How BIG Can You PRINT Your Photos? (iPhone vs APS-C vs Medium Format)

[@KenToney]

I have a 40x60 hanging in the entrance to my restaurant that I took in early 2000’s with a 6mp D100 in jpg mode. And still looks great.

[@Stop_Elitists_Wars]

Evidence...wanna see Photo.

[@KenToney]

@@Stop_Elitists_Wars got to figure out how to post a photo. We printed this in 2003 before enlarging software was out too!

[@favioescalon528]

Do you have it on Instagram or Facebook. I'd like to see the massive print as well lol

[@G0FUW]

Great message Adam. I love having prints of my images but need more walls! One of my favourites is a C-type print 3 feet wide taken with a APS-C camera. Even close up it has detail. I now have a full frame camera and there is more detail on screen but I am not so sure it makes such a big difference in print. The main advantage is being able to capture images that the cropped sensor would struggle with. Technology moves on and the likes of the Fuji XT-4 show that cropped sensors can produce stunning work. Your phone shot illustrates that megapixels are only one part of the jigsaw; sensor size does make a difference. That said, I still think that having 'good glass' is THE most important gear factor. The photographer is, of course, THE most important part of making good images! Thanks for another good video, and stay safe.

[@BrunoChalifour]

More than sensor size (but related to it) what does really matter is pixel size: the smaller the less light they gather, the more amplification they require, the more degraded they get, including dynamic range.

[@robbiebarnes]

Just the video I needed. This is quality

[@Firstmanphotography]

Cheers mate

[@BrunoChalifour]

More than sensor size (but related to it)something that is not mentioned here (but I suppose implied) is pixel size. It is crucial for image quality: the smaller the pixels, the less light they gather, the more amplification they require, the more degraded the image get, including dynamic range.

[@tlewisAK]

I’ve shot with an iPhone 4 and b,own it up to D size for personal use, and I’ve been quite happy with the output, and with phone technology, it’s only gotten better. You do bring up a great point, and that is, that everything has to be perfect... lighting, composition, and the right subject matter will make or break your ability to blow it up. This is a truth that holds true regardless of what you shoot with. Thanks for another great video.

[@tecraven]

You just can't beat a large print, they just have that wow factor! Especially with good images like these.

[@grumpyhighlander]

Next time you want to fix a photo you might want to try using a 6' wide roller with a medium hardness. That should help remove the creases as you smooth it down. Great comparisons, thanks for all of the great information as usual.

[@carltanner9065]

It's not just the megapixel you've got. It really comes down to the quality of the lens you have stuck on the front of your camera. You could have a 100MP but if your lens can't handle that many MP's, then the pics will turn out not so great. It really comes down to the quality of the lens, then the number of megapixels you have to record that info, which gives you the great pics. Plus, other factors to do with the chip design, etc. But, the lens quality is the paramount aspect.

[@shanekrajic7167]

Same here, first thing I do is look closely at the details to see how they have come out. We always have our phones so if that’s the shot you got, better than not shot.

[@PaulCSmithPhotographer]

Great video thank you!

[@Robservatory]

You nailed it. I always go in for a closer peak as well. I just got commissioned for a couple 8 foot prints, so I ordered an A7R ii, wish I could have gotten an even bigger sensor.

[@danbbrawner]

Even viewing that large print on a big computer monitor, I feel transported into that scene.

[@BrunoChalifour]

Subjectivity has got its rules too... which are very flexible.

[@outwithsara70]

I like the windows open over your shoulders. I really don't understand why so many youtubers prefers dark backgrounds. So, I'm glad that the lights come in and shine. Ciao from Sicily

[@Firstmanphotography]

I don’t think it’s that they prefer it dark, it’s more to do with exposing the shot correctly. it’s difficult to do unless you have very powerful video lights. It got dark later in this video though so I shut the blinds to stop reflections.

[@outwithsara70]

@@Firstmanphotography ah ok, I understand. Thanks

[@271830066]

Nice Video. What kind of Cannon Printer are you using and would this be a good printer to use to sale Large Prints on? Thanks

[@Firstmanphotography]

I'm using the Canon Pro 1000

[@theruleoffire]

I love your honesty, thank you

[@Billythachikk]

THANK YOU! I have been thinking about that so much, so important going into pro photography and thinking about gear.

[@rickporter2284]

Kodak recommended proper viewing distance of 14" for a 4X6" print. This equate to 2X the hypotenuse, and is a good guide for all print sizes.

[@iaincphotography6051]

Spot on Rick, who puts their face against the print apart from pixel peepers and second rate camera club judges.

[@wtfdidijustwatch5053]

@@iaincphotography6051 *OUCH!* Didn’t do too well in a camera club comp? 😂💀

[@iaincphotography6051]

@@wtfdidijustwatch5053 Why what did you do wrong?

[@wtfdidijustwatch5053]

@@iaincphotography6051 it was a question to you. Hence the “?” at the end.

[@iaincphotography6051]

@@wtfdidijustwatch5053 I know, just messing lol. I don't do competitions these days. My work has been under scrutiny by better qualified people than your average club judge. Semi-retired these days, I jumped through hoops with the BIPP & the Guild of Photographers. These days I do what I do for myself apart from being roped in with studio work at times and abstract workshops. Club judges (not all) curtail creativity and stifle talent. A good indicator is the rule of thirds, overused and a scruffy tool of composition but it seems to be the only one that exists for the most part on youtube. Anyway whatever it is you photograph, have fun and enjoy it.

[@gregsilver]

I've always loved going to galleries and looking at various prints but the first time I saw metal prints, I was literally blown away at the saturation and clarity. It made photos come alive. It was if I was looking at my photo on a beautiful 8K TV. The cost is definitely higher but worth it IMHO.

[@mdbedelsohn4307]

8k tv?! It's a metal print, reflecting light. Imo, way more pleasant than an emitting digital light source .

[@gregsilver]

@@mdbedelsohn4307 yeah it's obviously not the same. The point I was making is that it's much more detailed imho

[@mdbedelsohn4307]

@@gregsilverI'm just over-reacting about all the digitalization of our world, like the real stuff, the print. That's the real power of photography (and paintings), that they can convey their message without the need of a machine (video, screen, etc).

[@gregsilver]

@@mdbedelsohn4307 agree 100%

[@mdbedelsohn4307]

@@gregsilver even considering to only offer print to the clients! Like in the good old days. ,😂 Going to be difficult getting by with that though in our generation. On the other hand, might be a way to differentiate...

[@neilpiper9889]

I darkroom black and white print up to 20x16 inches from a Pentax 67 camera.

[@BrunoChalifour]

Imagine with a 50 Mp or 100 Mp sensor (moreover monochrome) of the size of a 6x7 negative! ;o)

[@hennypics]

Best print ever. nice work. Just happy to see it!

[@Firstmanphotography]

Ha. thanks. that’s definitely true of all the prints I have made.

[@hennypics]

@@Firstmanphotography I have the feeling too, every time a got a print! But never done this size. Just amazing.

[@JohnPaul-ii]

Wow Adam, now that’s a print. And your next step is to print a wallpaper and do an entire wall. Thanks for sharing again your wonderful photos Adam. Stay safe

[@droneguynh6371]

I mainly do drone photography, but I also use a DSLR. I love all the tips and reasoning behind them.

[@piperdude1605]

I was surfing KZbin and came across this video so I wanted to check it out. I shoot a Fujifilm X-T1 converted to deep B&W infrared and Fujifilm X-T2's. One thing I never hear anyone talk about is going through an interpolation software for big prints. The Fujifilm X-T1 is 16.3 megapixils and I have used ON1 Resize and have a 24"x36" (610mm x 910mm) hanging on the wall with no visible pixelation/grain at all, even a nose length distance. Also, with my X-T2 (24mp), I have several 30"x40" (762mm x 1016mm) with the same results. I typically resize to 300 ppi too. I have 7 large prints hanging on my walls and the smallest ones being 20"x30" (508mm x 762mm) with no issues. Have you ever tried this and/or do you have any thoughts on this technique?

[@gaza4543]

I have ! between 2 very close sensor sizes its largely academic at best because the sensor on the Xt2 actually has more noise at any given ISO which will contribute to the similarities, I actually preferred the Xt1's rendition and the files were cleaner. It's not as cut and dry as this fellow makes out AND he made one big jump which are not even comparable to be honest. it should have been APS-c -APS-c or full frame to frame.

[@BrunoChalifour]

Yes these software, even included in regular image-processing software, are doing better and better, even better with AI. However the missing pixels are recreating pixels (in the same way the demosaiccing software of your camera (for jpgs) or your computer software does) which means your image is more and more manipulated, especially regarding its colors. They work because we look at these images without reality as a reference. It is a matter of favouring result over precision of process, image-processing over photographing... it is a personal choice. In the end both approaches do work.

[@adds197]

Great content Adam your videos keep me going through these difficult times. Keep up the great work.

[@borderlands6606]

In the end every format has an optimum size. It was true in 35mm and medium format film days, and it's true of digital sensors. A photo is no worse because it doesn't translate into a image several feet across. A beautifully framed and matted shot 15" wide that stands up to nose end resolution, in its proper setting, is still a great thing to have.

[@BirdsandMore2376]

Kitty at 1:30 🥰🥰🥰. Great video with answers to questions I had today! Thanks!

[@Firstmanphotography]

Sparky. He’s a little savage although pretty loveable.

[@rodleiva5404]

Great video Adam! A video of how you got it ready for print might take some of the the worry away from printing large.

[@grahamegannon9708]

Thanks for the info on printing large prints Adam. A3 is big enough for me as I live in a small cottage!!

[@andirutherford2615]

Ah castlerigg stone circle great place and so easy to get to

[@e.g.1218]

What type of paper is that?

[@krisweyers6248]

Thank for a great video. Can I ask how you hung the photos on the brick.

[@Firstmanphotography]

Velcro.

[@johnhjic2]

Hello Adam, Yes it dose inspire me, it just so down that for 8 months out of the last 12 months I have been shielding. Now I have a cancer and wighting for something to go right. Still love your videos.

[@raphaelmimoun9571]

Thank you for the video. What’s your go to export settings to print?

[@Adcreations-u1n]

Hello sir, very good morning, I want to print on duratrance what can i do and how i make the file?

[@P_Anthony876]

Happy New year, Adam.

[@Firstmanphotography]

Thanks. and to you too.

[@emiliomarcos1785]

have you though of using a Gigapan mount to make a very detailed photo that can be printed at whatever size you want.

[@Firstmanphotography]

Definitely something I'm looking at. Not too keen for the extra bulk though.

[@emiliomarcos1785]

@@Firstmanphotography I was looking at it to film the murals on the sides of buildings in my area, the ability to get every true detail, down to the plants growing on the side of the building. Bulk wouldn't be an issue, I would think that your going to use it on a subject matter that you have done enough research on. Not something I would take on hike. Always looking for an excuse to get out of my normal routine. Additionally, doing a landscape where I can print large and get close to the print as I would to a 4 by 6, and still see the details. Makes the large print even more enjoyable, far and close, heck even pulling details for family and friends to look for, almost like "where's Waldo".

[@Peacannoodleface]

Great video, would love to see canon m50 mark 2 used to take very large print photos haven’t seen a video for that.

[@Bijbelstudies]

How many dpi does your printer need to have to print the larger image you showed?

[@BrunoChalifour]

Photo printers usually print at 1440 or 2880 dpi (dots of ink per inch). I suppose you meant file resolution in PPI (pixel per inch). Ppi is less ambiguous than dpi which is sometimes used for file resolutionThe standard has been set by professional labs/printers at 300 ppi. One relying of the human eye lack of acuity can go down to 200 ppi. It usually works if you are stuck. On the other hand there many software that will artificially (and now intelligently ;o) increase the resolution of your file (and as a result its potential size in inches at 300 ppi). As a side note, no serious image-processing program, such as Lightroom or Photoshop, never use dpi but always ppi.

[@Bijbelstudies]

@@BrunoChalifour Hi Bruno, I really meant the dpi. I see that the canon prograf 1000 and 1100 has a print resolution of 2400 x 1200 but the prograf 300 has a print resolution of 2400 x 4800

[@BrunoChalifour]

Yes ok. But with the resolution of our eyes I do not see any difference between the three resolutions (details) except maybe a slight increase in density.

[@paulmccole4928]

Great video Adam. great points and advice..Awesome huge print.

[@bradleyhowell6731]

I scrolled down to see if anyone asked about the telescoping ladder you were using to put the old large photo up. Maybe I'm the first to ask where you got that. I think I need one of those!

[@Firstmanphotography]

It’s the XTend pro series s2 3.8 meters. Not the cheapest but wanted something sturdy.....even for someone my size it’s solid as a rock and I feel very confident on it.

[@anorak211]

There was very nearly a close up of the Fender stratocaster, about time you gave us a riff or two, through that Vox amp that's on the floor, go on you know you want to! Impressive large print!

[@Firstmanphotography]

Ha. Now is the time isn’t it, whilst I’m not travelling anywhere.

[@grosema]

Well !! I just did it, Not sure if it was you or Adam Gibbs or Theoria Apophasis that tempted me.... BUT I am the Happy new proud owner of the Fuji GFX 100 and the G 110 F/2 and the 32-64 zoom lens and I got an adaptor (with Glass in it) so I can use all my Nikon F/ mount Primes with no Vignetting so it claims... I get the next week Now All I need is to Move to the UK and get some of that scenery you got

[@TutuShoooo]

What size did you print the rainbow image at?

[@GordonFRegan]

Very nice video - could you tell me what was the file settings (size of file and BPI) you sent to the printer company. Thanks

[@Firstmanphotography]

1.5GB TIFF. 300dpi. Most labs will provide file requirements.

[@henrystrickland5958]

I really enjoy the videos you have been doing with the Fuji GFX100, thank you. I also enjoy the images you create with the Canon's. I enjoy all of your content very much, thank you.

[@Firstmanphotography]

Thanks Harry. Really appreciate it.

[@jangashahi4046]

Hello sir Xiaomi 14t mobile camera how big can print the photos

[@winstonward5772]

Thanks for this Adam. Great insight. I absolutely love seeing my prints roll off the printer, especially when printed big...and even better when someone actually wants to buy it to put on their wall....😁👏👏

[@prkemshell3668]

Great as ever Adam! Thank you, what size print was the final example please?

[@Firstmanphotography]

60” x 48”

[@stuartflemingphotography6337]

Interesting topic. Love the big print you can definitely see the detail in it. I have an A3 printer and love printing my images. Definitely much better looking at a print you have made it's very satisfying. Thanks

[@Buzza235]

What printer have you got?

[@ChrisPattonPhotography]

Really good vlog as always Adam. Some interesting points, totally agree I also like to get in close and see the fine details. The roseberry topping image looks stunning especially at that size. 👍

[@gregrhoads8654]

Great video

[@nevvanclarke9225]

Light room now has a feature called enhanced and not a lot of people know about it. It would be great if you did a video on that as I have used it and it's really good. I've done it for some really big prints... Essentially I've done some prints on caravans and Billboards by using this feature it quadruple megapixels and even some of the new cameras do this as well

[@cole69lopez]

I’m trying to do a print for a trailer. Will Lightroom enhance my photos so it’s not pixelated at all?

[@BrunoChalifour]

@@cole69lopez Up to a point, the missing pixels will be generated by the software so the result will depend on how good your image is in the first place and how good/recent your software is. The latest versions include AI which does improve results.

[@JohnYoungCORNWALL]

I have a canon 5D Mark IV as my main Camara, but I love the flexibility of my iPhone 12 Pro Max as the sensor is just so good.

[@BrunoChalifour]

It all depends on what you do with your images, how big you see use/them (and whether you have a tendency to crop or not).

[@bazwillrun]

If youd have pin pricked the blisters that formed the creases so the air could get out you could have all but eliminated those creases...ive done it for years, used to watch my dad do it back in the day when he used wallpapered the house !..

[@Firstmanphotography]

Ah thanks. good tip. might have to get back up the ladders.

[@randomguy-dy3uy]

Have you tested upscaling the iphone 13 proraw DNGs for larger prints?

[@BrunoChalifour]

The issue is still the pixel size and the amplification the signal requires as well as the limited dynamic range of small pixels.

[@sharonhaasbroek7464]

The final image is beautiful! What do you suggest I use to mount my images on? Thank you!

[@pochikaevamaria]

Hey i liked your prints video, would you like to think of making video about tripods for landscape photographers?

[@xiaojiang2024]

nice job

[@Luigi13]

I had a print made to couple of images, on canvas prints by giving the print shop online a Tiff file and that was from a 21megapixel Canon 5D2. These where cityscapes prints and the quality of the print is very good. The sizes are 24x36 inches. Canvas prints keep their shape and look good if done properly in my opinion. You don't need anything special once it is stretched and mounted and they can be cleaned with a damp cloth once in a while, the prints that I have are about 5 years since they where printed and still they look very new.

[@BrunoChalifour]

The problem with canvas prints is that their textured surface reflects light in many directions- which interferes with the precision/quality of the experience of the details of the image. Canvas, which was in fashion (mostly because 1-it was cheaper than high-quality papers, 2-it "looks like a painting" [which to me, as a photographer, is a somewhat ridiculous argument]) seems to go out of fashion as people, both serious photographers and serious audiences, focusing on quality, are realising that it is somewhat anti-photographic (for the reasons I mentioned above). Another issue with photographs on canvas might be durability (conservation) but as most of these surfaces have not been really tested (serious galleries and museums that could pay for the study usually do not show/sell canvas prints) we'll have to wait and see.

[@libork8106]

Adam, well explained ... Thank you

[@penbphotography]

Top print love that image really to my taste. Great info to thank you. 👍

[@MrBooojangles]

Can you get better image quality in a massive print from a crop sensor camera with just a kit lens, if you do multiple images to make up one image. So say you have a scene and you take it by doing say 3 rows of 4 images on top of each other and stitch them together in editing software, so instead of one image of the scene 6000x4000 pixels, you will have an image 24000x12000 pixels (obviously there will be less pixels with the overlapped areas). Also with phones, my phone has a panoramic mode on the camera, so if I hold it vertical and scan around I get massive pixels. I think I got one once at 20000x4000.

[@BrunoChalifour]

Yes you can. But... there is kit lens and kit lens: some are better than others. As for your phone, you do not get "massive" pixels as the pixels remain of the same size but a massive number of them ;o)

[@thomassanio8745]

Not a lot of people have spoken about sensor size, an aspect that has a LOT to do With image quality when blowing up.

[@rajshekharkhandeparkar352]

Hello. I am from India. I would like to have your honest opinion about getting started in photo printing business, catering to mainly landscape and fine art photographers or even nature photographers. What would you advise me? Would it be profitable? What equipment and investment would go into the business when starting?

[@sean-bilodeau]

Loved this video Adam! I'm definitely looking forward to printing some of my aps-c images. Just got to get over the fear of thinking my images will come back looking horrendous lol

[@SteveP_2426]

I had same fear Sean and found that Loxley Colour will do some test prints based on what you send them AND offer a colour correction service free so you can see how close your colours are to the originals (providing you have downloaded the colour profiles). I've been happy with them so far and they even reprinted one for me free when the exposure seemed out of step with that mine looked like (and I had made an allowance for backlighting on the screen).

[@ianflint4610]

Viewing distance is all. Was asked by my employer at the time to produce an image to be used on the wall of a newly constructed restaurant. The challenge was it was to cover 12m x 3m! Huge! While people could be stood right next to it, the image was set up to be viewed from a distance of over a couple of metres to right across the restaurant. It was taken an autumn day with a 4am start and a 100 mile drive to capture a 9 image pano taken from several km away. The location - The Emley Moor tv tower taken from the edge of the Sculpture park. Was a 2GByte TIFF file. Cost them around £7k to print! Not my best ever image but certainly one to remember.

[@carrigman]

Excellent video, Adam. Photography is really all about the print and I hope this inspires more people to print images. Clearly, printing phone images at A2 is pushing the boat out too far but A4 produces very good results (people have achieved RPS distinctions with phone prints around that size and the RPS are very pernickity where print quality is concerned). I was interested in your method of mounting the prints and affixing them to the wall - perhaps a detailed video on the procedure might be worth considering?

[@Firstmanphotography]

Yeah I skipped over that but I do find it interesting. There’s quite a few different materials you can use to mount the image and it’s a balance of cost and quality. MDF is a great option but is expensive. Foamboard is the cheapest and also feels cheap. I went with the nice balance of using 5mm foamex. I use Velcro to put it up, good for the print as you can easily move and adjust but can pull the paint off the wall.

[@jamesdecross1035]

Curious, why such a large showcase print does not have some personal graphics in the negative spaces - something to see, view and identify you, as people enter your domain, your World of the recording studio.

[@Black3ternity]

Lovely comparison. In my opinion, the most issues with phone pictures is not necessarily the sensor size. They are tiny, yes. But the image processing is just garbage. My Lumia 1020 from 7 years back took photos on it's 42MP Sensor that rival the shots from my current iPhone 11 because the image processing just mushes all the details together "iphone style". There are obviously limitations with details but I am so often disappointed with darker colors or blacks on good lit photos because everything is just getting "smoothed" and sharpened so it becoms this grainy puddle of semi-details. My old phone took pictures that were "better" because it did not try to smash all the details together and would present you a more or less unsmoothened image - albeit bein color processed obviously. Keep up the nice work.

[@BrunoChalifour]

I would disagree on that one. The real issue is definitely the pixel size. With that software cannot work miracles. 42 Mp on a cell-phone is only achievable with tiny pixels or multi-shots (or worse enlarging software on board).

[@Black3ternity]

@ sure. Garbage in, garbage out. But I look at my current iPhone 16 with its massive sensor. The processed jpegs are garbage. I shoot in RAW and convert the horrendous apple-colorspace to adobe colorspace in Lightroom and they are visually near indestinguishable from my Sony A7 IV. Yes, low light and stuff like that the sensor size is always king. But for regular photos and even a nice sunset, the postprocessing that is applied per default is bad. You can see differences in pixelpeeping - no questions asked. But printing it in A4 or even a bit larger is no issue. You just need RAW data from the sensor.

[@BrunoChalifour]

@@Black3ternity Yes the Iphone 16 raw has improved output quality but even on an A4 print I can see the difference with a Full-Frame 24 Mp camera.

[@GrymmsPlace]

Thanks for another really great video and subject matter - and love the Lake District shot. (and also using PrintSpace? Excellent! Can be a little pricey, but it's worth every penny) I generally take a mix of shots - camera and phone (for geo-coords). 100% agreement on selling vs own wall - and certainly vs online stuff. Something almost magical with the unveiling of a max-resolution, large-format print where the mounting and paper-types rule.

[@andrewgill6863]

As you mention in your latest vlog about producing a book I am planning on creating a book for a long ongoing project my question to you is this I struggle with creative writing and I thought you might be able to help me with some advice

[@BrunoChalifour]

Ask around for someone who does write...

[@Gremlack13]

I have a Oceanside photo of the us west coast in Northern California that was taken on an iPhone 6, that is 11”x14”, and actually looks great. I agree that in certain circumstances phone photos can look great up to a certain size. Though I really do not care for phone camera quality.

[@rahul.k.viswanath]

Great video. Is there a specific way we need to edit pictures for prints? I know you've mentioned that, but if there's a video where you explain the same, then that'd be great. After seeing your videos, I too printed some of my pictures as a photobook using a printing service to just see how it comes out. Though I liked the result, I think I need to do some specific edits/settings for the pictures before starting the print. I would like to give it another go after I understand what needs to be done.

[@BrunoChalifour]

The results regarding having your images printed in a book vary greatly with who prints your book and how they do it. It can go from close to atrocious to very decent. Test them or ask around before printing several books.

[@wtfdidijustwatch5053]

Would love to see/know how you took that Fuji shot, filters iso, lens length to capture that field of view on that format etc?....

[@Firstmanphotography]

I would have loved to show you.....unfortunately i dropped the video camera, didnt realise I had smashed the microphone port, and so recorded the whole shoot with no audio.

[@wtfdidijustwatch5053]

@@Firstmanphotography *DAMN!* Trust it was all insured?

[@wtfdidijustwatch5053]

@@Firstmanphotography could you tell me, lens focal length, iso/speed/aperture and whether or not you used a filter and if yes, which one? Thanks! Or even just add it in description/ or as a pinned comment and let me know? Either, or appreciated. Thanks!

[@bigrobotnewstoday1436]

One thing for example 20 megapixels on a crop camera is not the same on a larger sensor camera. This is because smaller sensor have noise. DXO PhotoLab and DXO PureRaw best noise reduction and Lightroom's new noise reduction is second and that's also very good. One thing DXO Deep PRIME does restore loss colors due to high ISO.

[@BrunoChalifour]

The real issue is that a 20 Mp "crop camera" will have smaller pixels as a 20 Mp full-frame one. Smaller pixels mean less light captured, means more amplification, means increased potential noise and reduced dynamic range.

[@graham_T]

Thank you . Questions ...when you took the image on the iPhone did you capture raw data . There are some outstanding applications such as Halide to take the shot and others too Then when you have a raw capture by the phone include in your workflow Topaz Sharpen Ai . I for one would be interested to see a big phone print with the image having been captured with the one of the top image capture apps capturing the raw data then processed as said . As things stand because I don’t know how you actually captured the image or actually processed it I am unsure as to whether or not the image you show is as good as it could have been . Thank you

[@BrunoChalifour]

Still the issue of cell-phone photographs is the size of their pixels. Small pixels mean little light collected and more amplification of the signal generated by the sensor, which, in turn, means more noise and more degradation of the quality of the image, less dynamic range. But you are right, the RAW formats, in general, because they record images at a higher bit-depth (mostly generating over 16,000 shades of a given color by comparison to the 256 values jpgs record) give you more leeway... to a point.

[@dlphotodlphoto1098]

I'm with you all they way, love the attention to detail , and my new printers on order too, this is really exciting stuff .I like the very idea of using the 100mp Fuji to extract every last drop of dealt out of an image , I used to use a canon 20d and a 500f4 is and have prints done on Cibachrome so to see this is Just Brilliant .

[@andrewward7042]

Metal prints, although I'm not sure that you can get them that big, are incredible. They look like a transparency would on a light box.

[@Firstmanphotography]

Totally agree. I sell my water drop images in 1 metre x 1 metre on metal and they always feel very special. Very durable too.

[@toddroy9558]

I printed a 48”x72” from a Nikon D810 and it’s beautiful even up close.

[@rlfisher]

Well done, Adam. I love the enthusiasm that you put into your craft and your videos. I have had good success with some fairly large metal prints for landscape images. For the truly giant images, what are your thoughts about upsampling (or not) before shipping the image off to the lab?

[@laineparsons]

Which iPhone did you take this photo on?

[@scotty4418]

Was the big image Roseberry Topping, also what was the image size Adam (which looked great by the way)?

[@Firstmanphotography]

Thanks....t’s a 60” x 48” print.

[@andymiles5156]

Thanks, interesting to hear about other printing methods. I won’t use that particular one myself as digital was always my ticket to get away from gelatine, unless there is a C type paper that doesn’t use it.

[@official6arz]

Can medium RAW format photos print large?

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

I thought you were going to mention the photo printing Co you used for this photo.

[@Firstmanphotography]

I did. There’s also a link in the description.

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

@@Firstmanphotography Tnx I suppose I need to get my eyes checked or give them a break cause I read the description prior to messaging you and I couldn’t see it. Even after you pointed out I had difficulties finding it. Somehow my brain wasn’t processing correctly what my eyes were reading. Perhaps my brain was looking out for smt else to register the printing co info. It’s all good and Tnx once again.

[@namboozleUK]

You should get Superdry to sponsor your channel, I bought that hoodie (or very similar) because it looks so comfy in the videos 😂

[@Firstmanphotography]

Ha. So far clothing brands have steered well clear of me. this is wise, fashion is not my thing and I wear a small selection of clothes until they are full of holes and usually covered in paint. I’ve always been like this but now I can claim it’s because it’s the more sustainable and environmentally friendly approach to clothes.

[@bddogcatball]

Actual comparison of prints starts at 00:06:38

[@tombain5665]

Hi, I liked your mushy print of the rainbow scene. I love art but I can't deliver. I can take photographs (ish). To me the best images have a creative impact rather than the pursuit of pixel sharpness. I love photographs but I love the creative artistic effects that are emotive. I used to print film, and pursuing large grain effects was my favourite. Grain like golf balls. Take a portrait using a small proprtion of the negative, then projecting th negative image on to the paper on the floor! Inrease contrast in film and development. Dreamy artistic portrait created. Actually taking out the accuity of lens, camera and format. Sacrilege but creatively fun, and not expensive. Cheers enjoying your chanel immensely

[@BrunoChalifour]

Pixels and details can also be part of "the creative impact" these are not antinomic features. Grain for the sake of grain, if not for an aesthetic (and effective) purpose is as useless as pixels for the sake of pixels. The technique you describe having been used again and again, especially in the 1960s-80s as in fashion then, may not really feel as a "sacrilege", especially for people of that era. Now some do the same thing with pixels ;o)

[@2ndELBB]

Love the vid, Can you take us through dpi, and what the best option are as to what format 1 saves the images in for print houses? Or maybe link the vid to this comment if youve touched on those topics already

[@overlandphotography]

Adam, I hear what you say (at about 8:40) stating that you wouldn't feel comfortable charging hundreds of pounds for a print that was not pin sharp ( I'm paraphrasing). To a certain extent, I agree with you. We all love a high quality pin sharp image. However, with my own images, for the most part, I'll ensure they are pin sharp front to back if they need be. Then, in post, I'll add my own artistic license to it. The main subject area or the focus of the image will remain pin sharp but then I'll purposefully slightly blur other components of the image to give it a painterly effect. If a viewer decides to pixel peep one of my images and sees that part of it is pin sharp and other parts are not, will my work be devalued because it is not pin sharp front to back ? I love your work and thanks for sharing.

[@BrunoChalifour]

Why not use a wider aperture (and the ensuing depth of field) while photographing? Probably less flexible regarding which area you blur but more "natural" and easier. Another issue is that all modern lenses are sharper between f 4 (some as early as f 2.8) and f 8, by going beyond with f 11 or f 16 then you lose some of the resolving qualities of your lens.

[@borisbojic]

You should try out the iPhone 12 Pro Max with ProRAW - much more details 👌🙂

[@c.augustin]

The iPhone image close up looked like JPEG compressed (or bad upscaling). My experience is that using RAW (DNG) with the iPhone gives much better and cleaner results. Yes, you then see pixel noise - but it looks much better and more "natural" (because it is). And this is where my preference of film comes in, it is more akin your example of viewing a painting up close: You are seeing the "brush strokes" of the image - the grain.

[@dmitry.sh.8946]

It doesn't matter .... you can't get a high-quality picture from your phone ... it's not for this

[@c.augustin]

@@dmitry.sh.8946 If all that counts for you are megapixels, then you're right. Nearly nobody who looks at your photos cares about it, though.

[@dmitry.sh.8946]

@@c.augustin Printing from a phone ... well, it's just ridiculous ...

[@c.augustin]

@@dmitry.sh.8946 Ever tried it? Even a decent Samsung phone with RAW support might work, but with an iPhone (the SE 1st gen. will do) and DNG you might actually be surprised. It's all about the right processing. Oh, and as Adam mentioned, good light is essential (daylight will do, but the moment it gets dark, quality degrades really fast - one of the limits you'll face, even with the newest iPhone 12 Pro and its trickery). The JPEGs out of smartphones are mostly horrible, I'll give you that. And to be clear: Most of the time I prefer "real" cameras, but not because of resolution or image quality in daylight - but having a range of focal lengths at my disposal, an EVF and proper controls (like, say, a proper grip with a shutter release button ;-)) is a much better UX than even the best camera app on a smartphone can have. A camera gives me much more options, but a smartphone is always in my pocket.

[@dmitry.sh.8946]

@@c.augustin Photos from a phone of very low quality ... from any phone ... and printing them, this is the height of idiocy ... no matter what brand of phone, it does not matter jpeg or raw

[@Zak_McKracken]

Short answer: That only depends on the viewers distance to the printed picture. Everything more than two times the diagonal of the print looks good enough, if you have a minimum resolution of 100 dpi.

[@keithwiebe1787]

Pro labs have been doing prints digitally onto photo paper for probably 20 plus years already.

[@paulsimmonds2030]

I made a massive mistake when I started printing. I downloaded the Epson app to my phone and found an image on my phone and sent the image to my new Epson XP-970 (using Marrutt Matt archival paper) As it was printing, I realised the image I used was a 250 kB thumbnail! However, I could not believe what the the printer printed. The resulting A3 was pretty awesome, even using a lupe to examine fine detail. Still not sure whether the printer felt sorry for my error, the paper was very forgiving, or I experienced a minor miracle. Good enough to sell? Well in the words of Will Smith “NO! HELL NO!” However, it did serve to demonstrate to me that my 21mp D500 is more than good enough to enable awesome A3 home-produced prints.

[@andrewward7042]

Still wondering where you are from? I'm from Rotherham.

[@Firstmanphotography]

Born in Guisborough. Schooled in Redcar. Became who I am in London. Live in Leeds.

[@andrewward7042]

@@Firstmanphotography Ah, thank you.

[@jenky1044]

Oh I thought you were going to go over camera settings and print settings.? This was nice but it shows you know how to do it and you do say we can do it, so there's that.

[@Ericbjohnston5150]

Put that cellphone pic through onone resize or other highend resize software and it will be cracking at large size.

[@Firstmanphotography]

I use Photoshop to resize my larger prints. Interestingly the iPhone image is probably at 100% and not enlarged at all. It is 12 megapixels at 240dpi, it’s on A2 paper which is bigger than that but with the border, without doing the maths, is around 100%.

[@MrPanthers23]

Ever think of going to a large format film camera like Ben Horne does? I would think the detail would be even more impressive.