Upsize digital photo's for printing and framing?

[Merphotog]

Lee,

There are different answers to this problem. You will need to obtain samples and compare to judge by your own tastes.

I've had some great results from 6 megapixel photos that I have enlarged in Photoshop using a plug in called Genuine fractals. This plugin uses fractal math instead of the bicubic method PS normally uses. When you enlarge a negative you run into grain as I'm sure you know. With digital you start getting pixelation and curves get that stairstep effect.
This plugin greatly reduces this effect.

I cropped out what would have been equivalent to a 3/4 inch square out of a 4x6 photo and printed it as an 8x10. It's on my wall.

I have a friend whose work I have long admired. He has wonderful photos hanging in his dive shop. He went on a vacation and shot using a Nikon D50 set for RAW and basic. "Basic" is the lowest resolution that camera puts out and is normally considered almost useless for printing. After he got home he enlarged several basics and printed then at something like 17x24. He matted and framed them and then sold them all in a local gallery.

I have heard that the newer 12mp cameras offer resolution superior to 35mm film with comparable to superior color. But I haven't played with one.

 

[fppf]

35mm film is not even close to 58 MP, no way.
Most people compare film with 12 MP camera's, which is why most pro's switched over to all digital a few years ago when 12 MP sensors became main stream in dSLR's.
here is a link to a good article
Film Technical Conclusions

The term "Enlargements" is miss leading in the digital world. When you print larger photo's your not enlarging anything. Your not adding or interpolating the data. All your doing is printing the data more spaced out. Its this spacing "pixelation" that limits the size of photo's. Most people recommend staying above 200 DPI, or 200 pixels per inch. So given the size of a sensor you can easily see how large you can make a photo. Personally I have gone as low as 150 DPI on poster size prints without any noticable pixelation.

In short, ditch the film, snag a nice 12MP plus dSLR and make some sofa prints.

 

[bvanant]

Apologies for only quoting a very small part of this post, but as was said, this is another important area.

You can of course print with a decent ink jet printer from digital, and will probably achieve reasonable results; but a decent lab will definitely print with a superior (probably dye-sublimation) printer. It's worth asking them how they print digital, because it certainly affects image quality. I use an online service (PhotoBox) to archive my photographs.
Dye sub printers are quite nice for tiny prints, but most folks (including your Photobox) print on traditional wet process photo paper (Fuji Crystal Archive) using essentially a digital enlarger. If you have the time and are willing to play a bit and have a bit of $ you can make quite nice (as good as any lab) prints from a good photo printer at home if you calibrate it properly. A 10 MP photo can usually be printed 11x14 with on detrimental effects and if the tones are right, you can make 16x20 with no problems. Beyond that there is some digital noise even if you use good upres technology. It mostly depends on the picture itself. Lots of high resolution lines (like from a shipwreck) are different than a nudibranch on a black background.
As for the 58 MP that might be true from a 4x5 negative from litho film, certainly not from a 35 mm color print.

Bill

 

[maged_mmh]

good info..