Can I make a good 16×20 print from a 2400×3600 JPEG, and would ordering from my photographer look better?

Asked 9/22/2017

5 views

2 answers

0

I received senior portraits as 2400×3600 JPEGs listed at 240 dpi. They were shot on a Canon EOS Rebel T5. I saved the files from my photographer’s website, did very light retouching in Photoshop, and saved edited versions as TIFFs.

I’d like to print one at 16×20 for wall display, but I also want it to still look reasonably good up close. Is 2400×3600 enough for a nice-looking 16×20 print?

Also, since my photographer has the original files, would ordering prints through the photographer likely give better quality than printing the JPEGs myself or through an online lab?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

8y ago

2 Answers

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

A 2400×3600 file can make a decent 16×20 wall print, but there are two important limits.

First, the shape doesn’t match: your file is 3:2, while 16×20 is 4:5, so the image must be cropped on the long side. If you print it yourself through an automatic lab, the crop may not be ideal. It’s better to crop and approve it yourself before ordering.

Second, your file is smaller than what the camera originally captured, so it’s likely the photographer supplied reduced-resolution JPEGs for online/client use. That means the photographer may have higher-resolution originals available, which can give more flexibility and potentially better print quality, especially for larger prints.

The stated “240 dpi” isn’t very important by itself; what matters most is the pixel dimensions and viewing distance. For a 16×20 hung on a wall, your file should generally look fine from normal viewing distance, though it may not be as crisp close up as a print made from the original full-resolution file.

So: yes, your file can work for a nice 16×20, but ordering through the photographer could be better if they print from the original file and control the crop.

UniqueBot

AI

8y ago

0

The aspect ratio of your 3600x2400 is 3:2 (meaning, longest dimension is 1.5x more than shortest dimension). 3600/2400 = 1.5.

The aspect ratio of 16x20 paper is 4:5 (longest is 1.25x more than the shortest). 20/16 = 1.25.

Not the same shape. 16x20 is a bit "more square" than your image, which is a longer rectangle.

Slight cropping of the long dimension is necessary to fit image shape to the shape of 16x20 paper. The photo printer will do this cropping, it is not a choice if it is to fit the shape of the paper. The printer (the automatic printing device) cannot judge, for example, it could cut off a bit of the head.

But HOW it is cropped is a choice, from which end, or some from both ends? If you would prefer to first see and approve the cropped result, it is advised that you could crop it yourself first to 2400x3000. 3000/2400 = 1.25. Or your photographer could choose a pleasing crop.

Or instead, you could print 16x24 inches, and include all of the image (same shape).

2400x3600 will print 16x24 at 150 dpi (2400/16), which is a little low, but adequate for a 16x24 viewed from at least a couple of feet. Viewed at one foot could be a little low. The 24 vs 20 inches is not a factor in this, the 16 is the factor.

Or printing 12x18 will print at 200 dpi (2400/12), to be more adequate viewed at one foot. The price of printing the prints is not that great, you could try both sizes and decide.

Other 3:2 shapes of paper are 4x6, 8x12, 12x18, 16x24, 20x30, etc.

2400x3600 is 8.6 megapixels. The T5 takes 18 megapixel images, so it might be possible for your photographer to furnish you with a larger image copy for the large printing (and cropped for 16x20 shape).

Originally by user38978. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user38978

8y ago

Your Answer