in solid areas, a bright blue sky for example, where I could get some very subtle banding in a 1440 dpi print. But those are printer technology issues... not level of detail in the print.
My Canon 4100 only gives me three quality choices: draft, normal and best... presumably coinciding with printing resolution. It's pretty much the same story... no discernible difference between normal and best settings. Of course, there's no harm in printing at a maximum quality setting. However, it does slow the printing speed down considerably, and probably uses extra ink. How much additional ink, nobody seems to have a definitive answer, but ink is definitely not cheap so I wouldn't take the chance of wasting it by printing at a higher quality setting than necessary.
I agree, details are very important. I examine them with a loupe (magnifying glass) constantly. For my photography, I've used a Nikon D800E for 12 years. The image resolution is 7360 x 4912. So if my focus is good and use a tripod, I can make a sharply detailed 16" x 24" print at 300 PPI without any additional upscaling. I can start to see a very slight difference in the quality of detail at 27 x 40, and progressively more as the print size gets larger. It's simply a matter of what becomes acceptable to you, and the customer if one is involved. I've never had a complaint about the quality of my 40 x 60 prints, but as has been stated by others, most people aren't standing next to a 40 x 60 examining them with a loupe. Pictures that large are typically going into public areas as decorative wall art.
For my needs, the 36 megapixels from my camera serve me well. I wouldn't earn one more dime in sales by having a higher resolution camera (my larger client prints are acceptably sharp as is) and prints for my own personal collection made on either 13 x 19 or 17 x 22 paper are as sharp and detailed as they will ever get, regardless of new technology. In other words, a 102 megapixel camera isn't gonna make a better 16 x 24 print than from the camera that I already have..
My newer printer is a Canon Prograf 4100 – 11-color, 44 inch inkjet printer. The printer boasts, in addition to all the standard 8 or 9 colors, an additional red and blue ink cartridge that supposedly widens the color gamut. Epson appears to be adding violet, orange and green inks. I have yet to see the benefit of any of that. Gotta have something, I suppose, to convince users to upgrade. The paper or printing substrate seems to make far more impact on those really bright saturated colors than the ink. I mean, try getting a really bright red to pop on an OBA free cotton fiber paper, no matter how many reds you have in a printer.
I tip my hat Sir. Impressive machine.
hmm, this question has come up before, but I think going large versus megapixel sensor size was not as much as worry as people try to speculate. That is one of the reasons why newer modern cameras have not improved their megapixels specs. Albeit it is video and electronic-shudder might be on peoples minds. Even the video above did use Gigapixel-AI to upscale his image before printing though. hmm, haven't tested anything like that myself.
Going large (presumably you're talking about print size) and megapixels is only as much of a concern as any one person wants it to be, or is able to discern the difference. I see details in a print that most people don't. Certainly my customers don't... I'm trained to look; they're typically happy with anything. Details are not the reason they bought the picture... they buy it for the "big picture," or the subject matter, if you will. We've had that discussion. It will repeat in many instances.
I want my close-up vision to be razor sharp, and so far I'm lucky to have that physical ability. However, I haven't had an eye exam in ten years, and I know my long-distance vision is not as sharp as it used to be. But it doesn't matter to me. I wouldn't want to see in 20/20 vision or better anyway. I prefer things with a slightly blurry edge when looking out into the distance. Too sharp is too busy. Maybe that's the way some people see prints. They might not even be able to visually distinguish detail, or care that they can't.
Megapixels are rarely a concern, as the above video from Artbeat Studios shows. What is definitely of concern is color. That's where most fail in their prints: White Balance and Tint. Especially when skin tones appear in nature and you're going either for realism or for something aesthetically attractive. Most people don't have hardware-calibrated monitors because they think the difference is small - it's not.
Finally it's the self-training of the creator himself: I've thrown away and reprinted 13x19s for color issues that nobody else in my environment could see - it was only me.