[photolady95]

I’ve used Adorama and really liked it. I then took the print to Hobby Lobby and had it mounted to foam board and it looks spectacular.

I don't have a Hobby Lobby locally.

[UncleVanya]

When I did as you said, divided pixel x pixel resolution by 300, I get 10 by 20 and I think that is too skinny and makes the bird look taller than it is, a Snowy Egret is a some what short egret. I think I'll stick to 16 by 20.

And no, I don't use Photoshop. I use Photoshop Elements.

You should get 16.45 x 10.90 if you divide by 300. Then if you print 20 inches on the long side the print will be 13.30 wide. Otherwise you can crop some losing a little resolution to get the true 16x20 size.

[PePe]

Some of these acrylic laminates would probably work wonders for a picture with dramatic contrasts and reflections. This would also eliminate the need for a glass.
Prints like this are a bit more expensive, but produce a beautiful 3D look. There are several brand names for these, Silisec etc.

[Dartmoor Dave]

It's really best to use a lab that provides profiles that you can download for soft proofing. A good lab should provide profiles for each paper type they offer, and soft proofing then uploading your file with the correct profile embedded means that what you see on your screen will be a very good match to the final print.

[jlstrawman]

I’ve used Adorama and really liked it. I then took the print to Hobby Lobby and had it mounted to foam board and it looks spectacular.

Thumbs up for Adorama. I have ordered several metal and canvas prints (up to 16x20) from them, over the years. Quality is great, service has been quick,
and they always have sales going on. Excellent overall experience.

[normhead]

You should get 16.45 x 10.90 if you divide by 300. Then if you print 20 inches on the long side the print will be 13.30 wide. Otherwise you can crop some losing a little resolution to get the true 16x20 size.

I regularly exceed those number with good results. I will expand 150 dpi to 300 DPI using software and still get sufficient resolution for larger prints. I prefer 200 dpi for a starting point, but 150 will still produce excellent prints. I use 200 or more because I can. Not because I think I have to.

[UncleVanya]

I regularly exceed those number with good results. I will expand 150 dpi to 300 DPI using software and still get sufficient resolution for larger prints. I prefer 200 dpi for a starting point, but 150 will still produce excellent prints. I use 200 or more because I can. Not because I think I have to.

Me too. My point was badly stated. The ratio of the image was my main point, the resolution is secondary. Without cropping or leaving empty white borders this will not print at 16x20.

[biz-engineer]

- My experience with printing and viewing of a print tell me that resolution requirement is 1.5x less for vertical prints due to viewing angle of the yes being larger horizontally, implies viewing of a vertical print further away to appreciate the image.

- DPI of 180 is very very good, no way eyes can distinguish pixels including use of correction glasses to see close details, 150 DPI is fine even down to 120 DPI will work at normal viewing distance, we often read 250/300 DPI needed for prints but it's only true when looking close to see details of large prints, no to appreciate the integral image. However, the DPI number is overrated, since lens sharpness and diffraction may not resolve as much as the pixel count.

- For the image posted, I'd be concerned about the blown highlight of feather more than anything else, and due to the background not containing any relevant detail I wonder if I wouldn't just turn the background darker (decrease exposure and clip the black level) and print black & white, with fit the print within a frame with large white borders.

[ChatMechant]

I use either Bay Photo or Costco. Costco is super cheap and they do a pretty good job. Bay Photo is better though.

I second the previous suggestion of clipping the blacks and considering a b/w version.

[normhead]

- My experience with printing and viewing of a print tell me that resolution requirement is 1.5x less for vertical prints due to viewing angle of the yes being larger horizontally, implies viewing of a vertical print further away to appreciate the image.

- DPI of 180 is very very good, no way eyes can distinguish pixels including use of correction glasses to see close details, 150 DPI is fine even down to 120 DPI will work at normal viewing distance, we often read 250/300 DPI needed for prints but it's only true when looking close to see details of large prints, no to appreciate the integral image. However, the DPI number is overrated, since lens sharpness and diffraction may not resolve as much as the pixel count.

- For the image posted, I'd be concerned about the blown highlight of feather more than anything else, and due to the background not containing any relevant detail I wonder if I wouldn't just turn the background darker (decrease exposure and clip the black level) and print black & white, with fit the print within a frame with large white borders.

I once really wanted a print of an image taken with my old 800x 600 camera. The print resolution was 72 DPI. Printed 4x6 it looked great. When printers started going to 144 DPI, the results were pretty much breath taking. 300 DPI is probably complete overkill.

I'm not talking about really picky people with high standards. There is research that shows people can distinguish between 600 DPI and 300 DPI on test charts. I know of no tests saying people prefer 300 DPI to even 72 DPI in the real world. Most images simply don't need super high resolution to get their point across.

[biz-engineer]

When printers started going to 144 DPI, the results were pretty much breath taking. 300 DPI is probably complete overkill.

I fully agree. Prints 20x30" I have here from a K5 shot at 17mm/f16 and K3 shot at 50mm f5.6. From the K5, fringe is slightly visible if I look very very close, but is hard to see. K5 print isn't 100% as sharp as the K3 print because there is a little diffraction at f16, but I have to stick my nose on the print to see it, and it hurts my eyes. With a the K3, there is not way I can see any pixel or hint of it, even after upgrading my glasses for 20/20 vision. My target very high quality print sizes with the K1 are 120 x 80 cm and 150 x 100 cm with very fine details. But that's assuming looking at the print from a 10 inch distance.

More important than resolution for the print are tone gradation, framing, paper, finish and the light falling on the print. A print is really not like displaying on LCD/LED display, a print is a finished product that is another way to appreciate a photograph, but many people get confused with using electronic displays.

[photolady95]

Now with you guys talking about printing this in b/w, imo, you're degrading my photo. Let's not go there please. Yes, basically the bird is white, but area around it is not black, it's brown. the water is a golden color, not black either. I tweaked it in PSE before I posted it here and on Flickr.


As for printing, I'll have to figure something else out I guess. Buy myself an Epson large format printer, as I had before and print it myself as I've done in the past, on professional paper, matte it myself, and frame it myself. For now, I'll leave it on the computer, in an external harddrive, so I don't lose it, just in case.


Thanks anyway for the help. I didn't think it would get this complicated to ask a simple question of how to get a 16x20 print of a photo that some said I should get printed and framed.

[kaseki]

You could also try Photosmith, a.k.a. Old School Photolab in Dover NH. You can provide files to them by various Internet or physical means and get real photo prints, glossy, matte, whatever. Without looking up my notes I recall that their photoprinter can do up to 700-something pixels per inch. They answer their phones.

Start here: Old School Photo Lab
and here: Home - Photosmith Imaging: Dover, NH. Photo printing services from Digital and Film.

I'm a customer.

[victormeldrew]

Now with you guys talking about printing this in b/w....Yes, basically the bird is white, but area around it is not black, it's brown. the water is a golden color, not black either.

A subject doesn't need to be only black and white in order to print it in black & white.

[photolady95]

Just so you know. No one will ever see this photo hanging on the wall but my family. So it's moot point whether it looks professionally done or not. Yes, it has to look that way because of my preference, but most of them wouldn't know a professionally done photo if it slapped them in the face.