Reading mode: Light Dark

D30 fine for 8 x 10?

Go to last post
Agreed.

I do A3 prints for competitions and exhibitions and not even pro judges can tell they are from digital printed on inkjet.
David R Stout said:
It all depends on your handling of the files from shooting in RAW
to final output on a quality printer and knowing how to optimise
each stage. It's not difficult and is no different from perfecting
a printing technique from film in a darkroom.

David
Ben Horne said:
Sean Caldwell said:
D 30 users (or D60, 10D on medium), have you been able to print 8 x
10's with no noticable resolution issues? A friend has seen some
of my 10D results and may have a line on a clean used D30 and
already has film lenses. His question was would it do 8 x 10's
fine.

thanks!
Click to expand...
--
http://www.benhorne.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Nicholas J
http://www.pbase.com/nhanekom
 
Have you ever done an 8x10 on a D30??? I ask cause if you had you would not be able to tell anything about it is digital.

I've made 24x36 prints from a D30 raw ISO 100 file that every single person who has seen them cannot believe they are from a digital camera.

In fact one fellow did not think his 35mm film would enlarge as well as these did.

On the other hand if you shoot jpeg at ISO 800, your bound to tell.

Just stick to low ISO and raw and you will be amazed at how far these can be pushed.

Jack
--
http://www.pbase.com/joneill
 
You're right Jack. Anyone that disagrees is doing something wrong - wrong camera settings, wrong workflow or wrong printer.
If you follow the correct steps you can get awesome results.

I made an A3 print from this photo and everyone in my camera club could not believe their eyes at how good it was. It has become the print all other prints are judged by and also the print I show everyone that aren't sure if they should buy a 2nd hand D30.
I must also add that this shot was taken with the super-sharp 50 f/1.4


Jack O'Neill said:
Have you ever done an 8x10 on a D30??? I ask cause if you had you
would not be able to tell anything about it is digital.

I've made 24x36 prints from a D30 raw ISO 100 file that every
single person who has seen them cannot believe they are from a
digital camera.
In fact one fellow did not think his 35mm film would enlarge as
well as these did.

On the other hand if you shoot jpeg at ISO 800, your bound to tell.
Just stick to low ISO and raw and you will be amazed at how far
these can be pushed.

Jack
--
http://www.pbase.com/joneill
Click to expand...
--
Nicholas J
http://www.pbase.com/nhanekom
 
Jack O'Neill said:
Have you ever done an 8x10 on a D30??? I ask cause if you had you
would not be able to tell anything about it is digital.

I've made 24x36 prints from a D30 raw ISO 100 file that every
single person who has seen them cannot believe they are from a
digital camera.
In fact one fellow did not think his 35mm film would enlarge as
well as these did.

On the other hand if you shoot jpeg at ISO 800, your bound to tell.
Just stick to low ISO and raw and you will be amazed at how far
these can be pushed.

Jack
--
http://www.pbase.com/joneill
Click to expand...
Hi Nick,

Ben has done plenty of prints from the D30. He uses a 1D now and gets great prints from it.

I think his point needed more elaboration. If you try to print something like an infinity focus fine landscape with significant amounts of fine detail at larger sizes, there simply wasn't sufficient capture resolution to allow the interpolation algorithms to do their jobs properly.

Images such as head and shoulders portraits don't really challenge the 3.2 megapixel capture resolution and can be often printed at billboard sizes with incredibly clean results simply because all the interpolation algorithms require to do their job properly is for the boundaries of fine detail in the image be properly defined. Once that condition is satisfied, there is no practical limit to enlargement potential.

But when significant fine detail is at great distances, the capture resolution simply isn't great enough. Actually, it's not great enough with even the 11 megapixel 1Ds to do really large poster prints of infinity focus landscapes; there's just too much geography in the field of view to spread those sampling sites to the point where captured detail is false. This means that it can fool the eye at smaller print sizes like 8x10, but when pushed, the interpolation reveals the deception (like looking at an oil painting with pine needles on trees) and our brains will no longer accept the results.

To make serious 30" prints of this degree of detail is beyond even medium format film and requires the big format view camera to hold the detail. For most commonly printed images captured by the D30, 8x10 or 8x12 (the native capture ratio) is not a problem.

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71
 
Yes, I owned the D30 for nearly two years, now I shoot with a 1D. As I said, I have a more critical eye than most people. It's not my workflow that is the issue. The D30 just doesn't have the resolution I deem necessary for a crisp 8x10 print. If you put a photo taken with a medium or large format camera next to a 8x10 from the D30, it will be a night and day difference. The D30 print will look very digital. If you have ever looked at the detail from a larger format camera where the image is crisp and clear (this is what I define photo quality), then look at even a 4x6 from a D30, you will see the difference in the fine detail.

Yes, the D30 will produce a decent 8x10, but once you've seen the output from higher end gear, it will look digital in the fine detail.
David R Stout said:
It all depends on your handling of the files from shooting in RAW
to final output on a quality printer and knowing how to optimise
each stage. It's not difficult and is no different from perfecting
a printing technique from film in a darkroom.

David
Ben Horne said:
Sean Caldwell said:
D 30 users (or D60, 10D on medium), have you been able to print 8 x
10's with no noticable resolution issues? A friend has seen some
of my 10D results and may have a line on a clean used D30 and
already has film lenses. His question was would it do 8 x 10's
fine.

thanks!
Click to expand...
--
http://www.benhorne.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.benhorne.com
 
Sheesh, Why do people assume I'm an idiot when I say that I'm not satisfied with the 8x10 output from the D30? I worked with the D30 for the greater part of 2 years. It's a good camera, and I've made quite a bit of money working with it..... but my point is that the output at 8x10 isn't up to my standards. Go to a photographic museum and check out some of the landscape images done with a large format camera. The detail is mind blowing. You feel like you could dive into the image. Then look at an 8x10 printed from a D30.... the detail is very digital looking and lacking in that respect. I know I'm comparing apples and oranges here, but I just never was happy with the 8x10s produced by the D30. It produces decent prints, but I was never happy with the resolution when printed at 8x10.
Jack O'Neill said:
Have you ever done an 8x10 on a D30??? I ask cause if you had you
would not be able to tell anything about it is digital.

I've made 24x36 prints from a D30 raw ISO 100 file that every
single person who has seen them cannot believe they are from a
digital camera.
In fact one fellow did not think his 35mm film would enlarge as
well as these did.

On the other hand if you shoot jpeg at ISO 800, your bound to tell.
Just stick to low ISO and raw and you will be amazed at how far
these can be pushed.

Jack
--
http://www.pbase.com/joneill
Click to expand...
--
http://www.benhorne.com
 
DavidP said:
I converted these to sepia using Fred Miranda's B/W action that
works inside Photoshop.

First I converted to B/W. Some may have been done using a colored
filter, as well (Fred has several selections including no filter,
red, orange, etc).

I then converted to sepia using the "low sepia" action that comes
with this collection of actions.

You can do the same thing by reading about how to create B/W images
using channel mixer, and how to do tri-tone images. But the
actions are well-done, and worth the $15 or so, IMO.
DGSmithMD said:
I love those pictures, and everytime I see them, I like em more.
May I ask how you converted them to black and white? Did u use
photoshop, a plug-in or another program/
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Click to expand...
--
Dave

http://www.pbase.com/dgsmithmd
10D, S30
Sigma 15-30
Canon 24-85
Sigma 28, 1.8
Canon 50, 1.8
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 70-200 2.8L
Sigma 50-500
 
Sean Caldwell said:
D 30 users (or D60, 10D on medium), have you been able to print 8 x
10's with no noticable resolution issues? A friend has seen some
of my 10D results and may have a line on a clean used D30 and
already has film lenses. His question was would it do 8 x 10's
fine.
Click to expand...
The images at 180 dpi will be 8"X12", so the answer is yes. I'm a D30 owner. I resize the images up to 11"X17" as a regular print size.
 
Ben Horne said:
The D30 is good in terms of color and low noise, but when it comes
to prints, I would not grade it as true photo quality over 5x7 for
photos with fine detail. At 8x10, the fine detail in your photos
will look very digital.
Click to expand...
No it won't! And based upon my extensive experience, that's not even close to reality. At 11"X17" you'll have some very minor digitization in extremely fine (two pixel wide) detail but not in 8"X12" at 180 dpi.

If there's any to be seen, it's only with a 10X loupe but who pulls a 10X loupe out at a party:-)
 
David R Stout said:
If so, your technique may be wrong. With proper handling, I have
prints up to 20x30 inches that can't be told apart from film. OK, I
lie - they look BETTER than film.
Click to expand...
How are you getting up to 20"X30" prints? I find that if I go past 11"X17" the softening is to much for me to bare.

In fact, these results may force me to buy a 10D just so I can lose it in about a half a year when the "What Ever" comes out in September:-)
 
Ben Horne said:
Sheesh, Why do people assume I'm an idiot when I say that I'm not
satisfied with the 8x10 output from the D30? I worked with the D30
for the greater part of 2 years. It's a good camera, and I've made
quite a bit of money working with it..... but my point is that the
output at 8x10 isn't up to my standards. Go to a photographic
museum and check out some of the landscape images done with a large
format camera. The detail is mind blowing. You feel like you
could dive into the image. Then look at an 8x10 printed from a
D30.... the detail is very digital looking and lacking in that
respect. I know I'm comparing apples and oranges here, but I just
never was happy with the 8x10s produced by the D30. It produces
decent prints, but I was never happy with the resolution when
printed at 8x10.
Click to expand...
I have a D30 which I've used for a year and a half and a new 1Ds....I do love my D30 and in fact just today dropped off and picked up 40 D30 prints in the various sizes of 4x6, 5x7, 8x10 & 8x12 that a customer ordered of a job I did for her....The D30 is a great camera and at those sizes, especially the smaller ones the prints look really great...The 8x10's and 8x12's look good too...Although when put next to a 1Ds 8x10 or 8x12 they don't look so totally great anymore, they look a little bit 2D and not as realistic....They do kind of have a digital look to them that isn't noticeable when looking at them by themselves...The 1Ds files are smooth, 3D and nice and look very, very realistic to life when printed...Like you are actually looking at the person...But I would still say get a D30 because it is a fantastic camera, I love mine and won't ever sell it...It can do 10x15 and still look good on it's own, especially portraits...It's only when doing a side by side comparison with higher resoloution you can really tell that pictures don't look as realistic as once thought...But it can do 8x10's that will look good.

Cregg
 
Thomas Gardner said:
The images at 180 dpi will be 8"X12", so the answer is yes. I'm a
D30 owner. I resize the images up to 11"X17" as a regular print
size.
Click to expand...
Even the 8 x 10 images from my G1 look great, so I have no doubt that you guys' D30 are much better.

--
Ray Chen
 
Ben Horne said:
If you put a
photo taken with a medium or large format camera next to a 8x10
from the D30, it will be a night and day difference.
Click to expand...
You know that's not a valid comparison. Medium format Vs 35mm. Talking about an obvious difference. How about comparing 35mm film Vs D30 at 8"X12". That would be a more reasonable comparison.
 
Lin Evans said:
I think his point needed more elaboration. If you try to print
something like an infinity focus fine landscape with significant
amounts of fine detail at larger sizes, there simply wasn't
sufficient capture resolution to allow the interpolation algorithms
to do their jobs properly.
Click to expand...
You also forgot the point that in the generalist sense of the word. Nobody that knows what they're doing is going to buy a D30 as a primary camera.

This person is getting a D30 as more of an entry level and so for him and his eyes, it's gonna do just fine.
 
Techniques for upsizing images and sharpening to extract the best from an image have been well discussed here.

My 20x30 prints were printed on real photo paper in a local lab.

David
Thomas Gardner said:
David R Stout said:
If so, your technique may be wrong. With proper handling, I have
prints up to 20x30 inches that can't be told apart from film. OK, I
lie - they look BETTER than film.
Click to expand...
How are you getting up to 20"X30" prints? I find that if I go past
11"X17" the softening is to much for me to bare.

In fact, these results may force me to buy a 10D just so I can lose
it in about a half a year when the "What Ever" comes out in
September:-)
Click to expand...
 
I don't doubt that a medium format or large format 8x10 inch print will look better. Surely in terms of sensor size, comparing a D30 to 35mm film is more valid. If somebody is more than happy with 8x10s from 35mm then they will be more than happy with 8x10s from a D30.

David
Ben Horne said:
Yes, the D30 will produce a decent 8x10, but once you've seen the
output from higher end gear, it will look digital in the fine
detail.
David R Stout said:
It all depends on your handling of the files from shooting in RAW
to final output on a quality printer and knowing how to optimise
each stage. It's not difficult and is no different from perfecting
a printing technique from film in a darkroom.

David
Ben Horne said:
Sean Caldwell said:
D 30 users (or D60, 10D on medium), have you been able to print 8 x
10's with no noticable resolution issues? A friend has seen some
of my 10D results and may have a line on a clean used D30 and
already has film lenses. His question was would it do 8 x 10's
fine.

thanks!
Click to expand...
--
http://www.benhorne.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.benhorne.com
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top