Wall Sized Prints

Published by: rose 2009-01-07

Wall-size reproduction of a photograph - Time Out Chicago::
Home remedy: Wall-size reproduction of a photograph. 773-395-4639) where you can pay $12 per square-foot to print on a roll of 60-inch-wide photo paper.
http://www.timeout.com/chicago/articles/home-living/69717/wall-size-reproduction-of-a-photographHOME

Hi, I was just offered a job doing a print to be blown up and put on a 9' x 30' wall. I was asked if I could do it in a digital format. From my understanding there are many digital cameras that can shoot in a quality for that size. I would like to know 1. If I use a Medium format film camera, which type might suit the job. 2. Is there a digital camera that can produce that kind of quality? Thanks.

Nah what these guys are saying is a load of crap. You can't take a photo like that without spending at least $1 million US on a camera.

Good now that I was temporarily on the band wagon I don't understand the first few responses. Looking at it in context you are asked to take one big photo or is this an ongoing thing? Will the company pay for your camera? If not disregard everything that was said above as it's a financially stupid suggestion for a once off.

To the point take into account what Alex B and jstuedle said. Specifically the lack of requirement for stupidly large resolutions, and the ability to make panoramas. Now take a 350D, use the excuse that you need to make a large landscape to buy yourself a $200 panoramic tripod head. Set it up to rotate around the lens nodal point, and get to work. I have a 450mpx image here taken with my D200, cost me about $30000 less than it would to buy a medium format camera and do it. The results are spectacular regardless.

Mind you if you need to take photos of something moving then you're stuffed.

Difference is that both of these are full size 36 x 24 mm CMOS sensors. So you have much larger pixels, and can make the picture much larger.
Sorry but this has nothing to do with the final size of the image, and only has to do with the pixel luminance quality and signal to noise ratio. A 10mpx camera is a 10mpx camera if the correct lens projects a sharp picture onto the sensor.

You might also want to consider the expectations of the client and/or viewer. While many photographers may be critical of an image that isn't what they would consider sufficiently sharp...I'd guess that the majority of non-photographers wouldn't be so critical.

This is very true. People do tend to overestimate the level of sharpness needed in large prints. Though I do think it tends to boil almost entirely down to viewing distance. I've seen people do billboards at 96dpi.

I shot a few images for a local hardware chain that were printed on their delivery trucks. I shot in the stores paint department using a D1X in raw and processed the resulting 10 MP files. The final image (with text and logo's) was edited and up-sampled 5 to 8% at a time until a 11 ft. X 5 ft. image @ 100 DPI TIFF was created. From 15-20 feet the image was stunning. But up close, from a few feet it was obvious I should have used MF film. (when I shot this, most MF digital backs were 6 to 10 mega-pixel max.) These trucks would pull up in a clients drive and the image would be viewed by people walking on the towns sidewalks. If there is a remote chance anyone will view your image up close and personal on a regular basis, I would print at 150 DPI and up-sample as little as possible.

9' x 30' means 3m x 10m, right?

It depends on how far form the wall you are supposed to look at the result, I think this is not supposed to be seen from 10" distance... so if pixel is 1" width, it's ok.

In that case, it would be more effective to speak about angular resolution. (sorry, not sure about exact terms in english, please correct me)

So, as said by Garbz & Alex, assembling 10mpx pictures will do the job.

It depends on how far form the wall you are supposed to look at the result,
This in an important factor. You can print at 60 PPI, and it will look great from the right distance.

Hey guys, remember, for wall sized prints you do not need 300 DPI, not even 100 ;)

You can blow up any 10 to 20 MP image to a wall sized print by using upscale methods e.g. in photoshop.

Of course the image you start with has to have a reasonable resolution (not talking of pixels here, but of real resolution: get a good lens, use a tripod and low ISO, this is far more important than hunting for those 10 more megapixels)

If I use a Medium format film camera, which type might suit the job. 2. Is there a digital camera that can produce that kind of quality? Thanks.
I realize you are asking about cameras but I think you should consider attacking the problem from the other end, the printing services. There is no point in obtaining a gazillion pixel photo file if there is no printer to handle it.

I use http://www.udevelop.com/ (no affiliation) who have scanned 4x5 negs for me into 80MB tiff files. Although this was a ho-hum no sweat job for them, coming from the analog darkroom world, I had a lot of knowledge to gain in the realm of what can and cannot be done in the print process. And I sincerely believe from there, your format and camera choice will suddenly become apparent. I suggest you poke around their web site to get an appreciation of what kind of equipment is available then talk to your local pro printer as they have probably the same or similar equipment.

How to Make LARGE Wall Posters / Prints from Your own Photos ::
Ltlprints.net automated website will also seamlessly cut around people's bodies to create life size wall prints of your favorite athlete, models,
http://www.squidoo.com/Large-Wall-Posters-and-Wall-Stickers-from-your-PhotosHOME

(Aside & further, if you use PS, check w/your printhouse for soft proof files available soas to exactly match your scene to your printer/paper choice.)

Here's what you need.

EOS-1Ds Mark III, medium-format threatening resolution; 5616 x 3744 (21.1 million) pixels, for just Under $7000.

Sorry, but 21.1 million pixels is nowhere near to threatening a half decent medium format 6x6, 6x7 or 9x9 frame that is correctly exposed, with the camera on a rock solid support and taken on fine grain slide film.

Either borrow or hire a medium format (or maybe large format camera) for teh shot and get the slide professionally scanned or take Garbz' advice.

Thanks for the help, it's a landscape shot, so the panorama may be the best way to go. I'm also going to look into the medium format film and digital ans see which will work best.

Here's what you need.

EOS-1Ds Mark III, medium-format threatening resolution; 5616 x 3744 (21.1 million) pixels, for just Under $7000. :lol:

Or a used EOS-1Ds Mark II in at 16.7 million pixels. Probably under $5000

Difference is that both of these are full size 36 x 24 mm CMOS sensors. So you have much larger pixels, and can make the picture much larger.

As someone else suggested, you might be better off, expense wise, with a medium format camera, super fine grain film and then pay for a professional, very high resolution scan?

If the people who want this photo are willing to pay for a camera rental, that would make life much easier.

This sort of thing is done with large format film all the time, it's called a mural. Still, A thirty foot print is pretty damned big.

I really don't think a digital print at 9x30 is going to look very good.

But if you really want one, large format film and paper is the way to go.
Using an 8x10 inch view camera, and enlarging to 30 feet long is still the equivalent of enlarging a 35mm film shot to a 42 inch wide print.

It won't be fine art sharp, but it can be done. To see what the final resolution will look like, you should actually blow up a section of 35mm film print to 35 times enlargement (on 8x10 paper), and show that to your client.

With film, it can actually be done fairly economically too.

An 8x10 camera can be purcahsed for under $1000 with a fairly nice lens, and sold for pretty much the same as you paid for it, after you are done.

The cool thing about a view camera, is that you can use it as an enlarger by pointing it at the wall, and shining a very bright diffuse light source through the film, while mounted in the camera. It's how Ansel Adams made his mural prints, and still usually how it's done by amateurs making murals today.

Film costs between a buck and 7 dollars a sheet, depending on whether you are using colour, black and white, etc..etc..

A 42 inch wide, 100 foot long mural roll of paper in black and white will cost 250 bucks, give or take. That will cover 9 feet by 30 feet....JUST!

Murals are generally done using either a garden sprayer for the chemicals, or a length of PVC drain gutter with endcaps (yes, the type along the roof of your house). Something this size would necessitate the sprayers, so plan to do it in an area you can get wet.

Something 30 feet long will require at least three people, each using a garden sprayer and covering ten feet each. Be sure to wear masks when spraying, as the chems will really get into the air.

That still means you'll need SIX tank sprayers, three for developer, three for stop.

Rinse each one out, then fill all six with fixer and off you go. Final wash with a garden hose. Squeegee, and allow to air dry.

Roll up each one carefully and mount at your clients house. The image should align fine, even without registration marks.

Consumables (film, paper, chemistry) should run you less than 400 dollars, assuming you don't screw it up, and have to redo it. Rent or buy a view camera, with the sharpest lens you can get, and build a lighthead out of a bank of fluor. lights to use your viewcamera as an enlarger, and then do your thing, (after alot of further research and planning).

Um I guess you missed the part where the OP said his client wanted a digital file. By the way if you decide you want to go digital medium format here is a good way to go.

http://www.adoramarentals.com/Home.aspx

Shoot medium format film & get a fat wet mount laser drum scan.

-Shea

Thanks for the help, it's a landscape shot, so the panorama may be the best way to go. I'm also going to look into the medium format film and digital ans see which will work best.

I go to trade shows with my wife who is into embroidery. Most of these are printwear and graphic/sign shows. I troll the graphic side while she does her thing. There are several printer manufacturers that cater to the sign business that build 10' and 12' printers. They use a solvent based ink by the bucket full, and can print 12' wide X several feet a min. in length. Print cost is a fraction of a dollar per square foot because the ink is very cheap compared to what we are used to. It's amazing to watch these things work. A print from one of these is a lot cheaper, in vivid color, and faster than wet photographic silver halide process. The downside, I don't know what the expected print life is. The input files are 100 DPI and print output is from 100 to 1200 DPI depending on speed and quality desires. These all use digital files, most are from medium or large format cameras with digital backs. The large format cameras have a back adapter that is usually a 6 CM. X 6 CM digital back that is moved from point to point , then stitching the images together to make one large format digital file. Because your image is in panoramic format, a Hasselblads (cheap these days) and a rented digital back, 21 to 39 M.P. would work well. I would think is your best bet. If "best" is not in your budget, a DSLR 10 MP or better, turned up portrait style using a 50mm lens and stitching 6 or 8 frames together will give you something acceptable. Depends on if your client wants best, or good enough.

Sorry, but 21.1 million pixels is nowhere near to threatening a half decent medium format 6x6, 6x7 or 9x9 frame that is correctly exposed, with the camera on a rock solid support and taken on fine grain slide film.

Either borrow or hire a medium format (or maybe large format camera) for teh shot and get the slide professionally scanned or take Garbz' advice.

Last thing I wrote in my message... you might be better off, expense wise, with a medium format camera, super fine grain film and then pay for a professional, very high resolution scan :)

A 10mpx camera is a 10mpx camera if the correct lens projects a sharp picture onto the sensor.

That's news to me. The pixels are different sizes. That's like saying a disk film camera photo has the same quality as a 35mm shot, with the same film, made into a 4x6 print. They are not the same.

Smaller 7mp sensor, on a P&S means smaller pixels, if the same number are on the larger 7mp sensor of a DSLR.

When you make the smaller pixels larger, you lose.

Try reading this.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

Your choice of sensor size is analogous to choosing between 35 mm, medium format and large format film cameras-- with a few notable differences unique to digital technology.

:hugs: This will also fit your needs.

A pretty good camera for panoramic shots. (http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm)

oh man... i could only DREAM of seeing one of my photos that big someday... congrats on that, and yeah, medium or large format film would probably be best.. whats the photo of?

I talked to someone who makes the 'prints' that go onto the side of buses...it was only 60 or 70 dpi.

Well I'm sure his wall is not going to be driving 30 Mph on city streets...lol

The only camera that can work for yah is this:

http://www.gigapxl.org/

good luck... (I'm joking).

Garbz and Alex are on the money...

This is very true. People do tend to overestimate the level of sharpness needed in large prints. Though I do think it tends to boil almost entirely down to viewing distance. I've seen people do billboards at 96dpi.
I talked to someone who makes the 'prints' that go onto the side of buses...it was only 60 or 70 dpi.

This is very true. People do tend to overestimate the level of sharpness needed in large prints. Though I do think it tends to boil almost entirely down to viewing distance. I've seen people do billboards at 96dpi.

certainly, I stated this in an earlier thread, in narrow rooms or corridors, printing for a wall might mean people are just inches away from the print ... and then you need a lot of resolution.

But this is not the common case.

I vote for a good dslr and lenses

A good scan of medium format 6X6 will net you 81 M.P. Shoot a panorama with 3-4 frames over-laped about 20% and you could wind up with a 200 M.P. (not megabyte) file to work with. The file size would be closer to a 800 M.B.TIFF. Do your part with the camera, and get a good scan, you will have more than enough digital data to work with. OTOH, you could rent a Blad H3 w/39MP back and start from there.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/graphics/tut_digital_sensor-sizes.png

"bigger is better" when it comes to image quality and digital sensors.http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/size_matters.html

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/sensorsize2.gif

I think that John has the right idea.

If the profit margin won't allow for the film and drum scanning, determine what amount of detail is acceptable and use your best lens at a distance that will give you the pixel density needed and stitch what you need together. (you already know this but @300 pixels per inch 3000p will give you 10 inches at max resolution and the math falls into place after that ;))

Be sure to keep the horizontal/vertical axises and distance constant or in other words- don't try this at home with out a good tripod.

Viewing distance is critical. Is someone is going to be ANYWHERE near the wall, you cannot get away with using a normal dSLR. In that case you'd need to shoot medium format or large format film, have the negs drum-scanned, and then stitch together. Alternatively, you could shoot with a Hasselblad H3 and stitch together, though I've heard much more praise for the Leaf Aptus backs than the 39MP PhaseOne back. If people are viewing the wall from any closer than you'd ordinarily view a billboard, then do not...i repeat...do not....use a regular dSLR. It's easy to swayed by self-righteous dSLR owners who insist that their cameras can do anything and everything; they're quite convincing at times. In the case of an image this big being viewed from a short distance, they couldn't be more wrong.

sure. you could use a medium format digital camera...but they're as expensive as a car. A NICE car...

Medium format film will be fine...

haha, yeah, that, and people will be a lot closer to it at all times i would imagine. When you look at a bus print close up (within a few feet) you'll see the dots, and i dont think that what you'd want

Nortel Unveils Vision, Strategy for Israeli High-Performance Net
Busy Friday Leads to Strong Close for Net Stocks

You are looking at:gigj.com's Wall Sized Prints, click gigj.com to home

#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.#