G2/G3 print size?

I've been seriously considering purchasing a G2 or G3, but have been a little concerned about maximum print size.

I will want to do large prints (at least 11" x 14") and would love to go 12" x 18".

Are there any G2/G3 owners with good/bad experiences doing large prints like this out there?

I'm a graphic designer and am very familiar with file resolution, etc., but I can't remember the formula for digital prints. I recently read somewhere that it's 150 pixels per inch @ 100% which would put the G2/G3 at 11.36" x 15.147"

Does it depend on what kind of printer you're sending the file to? Inkjet, laser, lightjet, etc.

Any help clearing this issue up would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Chris

If you take great care when taking pictures, G2/G3, with the help of Photoshop, can give you great looking 11x14 prints. But it's probably a little past their limits. You might want to seriously consider DSLR like the D60 or the 1D if big prints are what you want.

I've done several 8x10's with my Canon S30 when I had it, and I couldn't tell the difference between those and the 8x10's from 35mm that were right beside them!! I have a G2 now and the results are the same, but even crisper than the S30's. I'm picking up a picture tomorrow that I'm getting printed, it's a 16"x20" picture, and it's from the S30, but I did some photoshopping to give it a bit of a painting effect, but it should look awsome at that size!

I can't afford a DSLR at this point.
What about those res-up programs?

I swear I've read (at some point) that people have done large prints from this camera.

cp10932 said:

If you take great care when taking pictures, G2/G3, with the help
of Photoshop, can give you great looking 11x14 prints. But it's
probably a little past their limits. You might want to seriously
consider DSLR like the D60 or the 1D if big prints are what you
want.

Click to expand...

Like I said, G2/G3 can give you good looking, large prints. To the non-professionals, these are plenty good enough. However, they probably aren't good enough for the keener, professional eyes.

Forgot to mention ... If you send your pictures out to be printed by professional printing houses, you will get much better looking prints than what we can do with our own personal inkjet printers. Assuming, of course, the file you send out is done probably.

Christopher:

I've had excellent results making 11x14 prints from the G2 to an Epson 2000P, using both step interpolation in Photoshop and Genuine Fractals. If the image is of high quality and you're using virtually the entire frame, the results are mind-blowing.

There are a couple of "ifs" in this statement, as you can see. The main limitation is that you must compose well to begin with, since cropping for anything but aspect ratio will push the image beyond its limits. With a high resolution 35 mm scan, you have a bit more room to play with—but just a bit.

--
Jim Lewis
http://www.pbase.com/pdx_photoman
http://www.jimlewis.info

Tools of Choice: Canon G2, Elan IIE, CanonScan FS4000US, Photoshop 7, Epson 2000P

Christopher Wright said:

cp10932 said:

If you take great care when taking pictures, G2/G3, with the help
of Photoshop, can give you great looking 11x14 prints. But it's
probably a little past their limits. You might want to seriously
consider DSLR like the D60 or the 1D if big prints are what you
want.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Anh Nguyen:
The res-up programs are more trouble than not.

I have printed 13x19 prints from my G1 on an Epson 1280 that looked good and very acceptable to discerning tastes (I have twenty years plus experience with 35mm SLR work). The G3 could not but be better than the G1 for big size prints

Christopher Wright said:

I've been seriously considering purchasing a G2 or G3, but have
been a little concerned about maximum print size.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of g2/g3 image examples around. Ask for a RAW even if you believe that will help.

I assume you have access to a large printer. If not, upsample the image to the largest size you would print (send away), and then crop the center out and print that onsite at the cropped size.

through trial and error, i've discovered that having at least 180ppi looks good to my eye and CAN meet my ahem rather discerning standards provided, of course, that you start with a high quality image to begin with. i normally print all my G2 images at 8.5x11 with some cropping & zooming and they look great. with a program like qimage (www.ddisoftware.com), you can go higher.

-21
http://www.pbase.com/norm

Thanks to everyone for their advice.

I will most probably be sending these prints out to a professional photo lab for printing.

Jim Lewis: I'm a very advanced photoshop user. I use it to make a living (I'm a graphic designer), but I'm unfamiliar with the term "step interpolation." Does this mean res-ing it up in steps rather than all at once? I seem to have better results making the canvas size bigger, then scaling the image up to fit the new canvas size...rather than chaning "image size."

Phil's raving review has made this gut-wrenching decision a lot easier.
I've decided to go with the G3.

Chris, I'd like to mention some recent experiences of mine which may be of interest; they surprised me in many ways.

I have been exhibiting photography for over 25 years and have worked in many formats. Until recently I've worked mostly with large format (4x5, 5x7 and 8x10) platinum and silver prints and 16x20 color prints from 4x5 and 2 1/4. Last May I bought a Canon G2 mainly as a personal fun camera. I never expected to make large prints but I had an Epson 1270 (now a 2200) so I tried a few large prints and was bowled over by the quality. Some 3500 shots later the G2 is my principle camera. I've done amazing portraits, full-page illustrations in art catalogues and press-photos for other artists with nothing but praise from the customers. I currently have an exhibit along with my wife (a traditional print-maker) in Woodstock, NY. Along with a few platinums,my part of the show consists of 12x16 images from the G2 via the 2200 on Hahnemuhle paper. I'm very careful with my images and spend a good deal of time with them in Photoshop --not to exaggerate them but simply to make them as natural and convincing as possible. The show is very successful in terms of both praise and the sincerest form of flattery -- purchase.
The surprises:

1. The G2 is so good that my Rolleis & Fuji's (2 1/4) and even my Wista 4x5 are getting dusty.
2. I can make stunning 12x16 prints on the 2200 with G2 originals.
3. Nobody has said "Oh, I need a 'real" photograph".

4. Finally (and here I'm sure someone might argue) I was routinely resing up to 300ppi for printing (bicubic; I like it better than GF). One day I thought I'd try leaving the file unchanged and printing at 12x16. That gives you 142 ppi. Amazingly I liked the results better that way! The prints seem sharper and crisper, and I don't see any pixels without a loupe. I'm not saying everyone should work that way but give it a try; it's worth a piece a paper.
John

Christopher Wright said:

Thanks to everyone for their advice.
I will most probably be sending these prints out to a professional
photo lab for printing.

Jim Lewis: I'm a very advanced photoshop user. I use it to make a
living (I'm a graphic designer), but I'm unfamiliar with the term
"step interpolation." Does this mean res-ing it up in steps rather
than all at once? I seem to have better results making the canvas
size bigger, then scaling the image up to fit the new canvas
size...rather than chaning "image size."

Phil's raving review has made this gut-wrenching decision a lot
easier.
I've decided to go with the G3.

Click to expand...

--
JLK

John, sounds like you've gotten some amazing results. Thanks for all the info.
Do you have an online gallery?

jlkpmn said:

Christopher Wright said:

Thanks to everyone for their advice.
I will most probably be sending these prints out to a professional
photo lab for printing.

Jim Lewis: I'm a very advanced photoshop user. I use it to make a
living (I'm a graphic designer), but I'm unfamiliar with the term
"step interpolation." Does this mean res-ing it up in steps rather
than all at once? I seem to have better results making the canvas
size bigger, then scaling the image up to fit the new canvas
size...rather than chaning "image size."

Phil's raving review has made this gut-wrenching decision a lot
easier.
I've decided to go with the G3.

Click to expand...

--
JLK

Click to expand...

Christopher,

I have couple prints sent to Jumbogiant.com and I am very pleased with the results. Of course, the files were manipulated a little bit to be able to get it to that size. Before the end of the year, I will upgrade to G3. My wife just gave me the green light.:=).

You can take a look at my gallery at: http://www.pbase.com/tnt_imaging

I have also printed my own prints on the Epson 780. The largest that I did was 8x12.

Thang.

Christopher Wright said:

I've been seriously considering purchasing a G2 or G3, but have
been a little concerned about maximum print size.

I will want to do large prints (at least 11" x 14") and would love
to go 12" x 18".

Are there any G2/G3 owners with good/bad experiences doing large
prints like this out there?

I'm a graphic designer and am very familiar with file resolution,
etc., but I can't remember the formula for digital prints. I
recently read somewhere that it's 150 pixels per inch @ 100% which
would put the G2/G3 at 11.36" x 15.147"

Does it depend on what kind of printer you're sending the file to?
Inkjet, laser, lightjet, etc.

Any help clearing this issue up would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Chris

Click to expand...

Chris, I plan to get some stuff online after the holidays. In the meantime check Amazon.com. Choose "books" then search on "Kleinhans" and you'll find 2 books "An Image of Monhegan" and Woodstock Landscapes"; the former has some sample pages of large format work. John

Christopher Wright said:

John, sounds like you've gotten some amazing results. Thanks for
all the info.
Do you have an online gallery?

Click to expand...

Without wasting your valuable(?) time ... what general steps do you do to enhance the photos. In point form.....
ie. changing colour casts using hue-and-saturation
or a bit of sharpening.... etc
do you find that on the canon pics that you find yourself using the same

enhancements ? (for example.. most pics need sharpening... or most outdoor pics need a hue adjustment ...etc)

p.s.

your testimonial has convinced me to get a G series camera ,, more than Phil's review.. You are giving REAL WORLD experiences...

. I'm very careful with my images and spend a good

jlkpmn said:

deal of time with them in Photoshop --not to exaggerate them but
simply to make them as natural and convincing as possible. The show
is very successful in terms of both praise and the sincerest form
of flattery -- purchase.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing John, I've been looking for some Gx user experiences with printing. I'm very pleased to hear of your successes in making large prints.

Are the prints you're selling at your gallery professionally printed? Or from your Epson 2200? Time for me to begin the printing journey.

Nordin

--
Nordin
Gallery - http://www.rahhali.com/photo/gallery/g3/
Review - http://www.rahhali.com/photo/tools/g3/

I got back my 8x12 from the local Costco; they looked great! My family members were amazed! I have not tried larger size, but I expect some degradation as my understanding is that 8x12 is the largest size for 4Mpixel cameras before quality reduction is visible.

One thing you should know, if you have not yet known, is that you should use profile for your printer. If you bring to Costco (or outside for printing), be sure to convert your image to Fuji Frontier 370 or Fuji Frontier 390 profile. Bring it to Costco, and tell the operator to "print your images without any color adjustments". That would produce colors exactly the way they look on your monitor, provided that your monitor colors are correctly fine-tuned.

This place will provide you more information about how to get profile for your printer model.

http://drycreekphoto.com/

Christopher Wright said:

I've been seriously considering purchasing a G2 or G3, but have
been a little concerned about maximum print size.

I will want to do large prints (at least 11" x 14") and would love
to go 12" x 18".

Are there any G2/G3 owners with good/bad experiences doing large
prints like this out there?

I'm a graphic designer and am very familiar with file resolution,
etc., but I can't remember the formula for digital prints. I
recently read somewhere that it's 150 pixels per inch @ 100% which
would put the G2/G3 at 11.36" x 15.147"

Does it depend on what kind of printer you're sending the file to?
Inkjet, laser, lightjet, etc.

Any help clearing this issue up would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Chris

Click to expand...

--
Peter

G3 - it's amazing!
http://myg3shots.dynu.com/gallery/

Christopher Wright said:

Jim Lewis: I'm a very advanced photoshop user. I use it to make a
living (I'm a graphic designer), but I'm unfamiliar with the term
"step interpolation."

Click to expand...

Most people call it stair interpolation. One fellow, Fred Miranda, even sells a photoshop action doing just that (charges ~$15).

But it is simple enough to do yourself. Just resize the image in steps by using "percentage" instead of pixels or inches. Many, including Fred, use 110% steps. I've tested it thoroughly on my 1D images and believe the small steps, while keeping diag jaggies and curved surfaces smoother than a single 200% jump, often 110% steps smooth the texture detail too much, losing too much detail in the upsample. In the world of remote sensing it's understood that resampling resampled data (the 110% steps) leads to a large amount of smoothing. The more times you do it, the worse it gets.

So there is a trade here: doing a 2x single upsample gives jaggies on diags and curves. But doing a lot of stair interps rubs out detail in texture areas.

I tested several percentages and found the best trade for my 1D images is actually two 130% steps followed by an exact pixel/inches/cm upsample to get to my final output size. by doing 3 steps instead of up to 10 steps, I find I preserve the texture detail better and yet produce more smooth diagonals and curves than a single 200% type step.

But as John wrote, just letting your printer decide the amount of upsampling may be best. The manufacturers of printers have optimized their upsampling routines for the specific mechanisms of their printer.

Thanks Peter for the link to drycreekphoto.com!

I just found they had a profile for a store in my neighborhood; can't wait to try it out!

Peter N said:

I got back my 8x12 from the local Costco; they looked great! My
family members were amazed! I have not tried larger size, but I
expect some degradation as my understanding is that 8x12 is the
largest size for 4Mpixel cameras before quality reduction is
visible.

One thing you should know, if you have not yet known, is that you
should use profile for your printer. If you bring to Costco (or
outside for printing), be sure to convert your image to Fuji
Frontier 370 or Fuji Frontier 390 profile. Bring it to Costco, and
tell the operator to "print your images without any color
adjustments". That would produce colors exactly the way they look
on your monitor, provided that your monitor colors are correctly
fine-tuned.

This place will provide you more information about how to get
profile for your printer model.

http://drycreekphoto.com/

--
Peter

G3 - it's amazing!
http://myg3shots.dynu.com/gallery/

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
faux_poster