Tellmepleeese
Member
5D MarkII & A900. What is the enlargeable size in 300 dpi for these two retaining decent resolution??
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
5D MarkII & A900. enlargeable size in 300 dpi ?
- Thread starter Tellmepleeese
- Start date
If you have to be at 300 ppi then it's simple math. With about 4k by 6x pixels you get around a 14x20" image.
What is the use for? In reality, a well shot image from either camera should have no practical limits on printed size
What is the use for? In reality, a well shot image from either camera should have no practical limits on printed size
Tellmepleeese
Member
printing on Epson 9880 as fineart prints on paper/canvas.
Great if I can enlarge upto 36x48 inch.
Is this size possible ?--
Great if I can enlarge upto 36x48 inch.
Is this size possible ?--
Of course not.
You asked for 300 ppi resolution.
If you actually know what you want, (300 ppi) it is, as stated already, simple math.
12x18 is the largest easily available size.
And the flash gun has nothing to do with the project.
If you want to make big prints from a Canon 5D MkII, that's a whole other issue, and you might think about asking a different question.
BAK
You asked for 300 ppi resolution.
If you actually know what you want, (300 ppi) it is, as stated already, simple math.
12x18 is the largest easily available size.
And the flash gun has nothing to do with the project.
If you want to make big prints from a Canon 5D MkII, that's a whole other issue, and you might think about asking a different question.
BAK
Tellmepleeese
Member
I am asking that question...
You mean stitching ?
By software upsampling ?
Anything else ?
Somebody on a similar forum adviced about 36x48 is acceptable quality with above 20 mp camera with strict lighting and strong tripods, remote shutter etc.
--
I cannot aford DB, film is out. Have to manage with digital.
Enquiring best options.
Pls advice....
You mean stitching ?
By software upsampling ?
Anything else ?
Somebody on a similar forum adviced about 36x48 is acceptable quality with above 20 mp camera with strict lighting and strong tripods, remote shutter etc.
--
I cannot aford DB, film is out. Have to manage with digital.
Enquiring best options.
Pls advice....
I get spectacular results from as little as 6MP printing to an Epson 9800. Even better results by sending the files to a lab for photographic output. With todays 12+MP DSLR's you can get print quality beyond medium format cameras could provide. A lot has to do with viewing distance as well. I have delivered files for 40 foot prints from 20MB files while another image was being printed at 22 feet, but required a 1GB file. The difference was one was being put on the side of a moving bus and the other in a hallway in an airport that would be viewed from 3-5 feet
The problem with the original question was your insistance on 300 ppi.
Once you get over that insistence, you need to take other things into account.
First of all, 36 x 48 is a huge photograph, and in the olden days, this would require a 4x5 inch camera to gt exxcellent results.
EXCEPT, how good is good enough depends on the subject, and the viewing conditions, along with depending on the film type and shooting conditions.
And the quality of the lens.
And what the subject is. A crowd shot of 100 people, which causes viewers to come really close to the print in order to see each face, is a different kettle of fish than a snad dune with shadows at sunset, where people stand back four feet from the print.
And "fine art" is a very flexible term.
If you think that buying a 5D Mark II will allow you to create big prints that match the quality of well shot, low ISO, 4x5 film, printed by excellent printers, you are wrong.
If you think that buying this camera, with a good lens, and using a big Epson printer, will make prints that satisfy lots of people, depending on the subject, you are right.[printer
There is intrpolation software (Geniune Fractals and even Photoshop's newer versions) that help some buut not all images look very good when enlarged.
Once you get over that insistence, you need to take other things into account.
First of all, 36 x 48 is a huge photograph, and in the olden days, this would require a 4x5 inch camera to gt exxcellent results.
EXCEPT, how good is good enough depends on the subject, and the viewing conditions, along with depending on the film type and shooting conditions.
And the quality of the lens.
And what the subject is. A crowd shot of 100 people, which causes viewers to come really close to the print in order to see each face, is a different kettle of fish than a snad dune with shadows at sunset, where people stand back four feet from the print.
And "fine art" is a very flexible term.
If you think that buying a 5D Mark II will allow you to create big prints that match the quality of well shot, low ISO, 4x5 film, printed by excellent printers, you are wrong.
If you think that buying this camera, with a good lens, and using a big Epson printer, will make prints that satisfy lots of people, depending on the subject, you are right.[printer
There is intrpolation software (Geniune Fractals and even Photoshop's newer versions) that help some buut not all images look very good when enlarged.
Paul5D
Leading Member
when printing large photos you don't need 300ppi as the photo is designed/intended to be viewed as close as a 300ppi brochure etc.
When I print large files (from the 5D mkII) I simply let Photoshop resize it in the print dialogue (found this to be almost identical to Qimage and resizing beforehand in PS) nad it converts the ppi for me, generally on a 30" by 20" print the ppi will drop to 200-180 and for a crop printed large might go as low as 100-140. Simply pt if you have a great, well exposed and focused image to start with then you will end up with a great print even at the lower ppi's, especially when applying the 2xdiagonal viewing distance rule.
Personally I think 2.5 times is a bit long and that around 1x is normally enough for the image still to look detailed and pin sharp. Jsut MHO
--
:
: Canon 5D MkII + 70-200 2.8 IS - Simply Sublime!!
A Fully fledged Mac fan now! MacPro is still waiting for me to push it!
When I print large files (from the 5D mkII) I simply let Photoshop resize it in the print dialogue (found this to be almost identical to Qimage and resizing beforehand in PS) nad it converts the ppi for me, generally on a 30" by 20" print the ppi will drop to 200-180 and for a crop printed large might go as low as 100-140. Simply pt if you have a great, well exposed and focused image to start with then you will end up with a great print even at the lower ppi's, especially when applying the 2xdiagonal viewing distance rule.
Personally I think 2.5 times is a bit long and that around 1x is normally enough for the image still to look detailed and pin sharp. Jsut MHO
--
:
: Canon 5D MkII + 70-200 2.8 IS - Simply Sublime!! A Fully fledged Mac fan now! MacPro is still waiting for me to push it!
he said dpi, not ppi, there is a big difference.
***********************************************
Please visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti
Pentax Lens examples at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti/images_by_lens
Updated January '09
--
***********************************************
Please visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti
Pentax Lens examples at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti/images_by_lens
Updated January '09
If you want to split the hair, it's good to remember the actual "smallest detail resolution" of a Bayer sensor camera is round 70% of its MP count due to the softening effect of the interpolation process.
This would give the "maximum size" roughly 12" 18" or roughly a magazine spread @300dpi. Depending on the sharpness of your printing process this then means you can go down-to loup distance to inspect the details.
I agree.
Tellmepleeese
Member
Yes, I mentioned 300 DPI and when converted it is 75 PPI. Am I correct ?
In that case things become little more easier, say a decently looking image is possible with an IDEAL shot with 5D mk II. Correct ?
In that case things become little more easier, say a decently looking image is possible with an IDEAL shot with 5D mk II. Correct ?
Danny Williams
Leading Member
--
I have the A900, and I make my living off of fine art prints. Your question is puzzling, as I don't get why you think you need 300dpi for your printing. Using the large format Epson printers, simply does not require that kind of dpi. I make 20 x 30 prints directly from the A900 files, and they are stunning quality. I have not heard anyone make any kind of comment about the print quality, other than WOW! Although I stick with 20 x 30, you can most certainly go much larger.
I have the A900, and I make my living off of fine art prints. Your question is puzzling, as I don't get why you think you need 300dpi for your printing. Using the large format Epson printers, simply does not require that kind of dpi. I make 20 x 30 prints directly from the A900 files, and they are stunning quality. I have not heard anyone make any kind of comment about the print quality, other than WOW! Although I stick with 20 x 30, you can most certainly go much larger.
I really do not understand what you are now asking.
DPI, dot per inch. I mean how many arbitrary color dots you put in one line of 1 inch long. This is tottally something else than e.g. how many drops a inkjet printer put in the same area (typically many more to be able to generate the different colors).
IMHO 300dpi is ment for best quality images. Some people want more, some satisfy for less.
"Decent looking" is a matter of too many variables like e.g. what's the viewing distance. The 300dpi is needed only when you want to look at a hand's distance like magazines. Double the distance you can roughly half your dpi requirement - e.g. if your viewing distance is 3 meters you can make some pretty big prints still looking very good (round 50" 75" upto 100" 150"). I soe time ago estimated the 5D2 to be good for natural size face images with 1 hair resolving power.
Joergen Geerds
Senior Member
since basic math, photography and photoshop skills are somehow AWOL, I'd suggest that just go ahead, and do whatever you want to do and print at whatever size you want to print... it doesn't really matter here.
joergen
joergen
I am far from pro but I see many very well done large prints at 200ppi which is about 30*20 on a 24mp sensor.
You could then up-res to 32MP with littl erloss of quality and go huge at 200ppi.
***********************************************
Please visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti
Pentax Lens examples at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti/images_by_lens
Updated January '09
You could then up-res to 32MP with littl erloss of quality and go huge at 200ppi.
--
***********************************************
Please visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti
Pentax Lens examples at http://www.pbase.com/alfisti/images_by_lens
Updated January '09
Richard Katris
Senior Member
you mentioned canvas.... 9880... I have made 30x40 from 20 D images (8 meg camera) that are stunning on canvas. They would not hold up to glossy paper at that size....the canvas kills detail anyway...so you can go much larger than on smooth paper.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
Tellmepleeese
Member
--Thanks Danny,
Your comment is from a fine art pro's experience, valuable and confidence- building.
Also thanks to all contributed.
My question may be at wrong forum, sorry no specific "Fineart forum" on DPR.
Can anybody tell me of a 'Fine art' specific forum anywhere?
Thanks a lot!
Your comment is from a fine art pro's experience, valuable and confidence- building.
Also thanks to all contributed.
My question may be at wrong forum, sorry no specific "Fineart forum" on DPR.
Can anybody tell me of a 'Fine art' specific forum anywhere?
Thanks a lot!
Joergen Geerds
Senior Member
there are a couple of more fine art oriented forums out there:
http://photo.net/community/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/
http://www.photography.ca/Forums/
but keep in mind that in terms of printing, there isn't much difference between pro photo, commercial and fine art (the only difference is that "fine art" PGs try to push canvas printing in the recent years, to make it more artsy looking)
--
Joergen Geerds
http://luminous-newyork.com
http://joergengeerds.com
http://photo.net/community/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/
http://www.photography.ca/Forums/
but keep in mind that in terms of printing, there isn't much difference between pro photo, commercial and fine art (the only difference is that "fine art" PGs try to push canvas printing in the recent years, to make it more artsy looking)
--
Joergen Geerds
http://luminous-newyork.com
http://joergengeerds.com
Danny Williams
Leading Member
--
some might say printing on canvas is "artsy", but then a few of us still think that true fine art prints are found under glass.
some might say printing on canvas is "artsy", but then a few of us still think that true fine art prints are found under glass.
Ok there are a lot of issues here.
First of you listed the cameras but you didn't list the lenses. If you use either camera with a $300 entry-level zoom lens, the images are going to be very soft. If you're using good quality prime lenses or the top of the line zooms like the 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, or 70-200 f/2.8 by either company, you'll probably be alright.
On the confusion with dpi and ppi... In this situation, dpi only refers to the printer, not the camera, not the image when it's in photoshop what have you, it's just the setting of the Epson driver and the resulting print. If you put an Epson 9880 on "Normal" mode (which you can only usually do if you set it to "plain paper" you're printing at 360dpi. Printing at 300 dpi (if you had a RIP that let you do so) would look pretty bad. If you're print a fine art image on a 9880 you're printing at 1440dpi or 2880dpi if you're crazy.
I think you mean having the image set to 300ppi in your image editing software. Which if you have an image from a 5D MkII set to 300ppi it would be about a 12-1/2x18-1/4 inch image.
I've seen good "Fine art" quality results from files sent at 200ppi and 180ppi (which would make the image size about 20x30.) I've seen good results from 100ppi but only when the image was uninterpolated (meaning it came from a scan-back or multi-shot camera.)
Viewing distance is important. Most billboard images are not shot on 160MP scan backs and the printers they are printed on would make the worst looking 16x20" you've ever seen. It doesn't matter cause you're never going to look at one from closer than 20 feet away. So think about how they will be displayed
Also it depends on how discerning your audience is, there are some people who have to hold a loupe up to a print to see all the detail before they say it's a good print.
The type of paper you use does make a difference gloss, luster, and ultra-smooth matte surfaces hold a lot more detail than canvas or watercolor stock.
Will you be printing these or will you be having a lab do it? If a lab is doing it, just give them the file at whatever res it is at, don't bother resizing it. If they have a decent RIP it will do a better job up-resing the file than you will. If you are printing it and just using the Epson driver, I'd say get it up to around 200-240ppi at the dimension you want in Photoshop or whatever image editing software you use and print like that.
If you're really anal-retentive about up-rezing for for large prints you can look into a program/photoshop plugin called "Genuine Fractals" by On-One software.
If you really want to print this big and have an image that starts out at 300ppi, what are your options? 1) A Phase One P65+ 60MP back would be 22x30" @300ppi, or 33x45" @200ppi with camera and lens shouldn't cost more than $50,000 2) A BetterLight Super 8K scan back would do 26x35" @300ppi but the images are so sharp you could probably do 60x80" at around 130ppi, that costs around $18,000 plus you need a 4x5 view camera and lenses also you cant really shoot moving objects with it. 3) You could shoot 4x5 chrome and scan it on a drum scanner. 4) You can shoot multiple shots with the 5D Mk II or the A900 and stitch them like a pano.
CONCLUSION : If these are going to be exhibited in a gallery and some pretentious jerk is going to walk up the print and look at it from 6 inches away and it's printed on a gloss surface, there will probably be able to notice a difference between an image shot on a 5D Mk II (or an A900) and something shot on a Phase One P45 or P65, as the 5D Mk II (or A900) would look a little softer at that distance. However if the image is printed on Canvas or Watercolor paper and most reasonable viewers stand at least 4 to 5 feet back from the image they probably won't notice the difference too much on a 32x48" print, assuming you have good glass.
--
Kurt
First of you listed the cameras but you didn't list the lenses. If you use either camera with a $300 entry-level zoom lens, the images are going to be very soft. If you're using good quality prime lenses or the top of the line zooms like the 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, or 70-200 f/2.8 by either company, you'll probably be alright.
On the confusion with dpi and ppi... In this situation, dpi only refers to the printer, not the camera, not the image when it's in photoshop what have you, it's just the setting of the Epson driver and the resulting print. If you put an Epson 9880 on "Normal" mode (which you can only usually do if you set it to "plain paper" you're printing at 360dpi. Printing at 300 dpi (if you had a RIP that let you do so) would look pretty bad. If you're print a fine art image on a 9880 you're printing at 1440dpi or 2880dpi if you're crazy.
I think you mean having the image set to 300ppi in your image editing software. Which if you have an image from a 5D MkII set to 300ppi it would be about a 12-1/2x18-1/4 inch image.
I've seen good "Fine art" quality results from files sent at 200ppi and 180ppi (which would make the image size about 20x30.) I've seen good results from 100ppi but only when the image was uninterpolated (meaning it came from a scan-back or multi-shot camera.)
Viewing distance is important. Most billboard images are not shot on 160MP scan backs and the printers they are printed on would make the worst looking 16x20" you've ever seen. It doesn't matter cause you're never going to look at one from closer than 20 feet away. So think about how they will be displayed
Also it depends on how discerning your audience is, there are some people who have to hold a loupe up to a print to see all the detail before they say it's a good print.
The type of paper you use does make a difference gloss, luster, and ultra-smooth matte surfaces hold a lot more detail than canvas or watercolor stock.
Will you be printing these or will you be having a lab do it? If a lab is doing it, just give them the file at whatever res it is at, don't bother resizing it. If they have a decent RIP it will do a better job up-resing the file than you will. If you are printing it and just using the Epson driver, I'd say get it up to around 200-240ppi at the dimension you want in Photoshop or whatever image editing software you use and print like that.
If you're really anal-retentive about up-rezing for for large prints you can look into a program/photoshop plugin called "Genuine Fractals" by On-One software.
If you really want to print this big and have an image that starts out at 300ppi, what are your options? 1) A Phase One P65+ 60MP back would be 22x30" @300ppi, or 33x45" @200ppi with camera and lens shouldn't cost more than $50,000 2) A BetterLight Super 8K scan back would do 26x35" @300ppi but the images are so sharp you could probably do 60x80" at around 130ppi, that costs around $18,000 plus you need a 4x5 view camera and lenses also you cant really shoot moving objects with it. 3) You could shoot 4x5 chrome and scan it on a drum scanner. 4) You can shoot multiple shots with the 5D Mk II or the A900 and stitch them like a pano.
CONCLUSION : If these are going to be exhibited in a gallery and some pretentious jerk is going to walk up the print and look at it from 6 inches away and it's printed on a gloss surface, there will probably be able to notice a difference between an image shot on a 5D Mk II (or an A900) and something shot on a Phase One P45 or P65, as the 5D Mk II (or A900) would look a little softer at that distance. However if the image is printed on Canvas or Watercolor paper and most reasonable viewers stand at least 4 to 5 feet back from the image they probably won't notice the difference too much on a 32x48" print, assuming you have good glass.
--
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum