# Printing Large



## Replytoken (Feb 2, 2013)

I have been accepted for a local show this summer at a neighborhood cafe that has some really great wall space for exhibiting work.  This will be my first "show" of my personal work.. Much of what I shoot that gets used is "grip and grin" type photos that find their way into newspaper articles, brochures, reports, etc.  The show is mostly an opportunity for me to share my work with friends, family, colleagues, neighbors, and the cafe's customers for a month. I have no plans to sell any pieces, and I am still in the process of selecting the final images I want to display, but I am at a point where I am starting to question some of my logistical assumptions.

My initial plan was to display approximately two dozen images.  I have previously set up some small displays in my office, and found that I really liked placing matted 11x14 images in 16x20 frames.  I think the balance between the mat and images shows well, and I like that images are comfortably visible at a distance of 4-6 feet. I had hoped to use this arrangement for the show, because it allows viewers to enjoy an image without having to get real close, a potential issue when somebody is sitting at a table directly below a piece trying to enjoy their food and drink.  But, several people have suggested that I take advantage of the large wall space and have a few large, high-impact images on display.

I normally use 300-360 ppi as my gold standard for printing, and have probably never dropped below 200 ppi when I have had to push a file as far as I was comfortable.  I have also kept most of my printing under 16x20.  The three primary sources for my images are from a Nikon D300, a Panasonic G3, and a large body of 35mm film and transparencies which could be scanned.  I know that viewing distance is a key factor in getting a handle on this equation, but I have a personal bias against images that seem to fall apart when viewers get up close.  I know that any recommendations and advice are subjective, but I would really like to hear from others who have printed large images from similar source files.  Am I being too conservative?  My time to experiment is very limited, so I cannot easily conduct trials.  I could stick with 11x14 images, but I would hate to pass up an opportunity to "go big" if it can be done right.  Any words of wisdom would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

--Ken


----------



## Tony Jay (Feb 2, 2013)

Ken, how large you can print, and therefore what minimum PPI is appropriate, is largely image dependent.
Some images will still look great when printed large enough to drop the resolution to 180 PPI.
Simply put, other images will start to look odd at that resolution.
In general, highly detailed images will tolerate less "stretching" than less detailed images.

There is no specific science to this other than to print large prints and see how they look.
If they look good to you and others, great, if not, print them smaller.
Ultimately, you may be pleasantly surprised just how far you can go particularly with very large prints that have to be viewed from a distance.
With practice you will start to get an excellent feel for what sorts of images tolerate "stretching" and which images will not.

Tony Jay


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Feb 2, 2013)

I can only repeat what Tony's said.  I remember printing 24x30 inch prints from a Canon 10d... 6.3 megapixels, complete with heavy crop.  The bigger prints actually looked better than some of the mid size ones, simply because you stood further back to see the whole image.

You can always do a small crop of part of the image, stick it on the wall some distance away, and see how it looks.  Saves doing big test prints.


----------



## Replytoken (Feb 2, 2013)

Tony and Victoria,

Thank you for the advice.  I normally do what you both have suggested, but usually the final product is not as big, nor is the total amount of images nearly as large.  I was hoping to take advantage of a sale on framing supplies that ends this weekend, but that may be difficult.  One more question, are they any considerations I need to account for in LR if the final size is significantly larger than my normal output.  I had assumed that if an images was processed well, that my work would scale up with the images.  Does one need to process an image differently for large printing?

--Ken


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Feb 2, 2013)

LR will pick the best resizing algorithm when you export to the final size, so you should be fine.


----------



## Replytoken (Feb 4, 2013)

Quick update.  I took a friend's advice and ordered a couple of 20x30's from Costco.  I picked them up last night, and all I can say is "WOW!".  I normally do not print that large, but I will be doing select images at that size when the situation calls for it.  Costco prints on Fuji paper with an Epson 7800 series inkjet, but for under $10, it makes a great proof.  Thanks for the advice!


--Ken

P.S.  @Victoria - When exporting, I normally do not tell LR the final print size, and just export the images cropped to the desired print ratio.  A bad habit that I should correct?


----------



## Mark Sirota (Feb 4, 2013)

Ken, what you're losing by not resizing on export is that you're not taking advantage of two of Lightroom's strengths:

(1) If you let Lightroom do the resizing, it can work from the raw data, and therefore can theoretically do a better job because it can resize in linear space (before gamma correction).

(2) Lightroom's excellent export sharping algorithm depends on knowledge of the output size. If you don't resize to the final print dimensions, the sharpening algorithm will be less effective, because the printer will resize after sharpening, while Lightroom can resize before it.

Whether either of these makes any significant visible difference can certainly be debated, of course...


----------



## Replytoken (Feb 4, 2013)

Thanks for the explanation, Mark.  It sound like it's a habit worth correcting.  I can use all the help that I can get.

--Ken


----------



## Replytoken (Feb 25, 2013)

A quick update.  I had to print another 20x30 proof print, so this time I let LR resize the image on export.  I shipped the file, which was about 50MB, to the same Costco for an Epson 7880 inkjet print.  When I compared the two images, they looked almost identical.  Granted, this particular image's subject matter was very limited in tonal range and color, so I am not going to make any kind of conclusion from one print.  But, if Costco is able to resize an image and get similar results from an Epson 7880 as a LR resized file, then I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if I was not able to do my resizing in LR.  I am anxious to try out a few more images, and from commercial printer as well.

--Ken


----------

