I would be.....Albert seems to be the king of group shots from the poke around I've had on his site but me I'd still shoot it on MF and be done with it.
best
--
Geoff Roughton
'Always look on the bright side life...'
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Come on folks -- does anyone actually print?
- Thread starter daddyo
- Start date
best
--
Geoff Roughton
'Always look on the bright side life...'
...Link
http://www.ljclark.com/tech/tech-d/tech-d-01.htm
(Hmmm. Not exactly Pixelpeepingland, though.)
--
If you don't talk to your cat about catnip, who will?
And for those of you in the US...In the words of a former boss (who was the county elections official): 'Vote early and often'.
http://www.ljclark.com/tech/tech-d/tech-d-01.htm
(Hmmm. Not exactly Pixelpeepingland, though.)
--
If you don't talk to your cat about catnip, who will?
And for those of you in the US...In the words of a former boss (who was the county elections official): 'Vote early and often'.
daddyo
Forum Pro
I agree with what you have said. But that begs the question then, why do so many question how large they can print. I'm talking about all the posts I've seen over the years on this forum either questioning how large a print they can make from a file, or flatly stating that you're fine up to say 13X19, etc.
My point is, if your passion is pixel peeping, and not printing large prints -- then why raise the question? If your passion is printing big, why not print and assess the results? In addition, if you enjoy looking at your images on a monitor, but not necessarily in print, the whole issue becomes even sillier -- my monitor is only 22" diagonally. At 72 DPI my E-3 produces an image roughly 38X50 inches!
It just amazes me when I see posts suggesting that someone should be OK if they don't print above some relatively small size -- it's just nonsense.
Happy Easter by the way!
God Bless,
Greg
http://www.imagismphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/daddyo
My point is, if your passion is pixel peeping, and not printing large prints -- then why raise the question? If your passion is printing big, why not print and assess the results? In addition, if you enjoy looking at your images on a monitor, but not necessarily in print, the whole issue becomes even sillier -- my monitor is only 22" diagonally. At 72 DPI my E-3 produces an image roughly 38X50 inches!
It just amazes me when I see posts suggesting that someone should be OK if they don't print above some relatively small size -- it's just nonsense.
Happy Easter by the way!
God Bless,
Greg
http://www.imagismphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/daddyo
daddyo
Forum Pro
I certainly get your point, but I think you miss my point. The issues of maximum print sizes that come up rarely discuss subject matter. A group of 200 people shot with one frame from most any digital camera (other than MF) would look stinky -- even in a fairly small print. Most who raise the question, or present some stated 'safe' print size are not discussing subject content.
Happy Easter!
God Bless,
Greg
http://www.imagismphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/daddyo
Happy Easter!
God Bless,
Greg
http://www.imagismphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/daddyo
paulanton1
Well-known member
I have an old sony 3.2mp point and shoot, it was an awsome camera when i first bout it, (it still is i suppose). I print fantastic 8x10's with it. I'm actually starting to sell some pictures in the local gallery. I'm in the middle of getting an 11x14 made up to see how that turns out.
years ago I was into photography big time, but I lost access to the darkrooms and have since let life get in the way of my passion. now the digital revolution has rekindled my interest and alows me to do more than i ever did with film. I'm still learning as I go. IE: if i can figure out how to post i'd love to show you some of my pics.
And yes i am moving into dslr. I'm just doing it a bit bacwards, I bought my lens first, (14-54) and am trying to scrape together enough mony to buy an e-3 body. by the way best price cameras has them down to 999.00.
years ago I was into photography big time, but I lost access to the darkrooms and have since let life get in the way of my passion. now the digital revolution has rekindled my interest and alows me to do more than i ever did with film. I'm still learning as I go. IE: if i can figure out how to post i'd love to show you some of my pics.
And yes i am moving into dslr. I'm just doing it a bit bacwards, I bought my lens first, (14-54) and am trying to scrape together enough mony to buy an e-3 body. by the way best price cameras has them down to 999.00.
paulanton1
Well-known member
well said, or typed
Makinations
Veteran Member
That site is printed in oompa loompa blood!
Anywho. Interesting idea. Thanks for sharing that. 3" maximum dimension is interesting. I shoot for images closer to 10". I don't produce wall art. I like to create items that can be held in hand.
Brooks Jensen has a podcast on small prints. Small being closer to the size I print than 3". http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW0415%20-%20Resisting%20the%20Trend%20Toward%20Big%20Prints.mp3
One of the issues with big prints is that they are decoration. When you're tired of it where does it go? With smaller prints you can archive them and thumb through them when you want.
Anywho. Interesting idea. Thanks for sharing that. 3" maximum dimension is interesting. I shoot for images closer to 10". I don't produce wall art. I like to create items that can be held in hand.
Brooks Jensen has a podcast on small prints. Small being closer to the size I print than 3". http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW0415%20-%20Resisting%20the%20Trend%20Toward%20Big%20Prints.mp3
One of the issues with big prints is that they are decoration. When you're tired of it where does it go? With smaller prints you can archive them and thumb through them when you want.
hamburglar
Well-known member
I have prints made at Miller/MPIX in 16x20 and 20x24 all the time....even 7.5MP images from the E330.
I decided a while back to just outsource the printing process since the pro labs do such a better job than I can. And you cannot argue with MPIX turn-around time and cheap shipping.
Oh yea, just to prove I dont work for MPIX....their books suck. I mean their books are REALLY bad quality. Just stick with their regular prints, and order books someplace else
I decided a while back to just outsource the printing process since the pro labs do such a better job than I can. And you cannot argue with MPIX turn-around time and cheap shipping.
Oh yea, just to prove I dont work for MPIX....their books suck. I mean their books are REALLY bad quality. Just stick with their regular prints, and order books someplace else
Thanks for posting and for your thoughts.
I stopped printing at home as I've found it, for me, more cost effective to outsource the printing. That said, I do have a lot of prints. Most are 11x14 and done by mpix and most are E-1 images. At that size I have no issues and would have no problem going larger if the need arose.
--
Troll Whisperer
Bill Turner
Recent Images:
Please do not edit my images without asking permission.
Thanks.
http://www.pbase.com/wmdt131
I stopped printing at home as I've found it, for me, more cost effective to outsource the printing. That said, I do have a lot of prints. Most are 11x14 and done by mpix and most are E-1 images. At that size I have no issues and would have no problem going larger if the need arose.
--
Troll Whisperer
Bill Turner
Recent Images:
Please do not edit my images without asking permission.
Thanks.
http://www.pbase.com/wmdt131
Mike_PEAT
Forum Pro
While your answer was well worded, you're referring to specialized art rather than ordinary people, like snap shooters. Out of my own slide collection (over 20 years) I've only printed a few that I wanted a print for. I've worked with 16 projector slideshows for over 100 people, try doing that with prints.
I remember 8" floppies, and I still have stuff was written on them, I just update them to the current media every few years, just like I update my audio collection...I used to have stuff on open reel which I transferred to high-speed cassette, then Hi-Fi videotape, and now CD-R.
Rob MacLennan
Veteran Member
A few years back a racing series used one of my shots of a podium presentation to create a promotional poster they used at a motorcycle show. They cropped the pic, then blew it up to 11"X17". That picture was taken with my C750UZ; a 4MPix point & shoot.
I regularly get asked for prints at 8.5"X11" and they come out pretty well, when printed on the Epson CX4200 or HP Photosmart 7450. Now I'm looking into the possibility of buying a printer that will handle larger paper sizes. I was also given three albums that take 4"X6" prints at Christmas. It's going to take a while to fill those.
--
D620L -> D540 -> C750UZ -> E-500 -> E-510 -> E-3
I regularly get asked for prints at 8.5"X11" and they come out pretty well, when printed on the Epson CX4200 or HP Photosmart 7450. Now I'm looking into the possibility of buying a printer that will handle larger paper sizes. I was also given three albums that take 4"X6" prints at Christmas. It's going to take a while to fill those.
--
D620L -> D540 -> C750UZ -> E-500 -> E-510 -> E-3
CharlesB58
Veteran Member
I think this is an excellent point and applies to not only sharpness, but exposure, contrast et al as well. We keep seeing threads about the "poor" DR of Olympus cameras. Yet it seems the people saying this want to shoot jpeg and have the shot straight from the camera be practically the final image.
When did photographers lose the concept of "total crafstmanship"?
When I learned to do my own B&W photography 30 years ago, it was a given that no neg, none, nada, not any, not no way not no how, would be suitable for a final print without a lot of in darkroom manipulation. For that matter, how the negs were processed was part of the crafting of the final print. Variations in developer concentration, tempurature and even frequency and type of agitation (not to mention total wet time) would effect the density and tonal range of the negs.
From there, you did a few test prints to get a feel for the best zone to print for, and dodged, burned, masked etc for final print.
If you shot chromes, you had a whole group of new variables. You couldn't use development variations to effect density and tonal range of the slides to nearly the extent possible with B&W. You had to expose for the highlights and draw the shadow detail out during the printing process (or just accept that the detail wouldn't be there in the final print.) Contrasty shadows in prints from negs was expected: what you worked to avoid was grainy, muddy shadows.
Now, we have software which can do in a matter of moments what used to take hours (and that was just B&W much less color printing.) and it seems there is a crop of photographers who are wroth over the fact that they have to do some PP. I understand that in many cases a working pro doesn't want to spend any more time than is needed getting a set of proofs ready for a client. (which is why every decent editing software includes batch processing now). But I get the feeling that a lot of the people complaining the loudest abou Olympus DR range aren't truly working pros, because it seems the most professional quality shots I see come from those saying the DR isn't an issue.
You should be doing PP. Period. It's part of the process of producing a final image. Just look at all the so so pics posted here by people who think the results are great when a critical eye will recognize the need to adjust things.
If you are serious about the best final image, you should be shooting RAW at the lowest ISO manageable. That's why Olympus offers in-body IS, so you can get a couple of extra stops of handholdability at a given ISO. Use a tripod whenever possible and keep an eye out for the light. Know the limitations of your gear and correct your technique accordingly. All this advice has been around for over a century, yet as I peruse this (and many other) forums, it seems that a big group of photographers has either forgotten them, or never heard of them.
Maybe I'm fortunate in that I'm just now getting into digital photography with the idea of prints being the final product. I've been scanning 35mm prints for web use for some time, but it's only been the past couple of months I've owned a digital camera (not Olympus, my budget forces me to save up a bit longer for that). If I didn't already prefer Olympus gear from way back in my OM-1n days, and know how to PP an image, these forums would discourage me from buying Olympus gear because it appears too many people are focusing on normal shortcomings of any digital imaging device (the variations come from how those shortcomings are overcome or compensated).
When did photographers lose the concept of "total crafstmanship"?
When I learned to do my own B&W photography 30 years ago, it was a given that no neg, none, nada, not any, not no way not no how, would be suitable for a final print without a lot of in darkroom manipulation. For that matter, how the negs were processed was part of the crafting of the final print. Variations in developer concentration, tempurature and even frequency and type of agitation (not to mention total wet time) would effect the density and tonal range of the negs.
From there, you did a few test prints to get a feel for the best zone to print for, and dodged, burned, masked etc for final print.
If you shot chromes, you had a whole group of new variables. You couldn't use development variations to effect density and tonal range of the slides to nearly the extent possible with B&W. You had to expose for the highlights and draw the shadow detail out during the printing process (or just accept that the detail wouldn't be there in the final print.) Contrasty shadows in prints from negs was expected: what you worked to avoid was grainy, muddy shadows.
Now, we have software which can do in a matter of moments what used to take hours (and that was just B&W much less color printing.) and it seems there is a crop of photographers who are wroth over the fact that they have to do some PP. I understand that in many cases a working pro doesn't want to spend any more time than is needed getting a set of proofs ready for a client. (which is why every decent editing software includes batch processing now). But I get the feeling that a lot of the people complaining the loudest abou Olympus DR range aren't truly working pros, because it seems the most professional quality shots I see come from those saying the DR isn't an issue.
You should be doing PP. Period. It's part of the process of producing a final image. Just look at all the so so pics posted here by people who think the results are great when a critical eye will recognize the need to adjust things.
If you are serious about the best final image, you should be shooting RAW at the lowest ISO manageable. That's why Olympus offers in-body IS, so you can get a couple of extra stops of handholdability at a given ISO. Use a tripod whenever possible and keep an eye out for the light. Know the limitations of your gear and correct your technique accordingly. All this advice has been around for over a century, yet as I peruse this (and many other) forums, it seems that a big group of photographers has either forgotten them, or never heard of them.
Maybe I'm fortunate in that I'm just now getting into digital photography with the idea of prints being the final product. I've been scanning 35mm prints for web use for some time, but it's only been the past couple of months I've owned a digital camera (not Olympus, my budget forces me to save up a bit longer for that). If I didn't already prefer Olympus gear from way back in my OM-1n days, and know how to PP an image, these forums would discourage me from buying Olympus gear because it appears too many people are focusing on normal shortcomings of any digital imaging device (the variations come from how those shortcomings are overcome or compensated).
Miroslav Kral1
Senior Member
At last somebody with brain.
Congratulation on that thread.
--
Cheers
Miro
E-3, E-500 +.....................in profile
Congratulation on that thread.
--
Cheers
Miro
E-3, E-500 +.....................in profile
JiminDenver
Veteran Member
My standard print for sale is at or near 13x19 depending on framing. I should try and seeing just how much of a crop can look good blown up.
I did have to reproduce a painting to 30x40 with a 5 mp P&S. I sent the file to a local shop and it looks great, even up close.
Whats more important to me is being able to produce a print that the client can hold up to the original and see the same colors. It doesnt need to be huge, just accurate.
JimB
--
It all started long ago and far away with a lowly OM-G
The OM of Getto cams
I did have to reproduce a painting to 30x40 with a 5 mp P&S. I sent the file to a local shop and it looks great, even up close.
Whats more important to me is being able to produce a print that the client can hold up to the original and see the same colors. It doesnt need to be huge, just accurate.
JimB
--
It all started long ago and far away with a lowly OM-G
The OM of Getto cams
subject matter, viewing distance and the viewers perception of quality....if you can control the viewing distance and the viewers perception is low you'll get away with large prints.....if you cant you wont.
Personally I havnt seen any truly excellent prints from dslr's bigger than 20 x 16, if you have our perceptions of excellent are different
best
--
Geoff Roughton
'Always look on the bright side life...'
Personally I havnt seen any truly excellent prints from dslr's bigger than 20 x 16, if you have our perceptions of excellent are different
best
--
Geoff Roughton
'Always look on the bright side life...'
Paul Shields
Leading Member
Tony Finnerty
Veteran Member
Hi Greg,
I'm an amateur photographer who committed to my first public show before I had ever tried to make a fine art print. After weeks of test prints and a few hundred bucks worth of ink and paper I finally started to get the snap that I want in my color prints. I've started making the final 12x16 prints on 13x19 paper that will be matted and framed for my show. It starts in two weeks, so I'm much relieved that it finally came together!
So now I've had the opportunity to look at a dozen 12x16 prints from the E-1 and the E-510. For viewing at normal distances, prints from both cameras look great! When an interesting detail draws the viewer to look closer, though, the resolution doesn't hold. I'm not saying the 5 MP prints are bad - they are very good! But one can look "deeper" into a 10 MP print.
Last year my camera club had a speaker who shoots large format film. He brought some large B&W prints with him that were phenomenal, both from an artistic point of view and for the incredible "depth". The closer I looked, the more detail I saw. No, I couldn't see that level of detail at normal viewing distances, but viewing photos is a dynamic process in which our attention is drawn to different parts of the image, then back to the overall image, then to parts again. It is for this type of dynamic experience that more pixels (or larger film) are desirable.
I was a 35mm film SLR shooter and now I'm a Four-Thirds (or could have been APS) shooter for the same reasons - I love the flexibility and mobility of shooting with SLRs, and the quality of prints satisfies my needs really well. Now that I'm trying to sell fine art prints, though, I can see why large format film and high megapixel digital formats have their appeal. If only my wallet could keep up with my wants...
P.S. - that's a really good wedding shot!
--
Tony
http://flipperty.smugmug.com/
I'm an amateur photographer who committed to my first public show before I had ever tried to make a fine art print. After weeks of test prints and a few hundred bucks worth of ink and paper I finally started to get the snap that I want in my color prints. I've started making the final 12x16 prints on 13x19 paper that will be matted and framed for my show. It starts in two weeks, so I'm much relieved that it finally came together!
So now I've had the opportunity to look at a dozen 12x16 prints from the E-1 and the E-510. For viewing at normal distances, prints from both cameras look great! When an interesting detail draws the viewer to look closer, though, the resolution doesn't hold. I'm not saying the 5 MP prints are bad - they are very good! But one can look "deeper" into a 10 MP print.
Last year my camera club had a speaker who shoots large format film. He brought some large B&W prints with him that were phenomenal, both from an artistic point of view and for the incredible "depth". The closer I looked, the more detail I saw. No, I couldn't see that level of detail at normal viewing distances, but viewing photos is a dynamic process in which our attention is drawn to different parts of the image, then back to the overall image, then to parts again. It is for this type of dynamic experience that more pixels (or larger film) are desirable.
I was a 35mm film SLR shooter and now I'm a Four-Thirds (or could have been APS) shooter for the same reasons - I love the flexibility and mobility of shooting with SLRs, and the quality of prints satisfies my needs really well. Now that I'm trying to sell fine art prints, though, I can see why large format film and high megapixel digital formats have their appeal. If only my wallet could keep up with my wants...
P.S. - that's a really good wedding shot!
--
Tony
http://flipperty.smugmug.com/
jonrobertp
Forum Pro
--
Have a great and wonderful Day !! Cheers !!
See China's Best (new !! ) at http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com
Have a great and wonderful Day !! Cheers !!
See China's Best (new !! ) at http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum