The Fuji captures 16.3 MP images. Sony 6000 shoots 24.3MP, so would need less shots stitched together from the Sony. I’d go with that. You would need at least 6 images with no overlapping pixels to have an image large enough, you might want to capture a few more to help line things up properly. Once it’s together, you can run it through Blow Up to enlarge the image to print resolution.

Hi Helen,

Let me start by saying that Blow Up is a good solution to make things easy because it handles the math for you. You can give it a try using the demo version.

Here are some calculations for the 3m square image that you’d like to print. You’re looking for an image that measures 3m x 3m at print resolution. Print resolution is 11811 pixel/meter, so you need an image measuring 35,433 pixels by 35,433 pixels. This comes out to 1,255,497,489 pixels total, or 1.26 gigapixels. A file of that size will be taxing on the computer system as it will be approximately a 5gb file.

Let’s say you use Blow Up to enlarge the image 300%. This means you only need to capture an image that measures 139 megapixels, which is a manageable size to tackle using photo-stitching using a full frame DSLR.

Does that help?

3 M x 3 M is the size of the Print – But I need 100% scale – real life…Sorry I don’t understand “You don’t need more information than you can use”

For the Optimum Printed Life Sized Textured Wall Prints – How am I best to Capture, and Can this software deliver the absolute best result in comparison to the aforementioned cameras ? Thanks

Hi Helen!

The size of the image you need will depend on the size of the final print. You don’t need more information than you can use, so an extremely large image may not be what you need. Blow Up will allow you to enlarge your images several times over without showing the standard signs of degradation using standard algorithms. This allows you to use a lesser MP camera and use Blow Up to prepare the image for print.

I work with a couple of stock photographers who capture textured walls (3m x 3m in size) for the purpose of printing textured backdrops. Now here’s the interesting thing… What happens to opinion when you reshoot these prints..

The Prints will be seen close up at 100% life sized scale, and booked by Photographers who have that critical discerning eye. So it HAS to look as good as it can possibly be. Yet its actual use, being reshot as a backdrop, it often looks much better than to the naked eye.

My question is, if Ultimately I need the best textured detail printed on fabric finish, to be viewed close up, should I ask the Stock Photographers to shoot with 50-80 MP cameras, 1-2 Meters away, then Stitch together? Or could I use a lesser MP and use this software. Thank you

Hi Pat! Blow Up’s standalone cannot directly open a RAW image. It will need to be saved as a Tiff or Jpeg first. Exposure X can handle that for you.

Hey Tom,

Thanks for commenting. I think the mention of Henri Cartier-Bresson was in response to arguments for more megapixels and not to evangelize about his shooting methods. At least, that’s how it reads to me.

It’s cheap and easy to throw on a CCD or C-Moss that wildly exceeds what the camera can actually do. It usually makes things worse, adding heat problems, transistor noise, long write times etc. but camera makers have to play along or go broke. I’ve spent spent 50+ hours/week in Photoshop for more than 20 years,and most of what I get these days (from highly skilled professional photographers, mind you) is about 4-6 megapixels worth of data bloated by insanely huge camera image files.

My point is that once you reach the limit of what the rest of camera can do with the shot, more pixels on the capture device are a useless detriment. If you need a higher resolution, you need software, and the camera’s not the place for it. Nothing to debate.

The Alien Skin software that would really be useful to me is a hi-rez texturing tool like the one I once had had in Splat. The rest of the suite was not that helpful, but for fixing mushy skin tones it was unequaled. The more megapixels cameras add the more I miss it. Maybe the time has come for an updated release (he added hopefully)

Hi Adriana,

It depends on the size of the print you’re looking for. You need to know how many pixels the image has. That information should be available using your computer’s operating system. For printing, you want to use 300 pixels per inch. For an 8×10, for example, you need the image to have 2400 x 3000 pixels.

There are lots of places that will print images for you. They range in quality and cost from fast and cheap, to pricey but amazing. Walmart, Walgreens, and CVS provide quick cost effective printing services. Millers Lab or Fine Print Studio do excellent print work.

best regards,
Marc

And yes, as Max said, it may look good way up in the sky on a billboard but would look like noisy crap on a 40″ print viewed within a few feet. An iPhone is still a crappy camera compared to even a semi-professional dSLR.

Hi Peter,

There aren’t any definite plans for a new version of Blow Up. Alien Skin Software is a small team, so they focus attention on one product at a time. Right now, they’re hard at work on Exposure. After that, who knows.

It’s not that at all. We do review all comments made on our articles before allowing them to post, though. Normally, it’s just a safeguard against spammy backlinks.

Arguments are encouraged! ;-)

Doug: Great points. And of some weirdness, they censored my last comment I wrote and never posted it (and may kill this one as well), but there is no way “high resolution” is a hoax. I have just pre-ordered a Canon 5DS R, and not because I have money to burn or because the extra pix are irrelevant. Art gallery images in large format prints need as much detail as possible (period.). Chris needs to wake up and smell the pixels.

I am with Doug on this one. I am currently working on a 71 x 43 print for a gallery exhibit on Chaco Canyon (NM). I made the initial photoshoot with my Canon 1Ds Mark III (21M Megapix), but as soon as my Canon 5DS R comes in (50M Megapix), I will go back out to the canyon and re-shoot my ‘hero’ images, since in an art gallery, the lighting is going to be near-perfect and potential clients can walk right up to the image (and do) – so on images printed at this scale, if the detail is not there, especially for a vast desert landscape such as Chaco Canyon portends, the translucence, depth and realism of a work can vanish rather quickly. Your “DSLR fire sale” comment not-with-standing, I honestly see no “Hoax” (or other related conspiracy theories) associated with the need to high resolution DSLR cameras…