A Stock Photographer Will Want A Camera With At Least How Many Megapixels?

Megapixels Chart

v1.0, 2005-12-26 by Robert Giordano

Each colored box represents a certain number of megapixels. The numbers along the height and left side are print dimensions in inches at 300ppi (pixels per inch). About books and magazines require 300ppi for photo quality. For instance, the nautical chart shows that you can make a five" x 7" photo quality impress from a 3 megapixel photographic camera.

inches @ 300ppi (numbers within colored boxes are megapixels)

Notice that equally the print size doubles, the megapixels required increases geometrically. You can make squeamish 8" x 10" prints with a half dozen or 8 megapixel camera, but to make a truthful photograph quality sixteen" 10 xx" print, you need between 24 and 30 megapixels. Don't exist fooled by manufacturers' claims that say you can make 16" x 20" prints from an eight megapixel camera. While you certainly tin make a print that size, it volition not be true photo quality.

Here'south why:

• A megapixel is one one thousand thousand pixels. It's an surface area measurement like foursquare feet.
• A typical viii megapixel camera produces images that are 3266 x 2450* pixels.
  If you multiply 3266 by 2450, you lot get 8,001,700 or 8 million pixels.
• To find the largest photo quality image you can print, simply divide each dimension by 300:
  3266 / 300 = ten.89 inches
  2450 / 300 = 8.17 inches
  
• If you are not publishing your images in a book or magazine, and you lot're only making prints for yourself or your friends, you can "cheat". Good quality inkjet printers can make a nice looking impress at 250 or 200ppi. At 200ppi, the maximum print size becomes:
  3266 / 200 = sixteen.33 inches
  2450 / 200 = 12.25 inches
  
• If you lot know how to use paradigm editing software similar Photoshop, you can "cheat" even more past increasing the image size, and even doubling the number of pixels in the image. The quality of the camera and lense becomes more of import at this signal bacause any loss of detail or sharpness is magnified. If an image is enlarged as well much in this style, it volition look "fuzzy" or "pixelated".

Megapixels vs. Maximum Print Size Chart

Megapixels	Pixel Resolution*	Print Size @ 300ppi	Print size @ 200ppi	Print size @ 150ppi**
3	2048 x 1536	half-dozen.82" x 5.12"	x.24" x 7.68"	13.65" x 10.24"
4	2464 10 1632	eight.21" 10 v.44"	12.32" x 8.16"	16.42" 10 10.88"
six	3008 10 2000	10.02" ten 6.67"	15.04" x x.00"	20.05" x 13.34"
8	3264 x 2448	10.88" x 8.16"	16.32" x 12.24"	21.76" x 16.32"
x	3872 x 2592	12.91" x viii.64"	19.36" ten 12.96"	25.81" 10 17.28"
12	4290 x 2800	xiv.30" ten nine.34"	21.45" x fourteen.00"	28.threescore" x 18.67"
16	4920 x 3264	16.twoscore" x 10.88"	24.60" x 16.32"	32.80" x 21.76"
35mm motion-picture show, scanned	5380 ten 3620	17.93" x 12.06"	26.90" x eighteen.x"	35.87" 10 24.13"
36, Nikon D800	7360 x 4912	24.53" x 16.37"	36.lxxx" 10 24.56"	49.06" ten 32.74"

*Typical Resolution. Actual pixel dimensions vary from camera to photographic camera.

**At 150ppi, printed images will have visible pixels and details will wait "fuzzy".

For an explanation of "pixels per inch" vs. "dots per inch" and why you need 300ppi for true photograph quality,
see our Printing Guide.

Virtually the Comments

On about Design215 pages you'll see the newest comments at the meridian. On this page however, I decided to prove the oldest comments at the height because I tried to reply many of the initial comments nearly this nautical chart. Since people keep making the same comments, I thought information technology all-time to take my original answers at the top. Over again, I fabricated this nautical chart as a visual representation of megapixels. As a photographer, I certainly recognize the importance of sensor quality, optics, compression, mail processing, and viewing distance.

Robert Giordano

[53 Comments]

Michael

05 Jul 2006 10:15pm

"Squeamish guide, I got a 7 Megapixel Camera and it makes beautiful 8x10s. Even though 7 is not on the chart it is not difficult to see where it would fit. I haven't tried anything larger than a 8x10. Nice chart, one of many reasons why I opted for the 7 megapixel camera over the v!"

Daniela

17 Jul 2006 eleven:44am

"Thank you for bringing some lite into the megapixel mistery!"

mike berry

07 Oct 2006 8:43pm

"When you get from 8x10 to 16x20 aren't y'all quadrupling the area? Therefore it would brand sense that you would need 24 to 30 megapixels for a 16x20 if you could produce a 8x10 with half dozen to 8 megapixels because 6x4=24 and 8x4=32.

[Reply from Robert Giordano]
Strictly speaking in terms of pixels per inch, with no post editing, an 8x10 @ 300ppi is (8x300) x (10x300), or 7,200,000 pixels (7MP). A 16x20 is (16x300) x (20x300), or 28,800,000 pixels (28.8MP). This chart is only near the math and does non take into consideration the subject area matter of the prototype, the media it will be printed on, the corporeality of post editing that will be washed to it, or the viewing distance of the final output."

Randy

07 Oct 2006 11:47pm

"The critical role that is being left out which needs to be tied into this information is sensor size. And also the work done in post has more to do with achievable print size than megapixels. The 300dpi mark is indeed "true photo quality" in print terms, but information technology isn't always needed to get good prints. I have 20x30" prints on Fuji Crystal Archive hanging on my wall that turned out wonderful from an 8mp APS-C sized sensor (Catechism 350D). And perfect 20x30"due south from the full-frame 4mp Catechism 1D.

[Reply from Robert Giordano]
Randy, I totally concur just I'll have to make a different nautical chart on a new folio. A larger 6MP sensor will of course produce meliorate images than a smaller 6MP sensor of the same type. From there, information technology gets very complicated. For i, making an inkjet print is dissimilar than producing a print advertizement where you demand 300ppi for a 150 line screen. I've made dandy looking 16x20 inkjet prints from my 6MP Nikon D70 but the same paradigm didn't quite cutting information technology for a full page magazine advertisement. In that location are a number of factors to consider including subject affair, exposure, focus, and post processing. How does one brainstorm to brand such a chart? The chart on this page is purely for a mathematical overview. As the table underneath the chart shows, I can shoot 35mm film, scan it, and have at least a xix megapixel image. In reality, I shoot digital 90% of the time, and use my 4x5 movie camera if I need to go large. =)"

smartie

08 Oct 2006 1:33am

"nice, overnice, you just forgot to mention that bigger pictures are meant to be looked from farther... eg if yous design a billboard, you'll need only a resolution of eighteen or 20 dpi.

[Respond from Robert Giordano]
Yes, you are correct. For the sake of simplicity, I have selected the "photo quality" standard of 300ppi as a abiding."

all wrong

08 October 2006 two:07pm

"try telling that to this guy: http://world wide web.grafphoto.com/articles/printdogma.html

[Reply from Robert Giordano]
What's funny is I concur with what he says. He explains that he made a 24 ten 36 print from his 4MP Nikon D2H. Yes, 4 megapixels at 72ppi will requite you roughly a 24 10 36 image. Actually the D2H gives y'all 2464 10 1632 pixels which is 34.22" x 22.66" @ 72ppi. He says he used USM (Unsharp Mask) at 500% and 0.1R to "correct for digital capture". The thing is, he started with a pinnacle of the line, $3000 USD camera and a loftier quality lens. He captured a RAW image file (not a jpeg) then he did some postal service processing in Photoshop. Finally, he sent the file to a print shop, where the prototype was virtually likely processed once again in the RIP software. A consumer with a $200 4MP photographic camera who has no thought how to employ Photoshop, is not going to achieve the same results.

In the table below the chart, I've listed impress sizes at 200ppi and 150ppi every bit alternatives to the 300ppi standard. The chart simply serves as a visual comparison of various megapixel areas."

all right

08 October 2006 5:33pm

"Great chart, and handy likewise. You're spot on almost the link in a higher place - the guy is using superlative quality gear and the photo was sent to a printer who obviously applied interpolation either in Photoshop or through the RIP (more likely). Sending the image to a dissimilar printer would produce a different outcome. Another point is that resolution is fast becoming less important than it has been to appointment. As sensors get more detailed, and then lenses, sensor size, lag time and other functions become more of import"

One thousand Needham

09 Oct 2006 7:50am

"Nice chart, although at that place is definately something to exist said about the absolutes of mathematical analysis vs. real life. The best fashion to decide on maximum print size is to look at actual prints. To give some hope to those who would push the 300dpi limit, when I purchased my 8mp APS-C DSLR I thought max size would be 8x12. Recently with uncomplicated Photoshopping and a good printer (meaning a person who prints rather than a motorcar) I took them up to 16x24. It really surprised me how good they looked!"

good chart, only IRL....

09 Oct 2006 5:16pm

"This is a good reference chart. But the fact is that I have made high quality 11x14 prints from my older 4mp point and shoot. THese are equally good, if not better, in quality every bit some of the 11x14 35mm prints I have made in the darkroom with ISO 100 picture show. They were not pixelated, blurred, or distorted. Granted they have to exist high quality images to beginning with. In real life the numbers are a adept guide, but only feel can tell y'all for sure what your camera will actually do for y'all."

Yeah I guess then, only...

10 Oct 2006 iv:15am

"If you utilize a uncomplicated fob in photoshop you tin can hands get great looking prints beyond the "maximum" size. Basically yous increase the size by 110%. You can repeat it 5-7 times earlier you lot start to notice any real paradigm loss. Of course results vary depending on photographs merely I have started with a photograph at 300dpi ten.02x6.67 and gone up to 300dpi at nineteen.5x13 inches and gotten great results. For the full explaination: babibubebo.com/2006/ten/ten/photography-travel-tip-04-give-it-110/"

Mark Bowman

10 Oct 2006 12:36pm

"Your chart is misleading IMHO in that beyond certain types of Professional person publishing most photographers and printers consider 250dpi to be adequate for loftier quality prints. Any digital photographic camera from 3MP on volition satisfy the boilerplate user press at 4x6 through 8x10. The but time the rule doesn't concord is they happen to need to do extensive cropping. I know y'all put in the fine print about inkjets working at 200dpi simply I but wanted to emphasize that 3MP-5MP digicams is all most people demand."

Beckie

13 December 2006 7:03pm

"This was a great commodity! It gets disruptive with all the dimensions and things like that, but over all it was really helpful."

megapixels

03 Jan 2007 2:05am

"Very Well Explained information."

Upsizing

03 Jan 2007 ix:28am

"Yes yous can attempt that 110% trick but I'm not sure there is much bespeak. I found I could accomplish the aforementioned effect past using Bicubic Sharper in the Image Size dialogue box in Photoshop. I simply selected Bicubic Sharper and entered in the pixel dimensions I wanted. I tried doing the 110% thing with a 1500 pixel foursquare image. Information technology took it to 2925 after a number of 110% upwards sizes. Using Bicubic sharper in ane hit accomplished exactly the same consequence."

35mm film

25 Sep 2007 seven:48pm

"In the chart it says 35mm moving picture. What ISO is it? Thanks

[Reply from Robert Giordano]
I was only including 35mm picture show as a reference, probably 100 ISO transparency film. Motion picture has grain, not pixels so you could use 1600 ISO film and information technology however wouldn't become picayune square pixels no matter how much you lot enlarged it. That being said, at that place are many other differences betwixt movie and digital. Each has its advantages and disadvantages."

Ed Silva

eighteen Oct 2007 3:51pm

"This is a bang-up chart. The link to the tiger print is also great. Information technology also confirms the old proverb "the proof is in the pudding" or something like that. From this chart how do you print smaller ? By doubling the DPI ? Print nonetheless a mistery to me...:( since I am an apprentice photog similar many...:) Cracking chart! and allowing feedback makes it fifty-fifty better!"

Your page

31 Oct 2007 7:50am

"I'one thousand looking for my showtime digital photographic camera and this site has provided much useful information to aid me. Thank you Peter Kidd Wales"

1-step is the style to go

14 Nov 2007 12:06am

"I've heard about the +110% play a joke on from a few dissimilar sources. I experimented within photoshop and plant slightly better results using the one-stride "bicubic smoother" setting. I found it to be smoother AND sharper. I also establish ii things that haven't been mentioned yet...increasing by 110% 5 times gave me slightly more credible chromatic abberations, and a dramatic color shift towards yellow. The 1-step approach is but a better way to resize in my stance."

Dave

23 Mar 2008 eight:54am

"Your chart seems to be close to the truth. My 8MP Canon 20D can make a skilful looking A4 (8.3 x 11.vii"), merely doubling the size to A3 gives clearly inferior results."

Kim Letkeman

23 Mar 2008 nine:50am

"Excellent chart. Well done. You are correct that, in the strictest sense, to get an image that looks proficient to any pair of optics from any distance ane should be press at 300ppi at native resolution. Just things are not quite that simple. The average pair of eyes is less acute, and the average viewing altitude is further away. Skill with interpolation software tin can double native resolution while retaining unpixelated edges and all details. Which is why the D2H tin can do posters with sure subjects."

ppi vs distance GW

26 May 2008 4:51am

"Great caption of print size vs. megapixels. This is great info, especially for those not handy with post-processing. The only thing that could exist considered missing is a chart that shows ppi vs viewing distance. If the image was placed farther away from the audition the ppi's can reduce, as Smartie alluded to when refering to billboards, with no reduction in quality existence seen. 300ppi is considered optimum when viewing a print from about 12in.

[Answer from Robert Giordano]
I'g really working on a distance nautical chart and I'll also take some supporting photos to go with it. =)"

DigiDude

07 Jun 2008 5:11am

"Nice! Merely some people are using this chart to say that more mega-pixels than Ten isn't needed or desirable. To them I would similar to remind of: Panorama photography, Scrolling backgrounds for flick, and the common practise of cropping. An 8MP camera might await skilful printed to A4 but not after y'all determine to ingather sixty or 80% of the pixels because yous desire a tighter shot or you desire to zoom up and see the actual facial expression on your vi-twelvemonth-old's face up every bit as he/she was blowing out the candles."

Dandy Site-Helpful Information

29 Dec 2008 8:54pm

"Very helpful, easy to understand data in an easy to navigate, easy to read website. Many thanks."

Getting Started with half dozen.i AG

29 Jun 2009 9:14pm

"This chart helps me feel comfortable creating shots for magazine publications with 6.one Megapixel Nikon D50. I've been out of photography for a while and got dorsum in by stumbling across this. I'm creating views of classroom lessons and activities. Should be enough for that."

[SPAM] Andrew

18 Aug 2009 five:31am

"I beg to differ with your 35mm picture show numbers. You can browse 35mm chrome upwards to about v,500 ppi and still get detail. Above that your are just scanning the film grain. I have produced spectacular 30"x40" prints from 35mm chromes. Film still records far more information than any digital photographic camera. Andrew Prokos Photography, New York"

Another Idea

06 May 2010 8:31am

"Another "trick" for increasing bodily megapixel size involves using a calibrated panoramic head on a tripod. If yous are shooting at a native 12 megapixelx, and yous desire to print very large images, taking multiple 12 megapixel images, and stitching them together to form the finished image can resolve the relatively low resolution of even higher end digital cameras when compared with traditional film stock. By merely taking a 2 x 2 grid of pictures, you quadruple the native megapixel count."

Bill Foley

xvi Aug 2010 7:08am

"This is the best caption of how megapixels works that I have e'er seen! Thanks for putting this together!"

35mm Film Exposure = 60MP

13 Oct 2010 11:41am

"35mm chrome picture show scanned at high res can produce a much larger print than shown on your nautical chart. I have 30"x40" prints from 35mm Fujichrome Velvia motion-picture show... long exposures shot at dark and it's very detailed and sharp. This chart is non authentic where film is concerned at all. I have read that 35mm exposures = around 60MP of data. That's more than even the current medium format digital cameras

[Reply from Robert Giordano]
I agree. I have 35mm negatives on Agfa APX25 that I had to have professionally scanned with a pulsate scanner in order to reproduce the particular I could see under a 15x loupe. My 35mm reference in the chart is an boilerplate of 19MP. I arrived at this number subsequently scanning many, many slides and negatives. Virtually people are not shooting Velvia or Agfa 25. =)"

Give thanks you

04 Nov 2010 10:15am

"I just wanted to say Cheers for creating this chart and page. I establish the information extremely helpful and was fully able to understand that this is meant to be an average. There are always exceptions to the rule and I feel photography is about bending the limits of perception quite often, even through exterior sources. Essentially many things are possible through diligence and hard piece of work, and so there are the residue of usa. I am grateful to the time you spent on this for us. Best Wishes, Jason"

The Early 35 and Megapixels

28 Dec 2010 11:34am

"When 35mm cameras were first used by photographers working for Expect, LIFE, and National Geographic magazines, the camera-lens-film combination so available probably resolved lots less line pairs than a mod 35. I wonder if there is a manner to estimate the guess "megapixel equivalence" of those early Leicas and Contaxes of the time when 35 gained wide acceptance. Any thoughts on how to make it at this?

[Answer from Robert Giordano]
I disagree with the assumption that older photographic camera-lens-movie combinations resolved to less detail than modern cameras. I believe its the reverse. I am, of grade, disregarding all "consumer form" cameras and film. Starting time of all, many of the famous photographs from 40s, 50s, and 60s that we recognize today, were shot with a Speed Graphic or similar camera on 4x5 film. For years, I shot Agfa APX25 35mm black and white flick with an old Nikon FM2 and a manual focus, Nikkor 105mm F2.5. I developed my film by mitt and I have twenty" x 30" prints on my wall with virtually no grain and detail that surpasses whatever DSLR I've seen, up to 16 megapixels. Personally, I've been waiting a long fourth dimension for digital to take hold of up to motion picture. It's now 2011 and I think its merely beginning to happen."

John

05 January 2011 1:55am

"hello Robert, it seems I have stumbled on your site a couple of years after your initial post. I accept read several of your very well articulated articles, cheers for devoting the time and free energy to help many people out with these concepts. I am thinking and planning ahead for potential exhibitions and the relationship between ppi and viewing distance has been of detail interest. I was wondering if yous had published an article or table of this somewhere? Thank you Robert!

[Reply from Robert Giordano]
Thanks! A viewing distance chart is on my to do list. =)"

tykayn

13 Jan 2011 viii:57am

"overnice graph, useful to print things in the correct size :)"

Thanks

12 Mar 2011 8:36pm

"Hey but wanted to say thanks for explaining about print sizes and dpi etc. I think some people hither are totally missing the point of your exercise! How many times do you need to explain it for them? It's much appreciated and has helped me understand ameliorate give thanks yous."

Owen Glendower

09 Jun 2011 7:48am

"Glad to find this once more...forgot to bookmark it earlier. Good chart, and you did a practiced job in the comments of explaining the caveats. I would add that some photograph editors and printing utilities allow you to impress a test strip earlier you print large (or take it printed by a lab). For example, you lot can set the print size at 16x20 and the newspaper size at 4x6. The resulting 4x6 impress will be a strip or patch at the scale of the 16x20. I do this regularly with Qimage and it saves a lot of paper and ink."

Very helpful nautical chart!

05 Sep 2011 8:14pm

"I plant that this is a practical chart to approximate the "safe" maximum photo print size. My suggestion is to add the standard photo paper size (2R, 4R, 8R, etc) to the nautical chart. Thank y'all!"

Give thanks You likewise!

17 Oct 2011 12:22am

"I appreciate your explanations besides as all the misc comments. For those of u.s. that use a photographic camera not-professionally, this is a great dominion-of-thumb guide, peculiarly if yous might exist in the market for older tech and need a elementary comparing."

Peter

02 Jan 2012 iii:17am

"Funny, but depending on your source, maximum size of 35mm pic is near ~20 megapixels. And nonetheless, every bit of start of 2012 nigh of compact cameras, don't have this resolution. But probably most professional volition accept at the end of year..."

Commencement in 2012 - Derek

22 Jan 2012 vi:54pm

"I really like the longevity of relevance to this commodity, where in 2012 the math notwithstanding of class applies simply the printers and sensors have progressed dramatically beyond the half dozen or 7MP the original respondents were discussing back in 2006. I'm shooting a Canon 7D @ 17.nine effective MP and typically print on an Epson 3880 @ 240 dpi to reach excellent quality results for creative display (using Epson Ultra Luster paper). It will be fun to cheque back in a few years and see where this page is!"

Derek

07 Feb 2012 5:04am

"Actually, 150dpi can give acceptable results for color photographic images (i.e. an prototype yous would use JPEG format for), and you lot will non notice any visible pixels from normal "reading distance". This does not hold truthful for high dissimilarity "line art" type images (lettering, logos, "graphic art", etc). In this case, vector formats are desired, and if it must be rasterized, then 300dpi is considered to exist low and 600 is recommended."

Thanks

24 Mar 2012 7:56pm

"I just want to say thank you for the info. For an apprentice lensman, this is actually helpful in understanding what magazines editors hateful with 'at least 300 ppi' and what I demand to practise to evangelize the requirement."

Dave

14 Jun 2012 6:49am

"Slap-up Job explaining the conversion from Pixels to impress size. This is exactly what I've been looking for. I had 2 meetings today trying to understand/find the conversion math. Both the Apple Discontinuity people and the guys at the Photo Lab were convinced the math was long and complicated. of "magic"... split up past the dpi ba-da bing, your done... Thank you"

Thanks

fourteen Jul 2012 2:22pm

"This article and chart allowed me to sympathise how to match the resolution of the pic in pixels to the print size taking into account the printer dpi capability. All the other articles I've read confused me more. In fact I haven't found one nevertheless that is equally skillful as this commodity."

Thank you!!!

04 Jan 2013 xi:02am

"Cheers for the lucid, articulate and concise explanations on all your Toolbox pages. They take proved admittedly invaluable, instructive and educational to this novice photographer. Keep up the fantastic work and thanks again!"

Thanks

03 Apr 2013 2:33pm

"Thank y'all for this resource and for sharing information technology with the world."

stev

12 Jun 2013 10:06pm

"this helps learners fifty-fifty home camera users to know which camera to use for which size of photo printouts... thanks"

Jon

09 October 2013 12:43pm

"I think this commodity is widly over optimistic in terms of the resolution of scanned 35mm film, you can scan to that resolution of form just as you can upsize digital files but I don't call up yous'll be getting great quality from it.

[Reply from Robert Giordano]
Information technology depends on what kind of movie you are scanning and how it was adult. I have 35mm negatives on Agfa APX25 (ISO 25 black and white motion-picture show) that I had to have professionally scanned with a drum scanner in order to reproduce the detail I could see under a 15x loupe. My 35mm reference in the chart is an average of 19MP. I arrived at this number after scanning many, many slides and negatives. Most people are not shooting Fujichrome Velvia or Agfa 25. Unfortunately, Agfa no longer makes APX25."

kdmorris

25 October 2014 seven:17am

"When I deliver proof, they are at 1mp at 200dpi and I increment them to 5-8 mp once the client makes their selection. This chart volition be used to demonstrate to them their print size options likewise equally explain my pricing guide. Thanks for sharing this."

Octafian

26 Jun 2016 vi:15am

"thanks!"

Gigi

02 Dec 2017 six:30pm

"Thank you. You lot made it easy to understand!"

Jack

30 Sep 2018 six:58pm

"Thanks Robert. Its 2018 and I am even so using your work from 2006!"

Dale

22 April 2019 six:24pm

"Note that attribute ratio isn't talked well-nigh here. When you make a print the attribute ratio of the impress is non always the same as the image that the camera took. Images are likely cropped. Then the private numbers of separately measuring the elevation and width is the correct way to estimate. The nautical chart does not always evidence the same aspect ratio. A regular camera is probable 4:iii but a SLR camera is likely to mimic 35mm picture show and utilise 3:2. Some cameras shoot wide ratio of sixteen:9. Some can be inverse."

SRINIVAS RUDRA

29 Jun 2019 ii:23am

"Good information on pixels sizes & it helps me a lot"

Arnav S.

02 Apr 2021 8:24pm

"Very Informative. Staggering to run into how far we've come in terms of camera quality, and even astonishing to see your article concord then well after and then many years."

Get out a Annotate

Source: https://design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

Posted by: christensenplousee.blogspot.com

Share this post