# XX Large Photos



## nikon90s

I just moved into a new place and have one wall that could take one or two Very Large Photos.  I am talking about a space 5 feet by 12 feet.  It is in a space where my stairs are.  Could this even be done with out a large format camera?


----------



## Jeff Canes

Sure, IMO a 12mp DSLR or MF would work fine, I know a place that can do up to 4 feet wide, not sure what it would cost, but big dollars for sure, also what would the view distance be?


----------



## nikon90s

viewing distance would not be very far, mostly 10 to 20 feet but could get up upto 5 feet when going up the stairs.


----------



## markc

It really depends on the quality you are looking for. Prints from smaller sources certainly won't have the same resolution as a 4x6 print. It will probably look like a cheaper poster, but might be worth a try. Everyone has a different tollerance for such things. For me, MF would be noticably better than a 35mm or digital source, and LF would be better yet. A gallery used one of my images for a poster to promote a show, blowing up a low-res sample using Genuine Fractals. It came out surprisingly well.


----------



## Jeff Canes

The place I know of is www.chromatekimaging.com in Fort Lauderdale. The largest size list on their site is 48x96 inches. Pricing seems to range from $337 to $521 depending on options and services. Their recommended file sizes are 150dpi/295mb 200dpi/530mb or 300dpi/1200mb for 48x96 inches.


----------



## markc

Heh, yeah. That's a 14400x7200 pixel image on the low end. Basically a 4x5 neg scanned at 1800 DPI, a 6x7 at 3200, or a 35mm at 7200. There is some contention as to how much info a film holds, and it will vary by film, but I haven't seen any estimates over 5500-6000 DPI, so 35mm doesn't meet their minimum recommendations. But again, it depends on what you can live with personally. A 4x5 at 3600 DPI covers the high end.


----------



## Jeff Canes

markc said:
			
		

> ---- There is some contention as to how much info a film holds,----


 
*Yep you could say that or maybe the **contention is that digital straight from the camera is sharper that people want to admit*.


----------



## markc

Jeff Canes said:
			
		

> Yep you could say that or maybe the contention is that digital straight from the camera is sharper that people want to admit.


I'd say that the 1.5/1.6 cameras can be comparable to 35mm, again depending on film, but I doubt that even the full frame digital sensors can beat medium format, especially when you compare to 6x9, which is the same ratio. It's just such a huge jump (2.5x). When you compare to large format (4x+), forget about it.

--edit--

Oops. The 2.5x and 4x was only along the short dimention. Total info is actually 6.25x and 13.3x.


----------



## ahelg

Regular 35 mm slide film should be able to give you good enough quality. Use some fuji velvia 50 or something like that and I doubt you would have problems.

There is a guy who took loads of photographs for a book. He flew around in a helicopter and took lots of photographs. I can't remember his name or the name of the book but he used 35mm fujifilm and I saw a few of his photographs on display. They were bigger than anything I've got in my house.


----------



## JigsawMan

www.posterxxl.co.uk (or .com if you are in germany) do an OK job for printing big things and they are priced fairly too.


----------



## Philip Weir

As Markc commented, it depends on the quality you are after. Viewing a good quality 6x4 does not mean it would look any good at 5'x12'. I just know that when I get my lab to scan a 35mm tranny or neg to hold its quality, they give me about a 25mg file. Based on that, you would need a lot more than the average digital camera would give you, without going to a "Phase one" digital back or similar. Without a doubt, shooting a 5x4 or for optimum quality a 10x8 transparency would be the way to go.   Saying that though, it all depends what you are after. Personally I don't mind a large print "breaking up"  It has a nice feeling.   Philip.

www.philipweirphotography.com


----------



## Soocom1

I would look into shooting as slow of ISO as possible. If you can find some 25 or 50 speed B&W in either 35mm or 120. (J and C Photo) or a slow setting on a 100 ISO on a digi. This will insure a high quality, solid saturation and clear image with an enlarged image tat wont pixalate or grain out. 

"...If only you knew the power of the film side........Nikon never told you who made you sensor..."


----------



## malachite

If you're not necessarily looking for high quility fine art, this might get you started

The Rasterbator

Michael...........anything I say here will get me in trouble for sure this time


----------



## D-50

Depending on the subject matter you may be able to get the results your looking for by stitching multiple photos together to get the right resolution. I have a Nikon D50 and took a  six picture shot of Boston's skyline. I had it printed at roughly 24x36 and it came out with great quality. The TIFF file was huge but the end product looked great. Stitching photos works great for lanscapes but if you wanted a still life photo of say a basketball it may be harder to do, give it a try though you may be surprised with the results.


----------



## nikon90s

everyone has some good advice,  I don't have a subject but now think I will go for a b & w landscape but who knows.


----------



## Jeff Canes

If I had that space and an extra 6k, I&#8217;d go for a Clyde Butcher original.
This makes a nice 48X60


----------

