Printing digital pictures

Handruin

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
14,043
Location
USA
Has anyone used any of the online services such as snapfish or shutterfly for printing their digital pictures? I'm interested in printing both an 8x10 and a 20x30 picture and was looking for any feedback.

Second question: Could I get away with printing a 20" x 30" image using a digital image captured at 8MP (from my canon 20D)? Would the resolution be too high for that megapixel size?
 
8 MP should be fine for a 20*30 print (assuming you aren't doing much cropping). It depends on what distance it's going to be viewed from as well.
 

The image content has a lot to do with what the minimum "acceptable" spatial resolution (X,Y in pixels) should be.

One can print an acceptable 20x30-inch from 4 or 5 megapixels as long as there are no objects in the image with sharp contrast edges. A natural continuous tone image (as opposed to a graphic like a logo, sign, etc) doesn't require a lot of pixels to look acceptable.

As a side note: The unfortunate thing about so-called affordable digital still cameras in recent times has been the emphasis on pixels count. Much of the time these designs trade precious dynamic range for a higher pixel count. The physical size of the photosensor stays the same from the previous model to new model, but the pixel (a.k.a -- "pel" or picture element) count goes up, which looks good on the camera's specification sheet to the neophyte photographer.


 
Several of the ladies in my office use such services. I've seen 4x7s and the like and they pretty much look like photo prints. Just like Walgreens and the like, sometimes they screw up and misprint your stuff, but usually they only screw up one print instead of a whole roll of film.
 
Mercutio said:
...I've seen 4x7s and the like and they pretty much look like photo prints.
Click to expand...

The wallet-sized, 5x7, and 8x10 prints those commercial establishments produce *are* on regular ol' photo paper. The machines that produce them are mostly Fuji, Konica, Noritsu, and Agfa mini-labs -- with Fuji being the clear leader in such equipment these days. Those machines can also produce prints from negative and slide film as well.

The original mini-labs that popped up in the late 1970s and early 1980s were just enclosed automated darkrooms. Those used conventional light sources and lenses for imaging.

The new "digital" mini-labs that took over in the late 1990s look nearly identical to the old-school mini-labs, but nowadays there is a computer or two sitting nearby along with a small film scanner that can handle consumer film. The imaging capability within the digital printer is now usually done with lasers, though light valves or special ultra-fast high-resolution CRTs have been used in the past.

In both types of mini-labs, conventional photo paper is used because it offers the best quality and the lowest price.


 
I used a self-service instant-prints kiosk at WalMart once (the wife was hounding me for hard copies). The prints were not on photo paper, and the colors sucked elephants balls. I was mad, but the line to get an attendant's attention was about 2 miles long. Threw away the prints, went to Costco where they use them machines and photo paper like you said, and the results were damned good.

The largest print I've had made was an 8x10 at Costco from my trusty ole Oly C-4000 4 MP camera. Beautiful spontaneous pic of my wee one.
 
mubs said:
Want to be spanked, fella? I was referring to my young un (don't you go off half-cocked now) - my 10-year old.
Click to expand...

One of your preferences is spanking (Spanking the monkey?); Or is it fella's; or both? Obviously, you must have had a transplant 10 years ago: It's the only thing that makes contextual sense. I'm sure that Mub's always satisfies his woman and never goes off half-cocked.

Yes, it is dirty and definately sic.
 
You have special talent, Mark.

You can take a perfectly innocuous remark and make it all dark and dirty. You're not a puritan who snoops around looking for scum, are you?

What's wrong with spanking?

What's wrong with fella?
fel·la
(plural fel·las)
n
man or boy: a man or boy (informal)
[Mid-19th century. Alteration of fellow .]
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with half-cocked?
half-cocked
adj
1. with the trigger in locked position: used to describe a single-action firearm with the hammer half-raised and locked so that the trigger cannot be pulled
2. unprepared: lacking adequate planning, thought, or preparation

go off half-cocked to start doing something too soon, especially without adequate planning (informal)
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Click to expand...
If you'd rather ascribe dark and dirty meanings, go right ahead and ruin your day.

I have no idea what you mean by "Spanking the monkey" and "transplant 10 years ago". More nonsense, like the rest of your post. And contextual sense is something you don't seem to understand.

And look at you - after saying that I'm dirty and sick, you turn around and comment on my sex life. So that's okay to do, I suppose. But when DD pokes fun at me and I get stern with him, that's "dirty and definately sic". It's very clear whose mind is sick here.

P5-133XL's post should be not be deleted; let the record speak for itself.

This place is definitely going to the dogs with these self-appointed commentators and censors. No wonder so many regulars aren't regular anymore. Maybe it's time I saved my bandwidth as well.
 
mubs! What's up? Mark's post was clearly done in the same vein as my own, a good-natured and dirty play on words, just taken a bit further. If you aren't up for that kind of thing <cringe>, just let us know and I'll clean it up a bit.
 
Now Mub's,

you obviously didn't understand, virtually anything of what I said. Sorry, if I offended you: It wasn't intended as anything other than, rather raunchy, humor.
 
It sounds like most of the places online probably use the same printing techniques. The built-in service for flickr says that I need an image size of 4500 x 3000 in order to print something at 20x30...that's why I was worried my images might not be large enough. I'll give it a try with an 8x10 and see how it comes out. Thanks for the info, I'll let you know how it comes out.
 
Handruin said:
The built-in service for flickr says that I need an image size of 4500 x 3000 in order to print something at 20x30...that's why I was worried my images might not be large enough.
Click to expand...

Ideally, you will want to give them an image that size. But that doesn't mean the camera sensor needs to be capable of capturing that much data. You should interpolate it up to that size yourself.

Depending on how much effort you're willing to put in, you should do a RAW conversion to that size (if you have the RAW file). The primary reason in this case would be so that sharpening doesn't get applied until after the interpolation is done (jpegs are always sharpened at least a little in the camera). Sharpening an image and then interpolating generates artifacts and actually reduces edge detail.
 
I do have it in RAW format. I didn't realize it was better to up-sample the photo to that size before shipping it off to be printed. I'll try enlarging it and then doing the processing work to see how it comes out. Thanks for the info!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top