How Many MPs?

[Ron Kruger]

How many MPs do we need? How big a sensor is big enough?
I just sold a 30 X 22.5 prints of this through my ron-kruger.artistwebsites.com to someone from Lowell, MI. Even though it was taken with my 12 MP Optio W80, I'm a little concerned with such a large print from such a small sensor, regardless the MPs. Customers have 30 days to accept or reject the print, and I don't get paid until after that 30-day period, so we'll have to wait to see if they are happy with it.
I know this image printed fine on 8 1/2 X 11, and I actually sold two covers of different images from this camera that reproduced fine, but 20 X 30?
I've long realized that the mega-megapixel craze was mostly overkill, marketed to people who think more and bigger make them better photographers. I get fine 20 X 30 prints from my 10 MP K10D, but the sensor in the W80 is tiny. This should be a very good test.
Artistwebsites.com has an analytical software program that evaluates image files after they are uploaded and gives of range of sizes they think will reproduce well, so I guess they know what they are doing.
Nevertheless, I find all this very interesting and wanted to share.

[Ron Kruger]

This is the shot that sold.

[JIMBO]

Congrat's Ron. Hope the check will soon be in the mail. Great shot BTW. JIM

[Pacerr]

Forgot to remove the tag.

[blackcloudbrew]

Well...wait for it!



That's the end of the tail.

[Ron Kruger]

Thanks Jimbo.

[davidhampshire]

hey,   i checked out this page,   pretty cool stuff  :     http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/ron-kruger.html

[spyglass]

T-man you must be an incredible Master Baiter to obtain such worthy fish images. 
Reminds me of an East Coast joke I once read (the kind your buddies place in front of you and make you read over and over aloud while they roll with laughter until you finally get it, generally after a few beer)

M  R  Fish
M  R Knot
M  R Fish
M  R Knot
M  R Fish
Whale Oil Beef Hooked, M  R Fish


Congratulations on the sale of a fine photo. You have given them an image that is very unique and interesting. It is something that is not possible to see other wise.

I think by 12mp most people can enjoy poster size prints. Of course one can help things along.......

1) Different viewing mediums demand different adjustments (what looks great on your computer monitor may not look great in print).
- computer screens can enhance colour and intensity, where a print may come across more subdued or lack luster. Be careful that any post production efforts you do is working to favour the end medium. A slight increase in Contrast can produce a sharpening effect and often not create the fuzzies on the lighter end.
 
2) A degree of sharpness is lost through the printer. It is a good idea to pre-sharpen an image before sending it to print to compensate. There has been quite a bit written about this topic. I personally have explored pre-sharpening and found it to be vital and required.

3) Noise reduction is worth considering especially if your image contain a lot of dark areas. Remember when printing big, everything gets bigger. A little noise that may be hardly noticeable in an 8x10 may be an issue in a 24x36 poster size print.

3) The paper selection for the print is important. So many people choice gloss paper. Gloss paper produced light glare when trying to view a photo and make the photo look cheap and plastic. A semi mat or what I might call pearl, or often a mat finish can make a print seem more refined and inviting.


If anyone has any addition ideas or comments please add to the discussion.


Spyglass

[Ron Kruger]

Thanks so much for the advice, Spy. I have a lot of big prints made, and the only thing I don't agree with is about sharpening. It must be done conservatively to keep from creating artifacts that also show up more at larger sizes. In face, over-shapening is the most common cause for rejection at the bigger agencies.
Anyway, my website takes care of all printing and fulfillment.
Most of my print and product sales are through my Photoshelter website. This is the second sale through fineartamerca. The only reasons I mention it here is the unusual prospect of going that large from the tiny sensor of the Optio W80.

[spyglass]

Sharpening, like anything in life, moderation is key.

T-man I get the impression that software and photo editing is a door that you have yet to open, and have to wonder if the "editor this & editor that" is not more of a convenient excuse to not venture on the editing learning curve. I do not mean this to be negative or insulting..... hopefully more inviting (like the neighbour kid that offers the other boy his first cigarette or pull from a micky). I do embrace your mandate of striving to obtain the best possible capture, what starts strong and ends strong, but the correction ability that quality software can offer to over come loses (lens, lighting, dynamic range, and equipment loses such as printing) is like ignoring penicillin.

I offer this read on ideas surrounding sharpening http://bythom.com/sharpening.htm.


Spyglass

[Ron Kruger]

No offense at all. I'm sure I don't know as much about it as you, Spy, and am always open to suggestons, but all this is hardly new to me. Back in the mid-80s, I was the editor of a high-quality magazine and also served as the photo editor, choosing illustrations, correcting chromalons and press proofing the runs. This magazine won a national award for design, and a few months later John Schlley, who then was president of Apple, showed up offering us all the latest equipment and software available if we would switch to computer design. At that time, quite a few newspapers had switched, but no magazines. The publisher was sold right away, because of the bottom line, but it took John a while to convince me. At any rate, we were the first quality magazine to use computer design, and Apple used it as a selling tool. I threw myself into computers after that and even did some scripting for merge-purge programs. I was an IT guy, I suppose, before the term was used. Later I published my own magazine, handling everything, including design.
I started on PageMaker. For years, I used full versions of Quark and then PhotoShop, and for a while, as an editor, an even more sophisticated software made specifically for large, daily newspapers. However, for the past bunch of years, I've had no desire to serve on that end of publishing and have used only Elements, because it does everything I need (even the funny stuff), and I don't have to pay for dozens of features really only applicable to design needs.
Because of my contacts and friendships with respected design artists with decades of experience at a couple of publications, and what I already know about the demands of publishing, I take their advice that "the less one does in PP the better." I do know that the common tendency in PP is to overdo it, which may not look too bad on a computer screen, but can be a real disaster in commercial printing. I'm not exaggerating--a real disaster--and I know this because it happened to me a couple of years ago.
I still play around with features, filters and all that funny stuff once in a while, but to be honest, I haven't kept up with it nearly as much during the past few years. During the past few years, I have cut back on my writing/editing and concentrated more on my photography, or in other words, I'd rather spend my time taking pictures. Over the decades, I've had well over 1,000 of my pictures published, including quite a few covers, and I'm confident not one of them was chosen because of PP qualities, but for composition and content. What really sells can't be changed in PP (except for cropping) without getting into trouble, and even cropping cuts down file size and IQ, so should be done rarely. Visit my Photoshelter website and look around in the various galleries, keep in mind that well over 95 percent of them were taken during the last couple of years. http://ronkruger.photoshelter.com/ I also have some images at three agencies and on http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/ron-kruger.html

[spyglass]

So T-man what are you trying to say...... I nodded off somewhere between where you drove truck for Budwieser and dug the Grand Canyon - Just kidding. Sounds like an interesting and busy career you enjoyed. I can see, and I mean this sincerely, how washing away all the headaches, distractions, gadgets, and computer influences could be refreshing. I am surprised that after being involved with photography as a career that you still enjoy it as a hobby. It shows that your creative side enjoys the challenges. I think it is also wonderful that you can combine your love of the outdoors, hunting, fishing, with the camera.


Spyglass

[Ron Kruger]

Well, I'm so glad you finally approve, Master Spy, and that I'm finally able to prove to you that I'm not some dotting, old fool who has no idea what you whipper snappers are up to. I don't keep PP to a minimum because I don't know much about it, but because I do.

[Pacerr]

. . . not some dotting, old fool who has no idea what you whipper snappers are up to. 

Hey, let's not press this thing too far, Ron. You're gonna give away the secret handshake here, buddy. 

Us doddering ol' f@rts have a reputation to uphold as silly fools and curmudgeons if you recall. It's part of that trickery an' cunning advantage thing that maintains our superior station in life.

Stuff like that hat, for instance.  If they ever get wind of what's actually under that hat they may bring on the tar an' feathers an' witchcraft trials again -- an' we can't run as fast as we used to. 

[blackcloudbrew]

I'm happy to say that I've been respectfully staying out of this conversation.