# Mural Size Print Questions



## sgriffinphoto (Apr 24, 2013)

I have an opportunity to create a few 12'x18' mural size prints for a museum installation. The budget is very limited, so accessing a medium format digital camera isn't possible. I own a Canon 5D Mark II. And 'Perfect Resize' has been suggested as a good upscaling tool. I'm wondering if I should bother renting a camera with slightly better resolution (such as a Nikon D800), of if it won't really make a difference in the final output. The photographs will be interior shots of an artist's studio, lots of detail. Does anyone have experience in this area? Tips or recommendations?


----------



## KmH (Apr 24, 2013)

Any software that can up-res so you can print 12 feet by 18 feet will have to 'invent' pixels that won't exist in the original, regardless the camera you use.

No doubt, the more resolution you have to start with the better.

One way to increase the resolution you start with is by stitching several images together to make 1 higher res image.

If you want a 12' x 18', 300 ppi print, you'll need pixel dimensions of 43200 px x 64800 px - 2,800 MP
At 100 ppi you only need 311 MP.

Do you have a source that can make 12 foot by 18 foot prints?


----------



## Light Guru (Apr 24, 2013)

sgriffinphoto said:


> I have an opportunity to create a few 12'x18' mural size prints for a museum installation. The budget is very limited, so accessing a medium format digital camera isn't possible



Are you implying that the photos have not yet been taken?

If they have not and you wish to use a medium format then just rent one. 

Or you could get even better results if you shoot large format film and have the negative drum scanned.


----------



## KmH (Apr 24, 2013)

Without knowing how much "The budget is very limited" too, it's hard to make anything more than very general recommendations.

Scanning Service - New York City
Drum Scans - Fine Art Printing & Graphic Solutions | Baboo | Digital Printers Specializing in Drum Scanning in New York City


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 25, 2013)

I'd suggest working backwards.  Go to the place that will print these murals and ask them what they require from you, to get the final product that you're looking for.  

Technically, you can make any size print from just about any photo/file.  The quality will be reduced as you enlarge it, so it will be a matter of balance between size & quality.  The equalizing factor is often the "viewing distance".  Large prints are not usually meant to be viewed close up.  Think about billboards or photos on the sides of buses or buildings.  They actually look terrible when close up, but they look fine from a good distance.  It's the same with photos on a wall.  You can get away with lower quality (less resolution) if the viewers will be far enough away.


----------



## KmH (Apr 25, 2013)

In a museum installation, unless the museum limits access expect people to get close, particularly to a scene that has "lots of detail" in it.


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 25, 2013)

> In a museum installation, unless the museum limits access expect people to get close, particularly to a scene that has "lots of detail" in it.


That's sort of what I was thinking...so this might be a 'hardest case scenario'....which doesn't go well with "The budget is very limited".


----------



## spacefuzz (Apr 25, 2013)

Yeah Id agree with Big Mike, how can you get ginourmous prints on a budget?  I hope they arent printing them at a sign place. 

Id recommend getting a lens with low distortion and stitching the image if you can, even if you get an 80 MP Phase One thats still only 80 MP.  

Good luck and post pics when they are printed!


----------



## KmH (Apr 25, 2013)

His "very limited budget" may mean $500 or it may mean $5000.

I think the deciding issue is going to boil down to photography and post production skills instead of gear and software.


----------



## CCericola (Apr 25, 2013)

I have provided photos for a museum that were printed on 5'x20' fabric banners. I used a Canon 50D. The company that printed the fabric told me make the photo 6'x21' with a ppi of 25. It was just re-sampled in Photoshop CS3 at the time. They turned out great. I have also done billboards (graphic design side) along the Atlantic City Expressway for 2 hotels and a casino. Those had a ppi of 20 (I think). The photos were supplied and were no bigger than a 50D raw file. I now use a 5D. You will have no problem with a Mark2. These large prints are made to be seen from far away. not up close.


----------



## sgriffinphoto (May 14, 2013)

Thank you all for the comments and advice! It is a tricky scenario. The budget simply doesn't allow for a medium format rental - it's a state run museum - so I'll need to rely on my photography & post production skills (as Keith put it.) I do know that the photos will be printed on vinyl with a res of 150ppi. They're not the focus of the exhibit, but a visual element to support the artists work (which is not photography.) The idea being to recreate the interior of the artist's studio in a "life-size" scale. That being said, I'm sure visitors will end up viewing them for various distances. Of course excellent photo quality clarity won't be possible when one is standing directly in front, which I've explained to the curator, but I'm shooting for the best quality possible given the conditions. I have thought about stitching together multiple shots. This may be possible if the interior angles allow. I'll be shooting this next week and will let you all know how things go!


----------



## sgriffinphoto (May 14, 2013)

Thank you, Christina. This is helpful (& reassuring!) info. Much appreciated.

Sherry


----------



## sgriffinphoto (May 14, 2013)

Thanks, Big Mike - working backwards was my initial approach. Well said!

Sherry


----------



## amolitor (May 14, 2013)

If you need more original pixels, take more pictures and stitch them together. It's not even hard, it's just software. Also, if helps to have some practice, and to be careful about alignment of the camera and so on, but it's not difficult.


----------



## sgriffinphoto (May 14, 2013)

Thanks, Keith. It's very true that regardless of the camera used, the image will end up being interpolated to achieve such a scale. I'm going to try to push my Canon Mark II 5D as far as it will go! And also try stitching images together. 

I don't have a mural print resource. That's being handled by the museum itself, which is located in a different state.

Sherry


----------



## sgriffinphoto (May 14, 2013)

Is there a specific "stitching software" that you recommend?


----------



## squirrels (May 14, 2013)

amolitor said:


> If you need more original pixels, take more pictures and stitch them together. It's not even hard, it's just software. Also, if helps to have some practice, and to be careful about alignment of the camera and so on, but it's not difficult.



Do you have a software recommendation?


----------



## amolitor (May 14, 2013)

I do not, specifically, but photoshop's "photomerge" seems to be pretty well respected.

If you look up "Brenizer method tutorial" you'll find umpty-leven tutorials on How To Do Exactly This. The Brenizer Method allows you to make a huge square image file with shallow DoF out of a suitable collection of smaller ones. You can, obviously, make whatever shape you like, with whatever DoF you like.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (May 14, 2013)

Native camera resolution is more or less irrelevant if you know how to stitch images properly in post. As others have mentioned, the Brenizer Method would probably be a solid approach to get around the limitations you've described.

If you do it right, the average viewer couldn't tell the slightest difference between your finished product and something shot on a Phase One IQ180.


----------



## sgriffinphoto (May 16, 2013)

Thanks! Good recommendation, will look for a tutorial.


----------



## sgriffinphoto (May 16, 2013)

Great! Thanks for confirming the Brenizer Method!


----------

