Come on folks -- does anyone actually print?

With all the pixel peeping and complaining I read on this forum, I sometimes wonder if more than a handful of people on this forum actually print anything -- of any size larger than 8X10? I just read a post where one individual stated that the 4/3's system is perfect for individuals who regularly print up to 11X14. I often see people questioning whether various Oly DSLR's will print decent 13X19 prints.

Why do so many feel it is pushing the envelope to print very large prints from 4/3's image files? I have several 30X40 prints from my E-20 (we're talkin a small sensor here) and E-1 that are very good quality, sharp prints -- so what's all the concern about?

Below are two bridal portrait images produced from the same original file -- captured with my E-1. The first is the full horizontal image I captured (cropped very slightly to correct some perspective distortion). The second is a vertical crop from the original that I printed an 11X14 print for my client -- that's a vertical crop from a horizontal 5MP sensor file. The print is beautiful, and could very easily have been printed as a 16X20. So why are so many people worried about large print size capability -- unless they just theorize and never actually print?

I'm not trying to be mean here, but I just don't get it.

God Bless,
Greg
http://www.imagismphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/daddyo

Original Landscape File



Vertical Crop Used to print 11X14

I do my own printing and have used Fractal Graphics. After considering other products, I still think it does the best job for high resolution prints. Printers are Epson 2000 and 7600.
--
DW

beautiful images. I really like the landscape format.

If you'll excuse me, now, I have to get back to examining extremely zoomed in portions of shadows in my photos...for self-flagellation purposes...in case I want to print a billboard from one of my e510 images.
--
bob naegele
san diego, ca
http://www.rjndesign.com/

First, is there a problem with not printing images? Many individuals enjoy viewing their photos on the monitor more than on the wall. Others can't afford to constantly print, especially large sizes.

Second, those of us who do print have long understood that pixel peeping is all but irrelevant for printing. Images with motion blur at 100% crops from a 10+MP camera look sharp in 8x10 prints. Digital images with excessive luminance noise at 100% crops look brilliant in print - the luminance noise is virtually lost in the texture of the paper. Furthermore every E-1 owner knows the amount of detail present in 8x10 images despite only 4.9MP of information. If you think you need 10MP to print a nice 8x10 or 11x14 to hang on your wall then you've missed a lot of vital information.

Those that nit pick 100% crop images are merely separating the differences in image quality between the top 1-5% of digital cameras. Virtually all DSLRs will print fantastic images at 11x14 that are almost indistinguishable from one another.

The reason why only a handful of photographers print at 16x20 or larger is because it is expensive and not necessary. Unless you enjoy a new print on your wall every week (and it matches your room, if that is a requirement) then printing large isn't necessary. For professionals it is a different story.

--
Tim
'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhi
E3/E1/7-14/12-60/50-200/EC-14/C8080
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/

First, I have prints made at Costco . . . . 12x18 and 12x36 panos/crops and they're EXCELLENT in quality, sharpness, color, etc . . . AND they cost $3 for the 12x18 and $5 for the 12x36. Some I hang for myself or for others and some are put into "coffee table" albums. This is true for my 5mp shots as well !

Second . . . it brings up an issue that is REALLY a large rock in my shoe . .. the cost of printer dye/ink for home printers. It's too bad the printer mfgrs don't understand that the prohibitive costs of ink and paper have kept their sales to a bare minimum !!

Happy Easter anyway . . . {:-}

Paul
Vancouver, WA . . . (USA)

galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/spdavis/just_between_us_

I am continually amazed at how large I can print digital files, and I come from many years of using 4x5. My old E-10 (4MP, 2/3 chip size) would go to 20x30 or larger. These days I rarely do anything larger than 16x20 from my 300 and 330, but that is no where near the camera limit.

Probably if all else is equal a larger sensor is better, but all else is rarely equal and in the real world my prints seem to do more than well enough.

--
W.Mann

NSFW -- Figure photography
by Weston Mann
at Silver Mirage:
http://www.silvermirage.com

Because they don't print, they just hear other people saying it and repeat it like they're an authority in the matter.
--
DK -- One man's art is another man's toilet paper.
http://www.dkwhite.info

Believe me, I've spent an awful lot of years making prints. All kinds of prints, silver, screen, et. al. Of course in the last decade or so, these have been exclusively digital/computer produced, so I've been up and down that long road, having cursed many a pothole placed there , I'm sure, just to wake one up.

Yes indeed, I routinely produced 17x22 in prints from the E-1, and now with the E-3, all the better. I am often amazed that my images will look great on the screen, but printed out, well, let's just say the "minor deficits" can become glaringly clear. It makes the beauties all the more endearing.

Images will never look the same in print as on a monitor, no matter how "calibrated" the equipment may be. I've never found otherwise, except that it's much harder to have an image look good printed out that it will on a screen. A fine print is truly it's own form of achievement, one might say, it's own reward hard won.

This isn't the space to discuss (let alone rant about) commercial printing media for the digitally-inspired artist. Talk about high costs, high end printing stock is considerably more expensive than ink and other "consumables" for the printer. As I say, another discussion, but enough to remark that I've developed my own coatings for inkjet printing that have been working out well.

As a matter of fact, late though it is in this timezone, gotta get back to work at it. Those prints don't make themselves, you know.

Take care,
Jules.

--
To have artistic vision we must see, and see what we are seeing.
(JRA--2008)

But honestly most of my photos stay digital, it's just easier, all nicely cataloged, I can toss them on the web, cycle them through slideshows, send them to family, use them for other digital art projects, use them as backgrounds, etc...

IMO, I take far too many picures to be able to print them all, where would I put them?

But I find that 100% viewing is very valuable to know how a much detail a camera can output at the extremes. I often find myself needing a bit more reach while doing bird/nature photography. The more I can crop, often the better. Why can't we desire good 100% crops? Since most of my shots remain digital, I don't think it's something that's too much to ask. So comparing one camera to the next to see how they perform at ISO800 or whatever, at 100% is reasonable to me. Especially since birds move fast (especially the small ones), in comes a cloud, high ISO is as valuable as gold
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Olympus e-510
http://joesiv.smugmug.com

One can sound extremely authoritative typing on a keyboard anonymous to the rest of the world. Text forums don't betray lack of confidence or lack of credibility.

See, even I can do it.

--



'Do you want to be known as the one who has the best camera (sensor noise,
DR, lens sharpness etc...) or the one who took that superb shot?'
'The biggest variation is in the photos you take, not the cameras you take them
with'
'A sharp lens is only one of the factors to shooting a keeper in the field - and
often it's not even the dominant one'

Ananda

http://anandasim.spaces.live.com/?_c11_BlogPart_BlogPart=blogview&_c=BlogPart&_c02_owner=1&partqs=cat%
3dPhotography
http://picasaweb.google.com/AnandaSim
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32554587@N00/

Beautiful shots! I especially like the vertical crop...

daddyo said:

I'm not trying to be mean here, but I just don't get it.

Click to expand...

Showing images on a monitor is just another way of presenting (just like slides was another way of presenting images), it's a lot cheaper than printing, and I can show a lot more images than one print (also doesn't produce the garbage that printing does in this green age).

The trend these days is using digital frames, being able to change the image when I want, or rotate through the images again at no cost once the frame is bought.

I admit I did print a lot more at first when I got my first photo printer more than 10 years ago (was regularly printing 0.3mp video prints at 6x4 size), but as time went on I preferred doing my work on computers and video presentations.

I've also gotten recognition for my 2mp 8x10 prints (taken with a C-700), so the size limits people give are a crock.

daddyo said:

With all the pixel peeping and complaining I read on this forum, I
sometimes wonder if more than a handful of people on this forum
actually print anything -- of any size larger than 8X10? I just read
a post where one individual stated that the 4/3's system is perfect
for individuals who regularly print up to 11X14. I often see people
questioning whether various Oly DSLR's will print decent 13X19 prints.

Click to expand...

I agree about this. You can pick up bad information on these forums which may well put people off moving towards a particular camera. There's no reason why a 10mp file couldn't be printed at A3 or A2 and still look perfectly good. I used to print at A4 with a 2mp Sony, and the prints looked great .

daddyo said:

Why do so many feel it is pushing the envelope to print very large
prints from 4/3's image files? I have several 30X40 prints from my
E-20 (we're talkin a small sensor here) and E-1 that are very good
quality, sharp prints -- so what's all the concern about?

Click to expand...

I would say it's mostly misinformation with regards to maximum print sizes - maybe made by those who would prefer to pixel peep or only view images on screen (where a 1mp camera would be more than good enough ).

you see reviews argue about "noise" as if that little grain noise made a PRINTED photograph look bad, or talk about how it looks on a screen.

It's so stupid isn't it? On prints it looks great. On the web when you resize down to 800x600 (or let's go 'extreme' with 1280x960), it can't be even seen because from 10 megapixels to 1, you get hyper quality.

And people waste time arguing about this instead of concentrating on other far more important aspects of a camera for their needs.

--
Raist3d (Photog. Student & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

...look at this link.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=21987074
--



Cheers

Miro
E-3, E-500 +.....................in profile

You can compare My signature image with printed one. I did some color changes for signature one. Right color is on the print and exif is included if you have Opanda software.
Print was made on the Epson printer 7600 or 7900 can't remember. Camera?
Poor E-500.

From My experience even 1600 ISO prints from E-500 are wonderful with nice film grain on it.
Don't worry - print big, but it is expensive.
--



Cheers

Miro
E-3, E-500 +.....................in profile

I print, but I hate it and I'm bad at it.

However, it's the only way to sell.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

daddyo said:

Why do so many feel it is pushing the envelope to print very large
prints from 4/3's image files? I have several 30X40 prints from my
E-20 (we're talkin a small sensor here) and E-1 that are very good
quality, sharp prints -- so what's all the concern about?

Click to expand...

So Greg, are you saying that you would not be concerned about printing a 30*40" image taken by a E20/E1 of a group shot of say 120-200 people ?

G.

Many did, of course, including me, even from my PenFT.
f

What? You never heard of CibaChrome? If not, you should find out what it was--probably can find some good examples at an art museum. Cibachrome was one of those materials, like Kodachrome, that were quite enduring. Don't know that we can say the same about digital media. Besides, in 10 or 20 years, who is going to be able to read the disks, cards, etc., even if they haven't decayed to dust.

Just 20 years ago, we were storing data on 5.25 in floppies. Remember those? When was the last time you saw that kind of floppy drive? We could go on and on, the point is clear.

But prints properly stored can and will last for centuries. Thy need no special "viewer", except the human kind. Two dimensional images on paper, canvas, and a host of other substrates, has been around, part of our nature for at least 25,000 years. Digital imaging came about just 51 years ago (in 1957), and for the most part, have been used in printed form. The current web-style is like TV: dazzling, brilliant, impressive, but transient, not an "object" to that becomes one's own personal symbol, a concrete, solid, non-virtual reality, that quietly, even insidiously, penetrates to one's very core, such that we realize actually being.

So, if that is what art can do, is it not still worth pursuing? There may be many paths, even images on line could do it, I just think the odds are against it.

Take care,
Jules.

--
To have artistic vision we must see, and see what we are seeing.
(JRA--2008)

Have a blessed Easter!

God Bless,
Greg
http://www.imagismphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/daddyo