E20Man
Active member
Has anyone with an E-20 made any 11x14 prints? I'd like to buy a 1280 and make up to 11x14 prints, but I'm not sure how they'll turn out. Is their any visible pixelation or faded appearance?
Reading mode:
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
E-20, Epson 1280 and 11x14 prints
- Thread starter E20Man
- Start date
Brian Mackey
Veteran Member
uh, what are you going to print?
I can print 11x14's with the E-10 images, with none of the problems your asking about, provided I have a good image to start with..
I can print 11x14's with the E-10 images, with none of the problems your asking about, provided I have a good image to start with..
Has anyone with an E-20 made any 11x14 prints? I'd like to buy a
1280 and make up to 11x14 prints, but I'm not sure how they'll turn
out. Is their any visible pixelation or faded appearance?
LesDMess
Veteran Member
E20Man,
I only have the 4mp E10 and just recently had a 24X36 print made and it is great. However, it was a HP and had it been the Epson version, the colors may have been better IMO. I also have the 1280 and print out my keepers on premium glossy Epson 13X19 and they are very good. Seems like someone here bought one of the big Epson machines, now if I can only find it. Hope this helps.
LesDMess
I only have the 4mp E10 and just recently had a 24X36 print made and it is great. However, it was a HP and had it been the Epson version, the colors may have been better IMO. I also have the 1280 and print out my keepers on premium glossy Epson 13X19 and they are very good. Seems like someone here bought one of the big Epson machines, now if I can only find it. Hope this helps.
LesDMess
Has anyone with an E-20 made any 11x14 prints? I'd like to buy a
1280 and make up to 11x14 prints, but I'm not sure how they'll turn
out. Is their any visible pixelation or faded appearance?
J
JJNNBB
Guest
Was your 24"x36" print great' when viewed at a conventional diagonal distance, ie 40-odd inches; or whas it great when viewed close-to, ie, say, 15"?
The first I might - might - accept; the second not. 24"x36" imples only 60-70odd pixels/printed inch: too low a rate to be worth looking at in detail. I'd say.
Even 11"x14" implies only 150-160 pixels/printed inch. Else, you've hit on something important. My own limit for the E-10 is 10"x8", preferably 8"x6", and use a working minimum of 200 pixels/printed inch. Usinfg a Stylus 1290, by the way.
And I find 200 pixels/printed inch not really satisfting to the thorough eye even with a decently-sharp shot.
Maybe I'm missing something?
John Bunney
The first I might - might - accept; the second not. 24"x36" imples only 60-70odd pixels/printed inch: too low a rate to be worth looking at in detail. I'd say.
Even 11"x14" implies only 150-160 pixels/printed inch. Else, you've hit on something important. My own limit for the E-10 is 10"x8", preferably 8"x6", and use a working minimum of 200 pixels/printed inch. Usinfg a Stylus 1290, by the way.
And I find 200 pixels/printed inch not really satisfting to the thorough eye even with a decently-sharp shot.
Maybe I'm missing something?
John Bunney
Has anyone with an E-20 made any 11x14 prints? I'd like to buy a
1280 and make up to 11x14 prints, but I'm not sure how they'll turn
out. Is their any visible pixelation or faded appearance?
E20Man
Active member
This is exactly my concern.
The first I might - might - accept; the second not. 24"x36" imples
only 60-70odd pixels/printed inch: too low a rate to be worth
looking at in detail. I'd say.
Even 11"x14" implies only 150-160 pixels/printed inch. Else,
you've hit on something important. My own limit for the E-10 is
10"x8", preferably 8"x6", and use a working minimum of 200
pixels/printed inch. Usinfg a Stylus 1290, by the way.
And I find 200 pixels/printed inch not really satisfting to the
thorough eye even with a decently-sharp shot.
Maybe I'm missing something?
John Bunney
Has anyone with an E-20 made any 11x14 prints? I'd like to buy a
1280 and make up to 11x14 prints, but I'm not sure how they'll turn
out. Is their any visible pixelation or faded appearance?
LesDMess
Veteran Member
E20Man & JJNNBB,
I fully understand your skepticism but can only tell you that it has to seen to be believed. I went to POF museum to help raise money for that organization by providing prints for their upcoming art show with my 13X19 and they were very surprised. I was too considering what they charge for much smaller photographs - less then 8X10. I've always said here that the monitor display does not do these photos justice and can only suggest that if you have a chance to get prints made on an EPSON1280/EPSON Glossy premium at automatic settings you too will be amazed. BTW I run it through Genuine Fractals for enlargements of this size. Next step I will have them printed on canvas to look like a painting at 35X45 for $189.
LesDMess
I fully understand your skepticism but can only tell you that it has to seen to be believed. I went to POF museum to help raise money for that organization by providing prints for their upcoming art show with my 13X19 and they were very surprised. I was too considering what they charge for much smaller photographs - less then 8X10. I've always said here that the monitor display does not do these photos justice and can only suggest that if you have a chance to get prints made on an EPSON1280/EPSON Glossy premium at automatic settings you too will be amazed. BTW I run it through Genuine Fractals for enlargements of this size. Next step I will have them printed on canvas to look like a painting at 35X45 for $189.
LesDMess
The first I might - might - accept; the second not. 24"x36" imples
only 60-70odd pixels/printed inch: too low a rate to be worth
looking at in detail. I'd say.
Even 11"x14" implies only 150-160 pixels/printed inch. Else,
you've hit on something important. My own limit for the E-10 is
10"x8", preferably 8"x6", and use a working minimum of 200
pixels/printed inch. Usinfg a Stylus 1290, by the way.
And I find 200 pixels/printed inch not really satisfting to the
thorough eye even with a decently-sharp shot.
Maybe I'm missing something?
John Bunney
Has anyone with an E-20 made any 11x14 prints? I'd like to buy a
1280 and make up to 11x14 prints, but I'm not sure how they'll turn
out. Is their any visible pixelation or faded appearance?
Hi John,JJNNBB wrote:
And I find 200 pixels/printed inch not really satisfting to the
thorough eye even with a decently-sharp shot.
Maybe I'm missing something?
John Bunney
I'm sure you realize it already......but just thought I'd mention that 11x14 (or larger) prints from the E-10 surely depend on good interpolation.....for example, Genuine Fractals or Lanczos. With such interpolation algorithms I find that 13x19 size prints from the Epson 1280 are more than acceptable. (Of course, if inspected with a loupe one can manage to see undesired effects at these sizes.....but for "normal" viewing, they're quite workable.)
Best wishes,
David
E20Man
Active member
I should have been more concise with my question. I meant a print directly from the camera. I can't use GF because I don't have PS. However, I do have Lanczos as part of my ACDSee editing package. Will Lanczos work as well as GF?
The first I might - might - accept; the second not. 24"x36" imples
only 60-70odd pixels/printed inch: too low a rate to be worth
looking at in detail. I'd say.
Even 11"x14" implies only 150-160 pixels/printed inch. Else,
you've hit on something important. My own limit for the E-10 is
10"x8", preferably 8"x6", and use a working minimum of 200
pixels/printed inch. Usinfg a Stylus 1290, by the way.
And I find 200 pixels/printed inch not really satisfting to the
thorough eye even with a decently-sharp shot.
Maybe I'm missing something?
John Bunney
Has anyone with an E-20 made any 11x14 prints? I'd like to buy a
1280 and make up to 11x14 prints, but I'm not sure how they'll turn
out. Is their any visible pixelation or faded appearance?
LesDMess
Veteran Member
E20Man,
Frankly upon PS magnification, I really can see only marginal differences between PS upsampling versus Genuine Fractals and since these 13X19 prints aren't exactly cheap I have not tried it. I was vacillating between the 1270 and 1280 but thought to be forward thinking in getting the 1280 but suspect that not much was gained in doing so but am still very happy with the results anyway. All I can say is if you have a "keeper" to try to get it printed and see the results for yourself.
LesDMess
Frankly upon PS magnification, I really can see only marginal differences between PS upsampling versus Genuine Fractals and since these 13X19 prints aren't exactly cheap I have not tried it. I was vacillating between the 1270 and 1280 but thought to be forward thinking in getting the 1280 but suspect that not much was gained in doing so but am still very happy with the results anyway. All I can say is if you have a "keeper" to try to get it printed and see the results for yourself.
LesDMess
I should have been more concise with my question. I meant a print
directly from the camera. I can't use GF because I don't have PS.
However, I do have Lanczos as part of my ACDSee editing package.
Will Lanczos work as well as GF?
T
TomJ
Guest
You should expect very good results. I routinely have larger prints made from my E-10 files and the results are very mpressive. Going to 11x14 and beyond is very possible with results that will be very comparable to 35mm film to my eyes and over 20 years as a studio owner.Has anyone with an E-20 made any 11x14 prints? I'd like to buy a
1280 and make up to 11x14 prints, but I'm not sure how they'll turn
out. Is their any visible pixelation or faded appearance?
You will need to "res up" the file size, however, so that the dpi is around 250-300 dpi at the final output size. E-10 files stand up to bicubic interpolation nicely. For even larger sizes, I like Genuine Fractals. For anything you can print on an Epson 1280, though, you should be able to get very nice results by just interpolating with your image editor. If you do not use Photoshop, why not try Adobe Photoshop Elements which came with your E-20?
Good luck,
TomJ
E20Man
Active member
I wish the thinktank over at Adobe would include Lanczos interpolation algorithms in their otherwise superb programs. It's amazing they do not focus more on printing solutions. If they would make PS Elements the same as it is, with the printing versatility of Qimage, they could sell the program easily for $150.00 a pop. As it is, I use ACDSee for my Lanczos resizing, unless I'm printing with Qimage.
You should expect very good results. I routinely have larger printsHas anyone with an E-20 made any 11x14 prints? I'd like to buy a
1280 and make up to 11x14 prints, but I'm not sure how they'll turn
out. Is their any visible pixelation or faded appearance?
made from my E-10 files and the results are very mpressive. Going
to 11x14 and beyond is very possible with results that will be very
comparable to 35mm film to my eyes and over 20 years as a studio
owner.
You will need to "res up" the file size, however, so that the dpi
is around 250-300 dpi at the final output size. E-10 files stand up
to bicubic interpolation nicely. For even larger sizes, I like
Genuine Fractals. For anything you can print on an Epson 1280,
though, you should be able to get very nice results by just
interpolating with your image editor. If you do not use Photoshop,
why not try Adobe Photoshop Elements which came with your E-20?
Good luck,
TomJ
You can use GF with Paintshop Pro or Corel Photopaint also. I'm just printing out some prints I did at the lower size of SHQ (comparable to 6 x 8 at 200ppi) at 8 x 10 that I resized in GF. I have to admit I'm very very happy. I am using it with PS, but have used GF with the others before I had PS.I should have been more concise with my question. I meant a print
directly from the camera. I can't use GF because I don't have PS.
However, I do have Lanczos as part of my ACDSee editing package.
Will Lanczos work as well as GF?
Diane
M
matt chase
Guest
I have made many 11x14 prints from my E-10 with an epson 1270, most with only minor adjustments in photoshop, and they are indiscernable from film prints from a few inches away. I have also done a 16x20 that looks good, not great, but is a step above acceptable. Largest print I have done so far is a 20x30, but since it was on canvas I won't use it as an example of photorealistic image quality. However, I will say it looks perfect.
Also, everyone will be happy to know that I had the opportunity to test out a D1x and D30 last week, and neither was much better in image quality to my E-10. The E-10 was the most color accurate straight out of camera, the D30 was the least. The D1x was great all around, handles very well and is very fast, and yes it does show better image quality over the E-10. But not that much.
Now, the Kodak Proback and Lightphase are another story...
The most important thing to keep in mind is you need a good image to start with. And not every image will print great, even if it looks great onscreen. Don't know why, just know it happens.
Matt Chase
http://www.matthewchase.com/photo
PS. The big machine is closer than you think, Les...
Also, everyone will be happy to know that I had the opportunity to test out a D1x and D30 last week, and neither was much better in image quality to my E-10. The E-10 was the most color accurate straight out of camera, the D30 was the least. The D1x was great all around, handles very well and is very fast, and yes it does show better image quality over the E-10. But not that much.
Now, the Kodak Proback and Lightphase are another story...
The most important thing to keep in mind is you need a good image to start with. And not every image will print great, even if it looks great onscreen. Don't know why, just know it happens.
Matt Chase
http://www.matthewchase.com/photo
PS. The big machine is closer than you think, Les...
Jim K53618
Veteran Member
With all due respect, I must disagree and sum up your finding as, rubbish.Also, everyone will be happy to know that I had the opportunity to
test out a D1x and D30 last week, and neither was much better in
image quality to my E-10. The E-10 was the most color accurate
straight out of camera, the D30 was the least. The D1x was great
all around, handles very well and is very fast, and yes it does
show better image quality over the E-10. But not that much.
I happen to own all the cameras you mentioned, and then some. I've printed a lot from each on my epson 1270 up to 11x17. The E10 definetly does a very nice job, but I have to be completely honest. The D30 blows it away in dynamic range and tones. It almost looks 3 demensional. Its very rich in color and depth. As good as the E10 is, it can not match the D30. The D1x and the D1h both do better then the d30. In fact the D1x is capable of producing jaw dropping prints up to 30x30.
So your opportunity to "test out" these cameras are far from conclusive. I've been testing out these cameras for a long time. The D1 a year, the d30, almost a year, the e10, a year, the D1X 2 months, the D1H 1 month.
If I might add that the D30 was the first camera to be directly compared to film. Many have done extensive side by side tests with the d30. As far as I know, no one has ever claimed that the E10 was in this league.
Please don't misunderstand. This is not a flame. I LOVE my E10 and will sing praises about it till the sun goes down. I like it so much I use it the most. But lets be realistic and honest. Lest we be accused of the same propaganda that runs the Minolta Talk Forum ; )
Kindest Regards,
Jim K
LesDMess
Veteran Member
Jim K,
Just to sum it up - respectfully speaking but you're an a* hole complete with a smiley face ;-) We were just talking about just letting opinions be that and nothing else, not Biblical just some theory of relativity - you're in the Oly SLR forum, we all use it, even some of us who can afford the best money can buy, sing it high praises and all this good stuff but let's be reasonable, mutually respectful and accomodating. Heck it hasn't been that long since we all were pulling together shouting united we stand.
Kindest, hugs and kisses, ;-)
LesDMess
Just to sum it up - respectfully speaking but you're an a* hole complete with a smiley face ;-) We were just talking about just letting opinions be that and nothing else, not Biblical just some theory of relativity - you're in the Oly SLR forum, we all use it, even some of us who can afford the best money can buy, sing it high praises and all this good stuff but let's be reasonable, mutually respectful and accomodating. Heck it hasn't been that long since we all were pulling together shouting united we stand.
Kindest, hugs and kisses, ;-)
LesDMess
With all due respect, I must disagree and sum up your finding as,
rubbish.
So your opportunity to "test out" these cameras are far from
conclusive. I've been testing out these cameras for a long time.
Please don't misunderstand. This is not a flame. I LOVE my E10 and
will sing praises about it till the sun goes down. I like it so
much I use it the most. But lets be realistic and honest. Lest we
be accused of the same propaganda that runs the Minolta Talk Forum
; )
Kindest Regards,
Jim K
LesDMess
Veteran Member
Matt,
Ignoring the rude interruption, what do you mean about the big machine? Are you getting the big Epson Stylus Pro 10000? My guess anyway.
LesDMess
Ignoring the rude interruption, what do you mean about the big machine? Are you getting the big Epson Stylus Pro 10000? My guess anyway.
LesDMess
PS. The big machine is closer than you think, Les...
Jim K53618
Veteran Member
Look if your gonna talk to me that way, its Mr. a* hole to you!!!
Regards,
Jim K
Regards,
Jim K
With all due respect, I must disagree and sum up your finding as,
rubbish.
So your opportunity to "test out" these cameras are far from
conclusive. I've been testing out these cameras for a long time.
Please don't misunderstand. This is not a flame. I LOVE my E10 and
will sing praises about it till the sun goes down. I like it so
much I use it the most. But lets be realistic and honest. Lest we
be accused of the same propaganda that runs the Minolta Talk Forum
; )
Kindest Regards,
Jim K
Ruvy
Veteran Member
Have anyone tryed Quick Image (Qimage) software for printing & or compared it to GF? - any opinions? results? will beappreciated
Ruvy
Ruvy
You can use GF with Paintshop Pro or Corel Photopaint also. I'mI should have been more concise with my question. I meant a print
directly from the camera. I can't use GF because I don't have PS.
However, I do have Lanczos as part of my ACDSee editing package.
Will Lanczos work as well as GF?
just printing out some prints I did at the lower size of SHQ
(comparable to 6 x 8 at 200ppi) at 8 x 10 that I resized in GF. I
have to admit I'm very very happy. I am using it with PS, but have
used GF with the others before I had PS.
Diane
Ferenc
Senior Member
Jim:
When you say that the D30's dynamic range blows away the E10's, what do you precisely mean?
The reason I ask you this, is because Phil's review of the E10, shows a substantially broader dynamic range than the D30, and some other camera's, except for the Fuji S1 Pro. E10 was scoring 614:1, while D30 was scoring 488:1. Only the unbelievable FujiS1 was above 660:1 at much higher ISO speeds.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0011/00111608dynamicrange.asp
Probably (remote chance), there was a mistake on Phil's part. Anyway, please let me know how did you quantify the diffirences between both.
With my kindest regards,
Ferenc
When you say that the D30's dynamic range blows away the E10's, what do you precisely mean?
The reason I ask you this, is because Phil's review of the E10, shows a substantially broader dynamic range than the D30, and some other camera's, except for the Fuji S1 Pro. E10 was scoring 614:1, while D30 was scoring 488:1. Only the unbelievable FujiS1 was above 660:1 at much higher ISO speeds.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0011/00111608dynamicrange.asp
Probably (remote chance), there was a mistake on Phil's part. Anyway, please let me know how did you quantify the diffirences between both.
With my kindest regards,
Ferenc
With all due respect, I must disagree and sum up your finding as,Also, everyone will be happy to know that I had the opportunity to
test out a D1x and D30 last week, and neither was much better in
image quality to my E-10. The E-10 was the most color accurate
straight out of camera, the D30 was the least. The D1x was great
all around, handles very well and is very fast, and yes it does
show better image quality over the E-10. But not that much.
rubbish.
I happen to own all the cameras you mentioned, and then some. I've
printed a lot from each on my epson 1270 up to 11x17. The E10
definetly does a very nice job, but I have to be completely honest.
The D30 blows it away in dynamic range and tones. It almost looks 3
demensional. Its very rich in color and depth. As good as the E10
is, it can not match the D30. The D1x and the D1h both do better
then the d30. In fact the D1x is capable of producing jaw dropping
prints up to 30x30.
So your opportunity to "test out" these cameras are far from
conclusive. I've been testing out these cameras for a long time.
The D1 a year, the d30, almost a year, the e10, a year, the D1X 2
months, the D1H 1 month.
If I might add that the D30 was the first camera to be directly
compared to film. Many have done extensive side by side tests with
the d30. As far as I know, no one has ever claimed that the E10 was
in this league.
Please don't misunderstand. This is not a flame. I LOVE my E10 and
will sing praises about it till the sun goes down. I like it so
much I use it the most. But lets be realistic and honest. Lest we
be accused of the same propaganda that runs the Minolta Talk Forum
; )
Kindest Regards,
Jim K
Jim K53618
Veteran Member
Well my terminology may not be accurate. But what I mean to say is that if you look at the d30 print it looks verry much like a film print. There is no hint of digital feel to it. The colors are rich, and more of them. Its very deep in appearance almost 3-D. The E10 has more resolution because of the extra 1MP, and delivers a decent image. There may be more shadow detail in the e10, and perhaps this is dynamic range. I personaly find the d30 to be closer to film. You simply must see the prints for yourself, a computer monitor does it no justice.Jim:
When you say that the D30's dynamic range blows away the E10's,
what do you precisely mean?
No chance of that I'm sure. The D30 is Phil's favorite which he uses personally. So I'm sure it must be my superior comand of the english language at work again.The reason I ask you this, is because Phil's review of the E10,
shows a substantially broader dynamic range than the D30, and some
other camera's, except for the Fuji S1 Pro. E10 was scoring 614:1,
while D30 was scoring 488:1. Only the unbelievable FujiS1 was above
660:1 at much higher ISO speeds.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0011/00111608dynamicrange.asp
Probably (remote chance), there was a mistake on Phil's part.
Anyway, please let me know how did you quantify the diffirences
between both.
Take Care!
Jim K
With my kindest regards,
Ferenc
With all due respect, I must disagree and sum up your finding as,Also, everyone will be happy to know that I had the opportunity to
test out a D1x and D30 last week, and neither was much better in
image quality to my E-10. The E-10 was the most color accurate
straight out of camera, the D30 was the least. The D1x was great
all around, handles very well and is very fast, and yes it does
show better image quality over the E-10. But not that much.
rubbish.
I happen to own all the cameras you mentioned, and then some. I've
printed a lot from each on my epson 1270 up to 11x17. The E10
definetly does a very nice job, but I have to be completely honest.
The D30 blows it away in dynamic range and tones. It almost looks 3
demensional. Its very rich in color and depth. As good as the E10
is, it can not match the D30. The D1x and the D1h both do better
then the d30. In fact the D1x is capable of producing jaw dropping
prints up to 30x30.
So your opportunity to "test out" these cameras are far from
conclusive. I've been testing out these cameras for a long time.
The D1 a year, the d30, almost a year, the e10, a year, the D1X 2
months, the D1H 1 month.
If I might add that the D30 was the first camera to be directly
compared to film. Many have done extensive side by side tests with
the d30. As far as I know, no one has ever claimed that the E10 was
in this league.
Please don't misunderstand. This is not a flame. I LOVE my E10 and
will sing praises about it till the sun goes down. I like it so
much I use it the most. But lets be realistic and honest. Lest we
be accused of the same propaganda that runs the Minolta Talk Forum
; )
Kindest Regards,
Jim K
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.