What file size is big enough for photo quality 8 x 12s?

Digital · April 27, 2004

Before I go out and buy some CF memory cards for my first and new digicam, I'd like your opinion based on actual experience.

My Olympus C-5060, as some or most cameras, can take pics in TIFF, RAW, SHQ, HQ and even lower levels...then again at various sizes and formats (4:3, 3:2, etc).

All of my prints will be 4" x 6" with some of the better ones at 8" x 12".

What file size produces a photo (film) quality 8" x 12" enlargement?

At the moment, I have my digicam set to SHQ 3:2 (2592 x 1728). Most files are about 2.5 Mb in size. Will this produce what I am looking for?

If so, why would I want to take a pic in TIFF or RAW? Are the colors better? Would I even notice? To produce a larger enlargement than 8x12?

Thanks...again,
Digital

HarveyMushman · April 27, 2004

I'm sure others can give you more substantive answers but, in general, your 5mp digicam set to SHQ (jpeg) is more than capable of creating images suitable for 8x10 prints. You can use the RAW format as well, and may ultimately create better images that way, but you need to have a firm idea of what you are doing with regard to post-processing (the digital darkroom).

cletus · April 27, 2004

Digital wrote:

Before I go out and buy some CF memory cards for my first and new digicam, I'd like your opinion based on actual experience.

My Olympus C-5060, as some or most cameras, can take pics in TIFF, RAW, SHQ, HQ and even lower levels...then again at various sizes and formats (4:3, 3:2, etc).

All of my prints will be 4" x 6" with some of the better ones at 8" x 12".

What file size produces a photo (film) quality 8" x 12" enlargement?

At the moment, I have my digicam set to SHQ 3:2 (2592 x 1728). Most files are about 2.5 Mb in size. Will this produce what I am looking for?

If so, why would I want to take a pic in TIFF or RAW? Are the colors better? Would I even notice? To produce a larger enlargement than 8x12?

Thanks...again,
Digital

Boy, nothing like questions with set in stone answers

The rule of thumb seems to be for decent quality results you need to have 150 pixels per inch and for professional (whatever that means) quality results you need 300 pixels per inch. So for an 8 x 12 we get:

Good Quality (150 ppi)

8 x 150 = 1200
12 x 150 = 1800

So we need an image that is 1200 by 1800 (just over 2 MP) or better

Pro Quality (300 ppi)

8 x 300 = 2400
12 x 300 = 3600

So for professional quality we need an image that is 2400 by 3600 (around 8.5 MP)

Your SHQ images at 2592x1728 will make 8"x12" prints at 216 ppi. I seriously doubt that you could tell the difference between a digital print and a film print at that resolution.

For me, I don't really see a reason to shoot TIFF. I either shoot JPEG or RAW. I'd explain my view on RAW vs. JPEG, but I've got to go to lunch! Try searching the forums here for info on RAW and JPEG.

Baldy · April 27, 2004

The guidelines I often read are like Cletus said, but my own personal experience is different.

Last year I went to shoot cars at Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance and I didn't realize the owners would order such huge prints and place them in very prominent places. I cringed because I used a 10D (6 megapixels) with the quality (compression setting) set to medium and they were printing 20x30s.

Worse, cars are hard to print because of the hard shiney surfaces, the sharp edges, the fine lettering in the license plates, etc.

Worse, I lost some pixels due to cropping before printing.

Here's one that the owner printed 30x20 from a 2912x1941 image:

I have one of those printed at 20x30 in my house to show people when they ask about dots per inch and compression. Everyone shakes their head when they see the photo, moves their eyes as close as they can focus, and says they can see no evidence of pixelation or compression artifacts.

Whenever I hear that digital doesn't print as well as film, I produce this shot as exhibit A. I have Hasselblad pics that look that good at that size, but I haven't seen 35mm shots so sharp.

pathfinder · April 27, 2004

Digital wrote:

Before I go out and buy some CF memory cards for my first and new digicam, I'd like your opinion based on actual experience.

My Olympus C-5060, as some or most cameras, can take pics in TIFF, RAW, SHQ, HQ and even lower levels...then again at various sizes and formats (4:3, 3:2, etc).

All of my prints will be 4" x 6" with some of the better ones at 8" x 12".

What file size produces a photo (film) quality 8" x 12" enlargement?

At the moment, I have my digicam set to SHQ 3:2 (2592 x 1728). Most files are about 2.5 Mb in size. Will this produce what I am looking for?

If so, why would I want to take a pic in TIFF or RAW? Are the colors better? Would I even notice? To produce a larger enlargement than 8x12?

Thanks...again,
Digital

I print grainless 13x19 inch prints from jpgs from a 6 Mpxl 10D Like Baldy said. - the Oly 5050 large jpgs should be fine for at least 8x10 if you are shooting at ISO 100 - if you try to use ISO 400 or higher you may see noise - grain - in your images due to the higher ISO settings.

DavidTO · May 8, 2004

Digital wrote:

why would I want to take a pic in TIFF or RAW? Are the colors better? Would I even notice? To produce a larger enlargement than 8x12?

I don't think anyone would shoot in TIFF if they have RAW available to them. RAW is awesome, but more work than JPEG. It allows you much greater latitude when post-processing. You can adjust the exposure +/- 2 stops, change the white balance, and overcome major problems, such as recover highlights that would otherwise have been lost. It also allows you to convert your image to 16 bit TIFF, which is a great boon to commercial photographers, perhaps, but of questionable use to photographers like us.

I shoot RAW because I like the latitude that it affords me in processing my images. It comes at a heavy price of time, and money. You need either Photoshop CS, or C1 (phaseone.com). I prefer C1 for it's improved workflow, and it just works better for me. But, being a geek, it fits. I like to mess around with this stuff. For most amateur photographers, though, it makes less sense. It starts to make sense if you are willing to post-process all of your images. I do that anyway, even if I shoot JPEG, so the extra time for RAW isn't a big deal.

damonff · May 14, 2004

That's a great photo Baldy...wow. So clear and defined. Good exhibit A for the nay sayers.

Shay Stephens · May 14, 2004

As others have noted, one can get really good results using high quality jpg's. My experience has been that 5mp jpgs (both fine and standard compression) produce excellent 8x10's. I have 20x30 prints made from a 5mp camera that look just awesome.

The benefits of using TIFF is so minuscule, that I discourage the use of TIFF at every opportunity. The format does not belong on cameras. A fine quality jpg is indistinguishable from a TIFF and the file size is so vastly different that there is no legitimate reason camera manufacturers should include the format in any camera.

RAW is different. RAW does have benefits that make the larger file size worthwhile. Among them, ability to change exposure, white balance, and other image parameters without negatively impacting the image quality. You can often pull back an overexposed shot and actually regain detail in the highlights. There also seems to be fewer artifacts when a RAW image is converted for use. Whether or not RAW is for you are not, only you will be able to answer that. Some see no benefit in it, others embrace it with a vise grip. I personally use it on occasion, but mostly shoot jpg fine.

RAW is awesome when needed and it should replace TIFF on every new camera produced. Now if we can only get a RAW standard and decent converters from the camera manufacturers.

DoctorIt · May 14, 2004

Shay Stephens wrote:

As others have noted, one can get really good results using high quality jpg's. My experience has been that 5mp jpgs (both fine and standard compression) produce excellent 8x10's. I have 20x30 prints made from a 5mp camera that look just awesome.

The benefits of using TIFF is so minuscule, that I discourage the use of TIFF at every opportunity. The format does not belong on cameras. A fine quality jpg is indistinguishable from a TIFF and the file size is so vastly different that there is no legitimate reason camera manufacturers should include the format in any camera.

RAW is different. RAW does have benefits that make the larger file size worthwhile. Among them, ability to change exposure, white balance, and other image parameters without negatively impacting the image quality. You can often pull back an overexposed shot and actually regain detail in the highlights. There also seems to be fewer artifacts when a RAW image is converted for use. Whether or not RAW is for you are not, only you will be able to answer that. Some see no benefit in it, others embrace it with a vise grip. I personally use it on occasion, but mostly shoot jpg fine.

RAW is awesome when needed and it should replace TIFF on every new camera produced. Now if we can only get a RAW standard and decent converters from the camera manufacturers.

Amen. Well said Shay.

Andy · May 14, 2004

i'm in major agreement. i just printed my umbrella man at 6 feet by 4 feet. man, does it look good. and this is an 8 megapixel file.

lesson i learned from the shay-ster: it's all a function of viewing distance

cmr164 · May 14, 2004

DoctorIt wrote:

Amen. Well said Shay.

Agreed except for the "RAW should replace TIFF". TIFF is an encapsulating format that can include the raw data. In fact that kind of encapsulated raw data allows a codified and standard way to include the EXIF data, the camera settings, and still have all the raw sensor data.

Shay Stephens · May 14, 2004

cmr164 wrote:

Agreed except for the "RAW should replace TIFF". TIFF is an encapsulating format that can include the raw data. In fact that kind of encapsulated raw data allows a codified and standard way to include the EXIF data, the camera settings, and still have all the raw sensor data.

Ya, but what manufacturer does that? I still say TIFF is an inconsequential and unecessary format (as implemented).

cmr164 · May 15, 2004

Shay Stephens wrote:

Ya, but what manufacturer does that? I still say TIFF is an inconsequential and unecessary format (as implemented).

Kodak does it and it is very very useful. The second part of your statement is a little weird. As all of the above plus encapsulated jpgs, gifs, 8 bit (un)compressed, 12 bit (un)compressed, 16 bit (un)compressed, are all part of TIFF. TIFF is the most flexible image file format that exists. Do some googling and you will see.

Now if TIFF were as most people think it is, then you might be right. However most people's ignorance of the standard does not magically make their misconceptions into fact.

Shay Stephens · May 15, 2004

:-)
Kodak is only one out of how many camera manufacturers? The vast majority of digital camera owners currently out there do not have the benefit of a fully utilized TIFF format. For them, TIFF is bloated and useless. That is the sense I am refering to, not the potential of TIFF but TIFF as it is currently utilized for the masses out there.

cmr164 wrote:

Kodak does it and it is very very useful. The second part of your statement is a little weird. As all of the above plus encapsulated jpgs, gifs, 8 bit (un)compressed, 12 bit (un)compressed, 16 bit (un)compressed, are all part of TIFF. TIFF is the most flexible image file format that exists. Do some googling and you will see.

Now if TIFF were as most people think it is, then you might be right. However most people's ignorance of the standard does not magically make their misconceptions into fact.

cmr164 · May 15, 2004

Shay Stephens wrote:

:-)
Kodak is only one out of how many camera manufacturers? The vast majority of digital camera owners currently out there do not have the benefit of a fully utilized TIFF format. For them, TIFF is bloated and useless. That is the sense I am refering to, not the potential of TIFF but TIFF as it is currently utilized for the masses out there.

I don't actually know that Kodak is the only one. The benefits are fantastic. In the acquire module of PS or in Kodak's Photo Desk the in camera settings show on the displayed TIFFs but because the raw data is untouched, things like sharpening, WB, ev +/-, colour balance are adjustable in a visual but not cast in stone fashion. This is on their pro models. I won't be surprised to see canon and nikon converting at some point. It beats the heck out of hacks like Canon's separate thm files.

wxwax · May 17, 2004

andy wrote:

i'm in major agreement. i just printed my umbrella man at 6 feet by 4 feet. man, does it look good. and this is an 8 megapixel file.

lesson i learned from the shay-ster: it's all a function of viewing distance

:eek1 Holy cow, that's big!

tmlphoto · May 18, 2004

Resampling?

wxwax wrote:

:eek1 Holy cow, that's big!

When enlarging an image is it helpful to resample the image using a "bicubic" or other method to increase the pixel density of the image. One lab I use must print out all their digital images at 300 ppi so all of the images are "tweaked" prior to printing. Is this true for all printers. I guess the ppi varies with different printer. I have done some major cropping of images and used resampling to increase the pixel density and they look great on my monitor. Will they print out good? How much can you reasonably increase the pixel density without getting artifacts? The images straight out of my 10D are at a pixel density of 180 ppi, but at a size of about 17 x 11 inches. I figure that when I print a 4x6 picture that the pixel density is significantly higher than 300 ppi. Does the lab actually resample for a lower ppi? Comments? Is there a way to crop in PE that keeps the same size ratio, but doesn't mess with the pixel density? This post is already too long so I'll stop now.