PRINTS - Just How Big, With 14n

I'm actually thinking of getting a large Epson printer with my savings from the 14n over the Canon and starting a local print business. I live in a scenic and touristy area and people around here are selling prints done with old tech at big old prices.

How big should 14mp be able to go before quality of immage begins to suffer? What about compositing? I'm trying to stay away from medium format.

Scott Fleming,

If you are selling to tourists, consider the Epson 7600. It prints roll paper to 24 inch wide, has a built in cutter, uses the archival inks and sells for about $3000.

I'm of the opinion that a 17 x 22 print is certainly within the realm of a 14 Mp image, especially with the dual black inks for B&W prints.
Just my opinion of course..

tom

How bad would 'ressing up' to say 24 x 30 be? Would your average person see it even?

Thanks again for your help.

Scott Fleming said:

How bad would 'ressing up' to say 24 x 30 be? Would your average
person see it even?

Click to expand...

Average person? No way. most inkjets I have worked with print about as good as they can with 200 dpi input. that makes a 15.12 x 22.68 inch print straight from the camera. double that in Photoshop or some other good interpolating program and, if they are not side by side, I bet even you would not be able to tell very easily.

I am getting 20 x 24 inch continuous tone Photographs on photographic paper and regular EP-2 photo processing from 25 meg file that will knock your socks off and the 14n is 75% more than that.

--
-Glenn-
Nikon (x3) & Olympus (x2) 35mm film
Hasselblad 120 (x3)
Oly E-10 and smaller digital

You are very helpful and I REALLY appreciate it.

Scott Fleming said:

You are very helpful and I REALLY appreciate it.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with the others. You can get amazing results with output from a 6MP camera with some interpolation. 14 MP should be far beyond what we need in most situations.

I have done some test on how much you can enlarge prints from digital cameras. For large prints (16x20 and up) most people look at them from at least 2-3 feet. From some test that I have done using myself (who is very critical) I say dont go past 150% for critical viewing. For average viewers 200% is fine. All the test prints I did were from 5MP Cameras and were printed to real film by lab at 250 DPI. One thing, all the camera I used had AA filters so they were a little bit softer then the 14N will be since it has no AA filter.

I have seen wonderful 20x24 with the Fuji S2 and that is 12MP (creatively interpolated) so I can only imagine what the 14N with true with look like. I have some old 8x10s on my wall with less then 1mp cameras from years ago.. They look good at 3 feet. I have seen some highly technical tests were they poll several people (mostly non-pros) and show them different size pictures at different distances.. It seems that 8x10, most people view from 12" in a album. The minimum resolution was 220-240 before people started noticing anything at all. These people knew they were their to examine prints for sharpness. Some calculations I did using the Pro14N is that you can make good 30x40s as long as the viewing distance is at least 5 feet for my eyes.. Maybe 3-4 feet for non-pros..

I'm shooting a Kodak 460 and have several 20x24's in my studio that you can examine at 5 inches and you can't tell they are digital. I have gone 40x60 for a POP display that were super. They still held together, probably the max for a professional usage.

Tom May said:

Scott Fleming,

If you are selling to tourists, consider the Epson 7600. It prints
roll paper to 24 inch wide, has a built in cutter, uses the
archival inks and sells for about $3000.

I'm of the opinion that a 17 x 22 print is certainly within the
realm of a 14 Mp image, especially with the dual black inks for B&W
prints.
Just my opinion of course..

tom

Click to expand...

Forgot to mention that the monster weighs 96lbs?

--
JR

are they taking care of you. Help with setup ... paper advice... issues handling?
Would you recommend them?

Thanks for all your help.

Rich Foley said:

I'm shooting a Kodak 460 and have several 20x24's in my studio that
you can examine at 5 inches and you can't tell they are digital. I
have gone 40x60 for a POP display that were super. They still held
together, probably the max for a professional usage.

Click to expand...

I was more or less refering to when you lose sharpness in the image due to resizing. I have a pan images of a montain scene on my wall. It is and 8 foot by 12 foot image taken on a 8x10 view camera about 10 years ago.. It is AMAZING and sharp.. It just seems that when you go back 200% the images start to look soft.. ( at least to me) I may be overcritical campared to most average viewers..

...printed on an HP 2000CP look great. I used to have the Fuji S1 and did the same size prints. The S1 images did not hold as well as the D60 does.

I just used PS interpolation to res the images up to their final size.

I imagine using Fred Miranda's up resing or other techniques will look even better.

I have also printed 24x36 prints on my Epson 7500. Looking at the prints from inches away, you can't tell they are digital.

These are tests of perfectly exposed images. In other situations the print quality varies with the quality of the image.

14N should give you perfect 24x36 prints.

If you can, get the 9600. It will give you other possibilities. I learned the hard way. My 7500 24" width is limited. I augment it with the HP 2000CP (36") but you get into a different inkset and printer quality. I am looking to sell my 7500 and the HP and replace them with the Epson 9600.

Also beware of the slow speeds of the 7600/9600 printers. 24x36 prints
take almost an hour to print

You will love the Epsons. Good luck.
Boris

Scott Fleming said:

I'm actually thinking of getting a large Epson printer with my
savings from the 14n over the Canon and starting a local print
business. I live in a scenic and touristy area and people around
here are selling prints done with old tech at big old prices.

How big should 14mp be able to go before quality of immage begins
to suffer? What about compositing? I'm trying to stay away from
medium format.

Click to expand...

I printed a photo from my Olympus E-10, which is only a 4MP camera on a 16x20 (thru shutterfly.com). I think they use Genuine Fractals for interpolation, but the photo is unbelievable. No one can tell even from 10 inch away that it is from a digital camera - That was the point in which I decided that film was dead. I suppose with 14MP you could do much more (in size) I just cannot see how my photo could be better.

Masterdeath said:

I have done some test on how much you can enlarge prints from
digital cameras. For large prints (16x20 and up) most people look
at them from at least 2-3 feet. From some test that I have done
using myself (who is very critical) I say dont go past 150% for
critical viewing. For average viewers 200% is fine. All the test
prints I did were from 5MP Cameras and were printed to real film by
lab at 250 DPI. One thing, all the camera I used had AA filters so
they were a little bit softer then the 14N will be since it has no
AA filter.

I have seen wonderful 20x24 with the Fuji S2 and that is 12MP
(creatively interpolated) so I can only imagine what the 14N with
true with look like. I have some old 8x10s on my wall with less
then 1mp cameras from years ago.. They look good at 3 feet. I have
seen some highly technical tests were they poll several people
(mostly non-pros) and show them different size pictures at
different distances.. It seems that 8x10, most people view from 12"
in a album. The minimum resolution was 220-240 before people
started noticing anything at all. These people knew they were
their to examine prints for sharpness. Some calculations I did
using the Pro14N is that you can make good 30x40s as long as the
viewing distance is at least 5 feet for my eyes.. Maybe 3-4 feet
for non-pros..

Click to expand...

Scott Fleming said:

are they taking care of you. Help with setup ... paper advice...
issues handling?
Would you recommend them?

Thanks for all your help.

Click to expand...

Ha, ha, ha. You kidding? Perhaps if you pay another $3000, then again even maybe not.

One guy in this forum mentioned his experience. They had to do it themselves, two persons will be OK, but definitely not one. I guess that is why you can buy the special stand with wheels, so you can roll it around.

I am not dumping on the 7600. In fact I just created some beautiful large 3500x5500 image files, and are dying to use it to print 24x36's out of them. Maybe one of these days...

--
JR

dingdarling said:

I have also printed 24x36 prints on my Epson 7500. Looking at the
prints from inches away, you can't tell they are digital.

Click to expand...

Don't mean to be picky, but could you define "inches"? Is it less than 5, or 30 or 40.

Thanks.

--
JR

James Riley said:

Ha, ha, ha. You kidding? Perhaps if you pay another $3000, then
again even maybe not.

One guy in this forum mentioned his experience. They had to do it
themselves, two persons will be OK, but definitely not one. I
guess that is why you can buy the special stand with wheels, so you
can roll it around.

I am not dumping on the 7600. In fact I just created some
beautiful large 3500x5500 image files, and are dying to use it to
print 24x36's out of them. Maybe one of these days...

Click to expand...

Forgot to mention that you can try to get it from B&H. They may or may not have it now, but they did one time and I just did not have the money...

--
JR

studio and portrait shots are something i have less experience to judge.. however, landscapes i do.

before digital, i used either medium format (6x7) or large format (4x5), shotting Velvia or Ektachrome. I did most of my own printing, usually Cibachrome that i masked for contrast and/or color. Currently, i shoot with a D1x or a Betterlight 6000 scanning back on an 4x5 camera. For the times when the wind or water don't permit it, i use 4x5 film instead.

One of the draws of landscape photography, and much of the reason that many photographers migrate to the larger formats for it, is the detail.. from a distance, and close-up. I don't expect prints to be examined through a loupe, but i do expect a viewer to stand a foot from a 30x40" (or 30x20) and look into it. I've shot, and tested a Kodak pro back.. for landscape photography, and in a side by side comparison with medium format film (Velvia), the scanned film prints maintains a level of detail that is lost in the digital image at sizes above 24x24". ( i scan the film with a Imacon Flextight II at 3200dpi.. drum scanning isn't necessary to get these results). 24x36" prints may look "ok". But if you hang them in a gallery next to landscape images taken with either medium or large format of the same size.. they the difference is obvious. (again.. i'm talking specifically about landscape images). AT sizes below 24", then digital holds it's own, and in fact, has an edge latitude (talking chromes here)

For me, the detail is important. When I started photography about 20 years ago, i bought a 35mm camera. That lasted about a month before i moved to 4x5. The reason was the detail and the tonal characteristics of the images from those cameras.

I love the technology.. (why else would i be lugging around a portable computer lab with me when i'm shooting with the Betterlight back :^)

But more importantly, i love the resulting image. 16Mpixels isn't enough yet for "fine art/gallery" landscape images above 24".

James Riley said:

--
JR

Click to expand...

--
jim collum
http://www.jcollum.com

as much as I love digital, I think for the fine landscape details 4x5 film beats my D60 or the other 6MP cameras hands down.

I do not have personal experience with the 16MP backs. But I have seen a few studio shots printed with a Lambda or a similar printer that blew the Kodak 560 (6MP) cameras away.

We just published a calendar of black and white images with a friend of mine. We had a mixture of Fuji S1, 35mm slides, 35mm negative and 4x5 B&W negs scanned on an Imacon. In the sizes upto 11x14 you cannot see the difference between the formats (they are there if look closely). However for a trade show we attended, I printer 3ft.x8ft. posters and there the 4x5 was the only thing that held up.

Take care
Boris

jim collum said:

before digital, i used either medium format (6x7) or large format
(4x5), shotting Velvia or Ektachrome. I did most of my own
printing, usually Cibachrome that i masked for contrast and/or
color. Currently, i shoot with a D1x or a Betterlight 6000 scanning
back on an 4x5 camera. For the times when the wind or water don't
permit it, i use 4x5 film instead.

One of the draws of landscape photography, and much of the reason
that many photographers migrate to the larger formats for it, is
the detail.. from a distance, and close-up. I don't expect prints
to be examined through a loupe, but i do expect a viewer to stand a
foot from a 30x40" (or 30x20) and look into it. I've shot, and
tested a Kodak pro back.. for landscape photography, and in a side
by side comparison with medium format film (Velvia), the scanned
film prints maintains a level of detail that is lost in the digital
image at sizes above 24x24". ( i scan the film with a Imacon
Flextight II at 3200dpi.. drum scanning isn't necessary to get
these results). 24x36" prints may look "ok". But if you hang them
in a gallery next to landscape images taken with either medium or
large format of the same size.. they the difference is obvious.
(again.. i'm talking specifically about landscape images). AT sizes
below 24", then digital holds it's own, and in fact, has an edge
latitude (talking chromes here)

For me, the detail is important. When I started photography about
20 years ago, i bought a 35mm camera. That lasted about a month
before i moved to 4x5. The reason was the detail and the tonal
characteristics of the images from those cameras.

I love the technology.. (why else would i be lugging around a
portable computer lab with me when i'm shooting with the
Betterlight back :^)
But more importantly, i love the resulting image. 16Mpixels isn't
enough yet for "fine art/gallery" landscape images above 24".

jim collum said:

--
JR

Click to expand...

--
jim collum
http://www.jcollum.com

Click to expand...

as fara as printing goes, i'm currently using an Epson 9500. If i want to, i can duplicate the look of Cibachrome (Lincoln Wide Spectrum inks), type E paper (Epson Luster), or print on watercolor paper (usually German Etching). I know of more than one landscape photographer who make their livings printing with this printer... the output seems to be just fine for the galleries, and for the buyers.

From what i can see, the output from the 96/7600 series is even better.. exhibiting just a small amount of color shift between lighting conditions. I'd say no more than Cibachrome does going from similar lighting conditions.

I'm printing this entire thread out and filing it.

I'm looking for n consultant on PhotoShop and Epson 9600.

Anybody Interested .... Please e-mailme.