Reading mode: Light Dark

24x36 or bigger prints from m4/3?

Go to last post
Jay Turberville said:
I think an 8Mp image is generally sharper than what I got from optically enlarged 35mm film years ago. And 35mm film was a pretty good general purpose format that most people considered perfectly capable of making nice 8x10 and 11x14 prints. So frankly, unless you have some special commercial or artistic need, any modern camera with a 2/3" sensor or better is probably going to be capable of delivering all the image detail that would be needed under "normal" viewing distances.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. Even a tiny sensor camera can do quite well in many cases and I prefer it to what I could usually get with 35mm film back in the day. This article is from a few years ago, but is still interesting:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

In addition to my m4/3 gear I also use a Canon G16. In many ways the G16 is much improved over the older G10. The resolution of the G16 is slightly less (12.1mp vs. 14.7mp). The G16 has less noise at high ISO and it has a faster lens than than the G10 so the high ISO isn't even used as much.

Actually, I posted a bit about the G16 recently:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54568251
 
Jay Turberville said:
What is an acceptable enlargement size has everything to do with how large the image is in the viewer's field of view. You can print a billboard with a 3MP image and it will look good from cars on the road. You are going to be holding up images that will be seen by an audience. Depending on how far away the audience is, you could probably enlarge two or three times the size you are considering and still have images that are nice to view.

A good general rule of thumb is that if an image can produce an 8x10 that looks sharp when handheld, then there's enough detail for just about any other use. The exceptions would be where people would get very close to images so that the image is extraordinarily large in their FOV - for instance, a mural on a wall that people would walk close to.
Click to expand...
Just to add to Jay's point...

It's worth remembering that your large projected image is probably 1400x 1050 pixels; while an 8"x10" image is around 2400 x 3000 pixels!

Mike
 
MoreorLess said:
Sean Nelson said:
daddyo said:
I really don't understand all the angst over how large one can print from an m4/3's file. I have been doing large printing from digital files since I started shooting digital cameras about 14 years ago, and I have yet to get a large print that looks bad when viewed from any reasonable viewing distance.
Click to expand...
I often get the impression that a lot of people judge prints by sticking their nose into them to see if they can see any signs of softness, much as people do when they view their images at 1:1 magnification on the computer screen (1 image pixel = 1 monitor pixel).

The reality is that people don't normally view pictures that way, either on the monitor or as a print. There's a natural instinct to back up to the point at which the entire print fits into your field of view. That's completely sensible, because if the picture is composed properly then you should want to be able to see the whole thing at once.

Anyone who judges prints quality by getting really close and looking it in minute detail is really missing the point, IMHO. It's like criticizing a painting because the brush strokes are visible.
Click to expand...
I get the same impression that people on this forum constantly look to stick their head in the sand about any possible IQ advantages of larger formats.

I can definitely understand people believing that certain subjects and/or images that will be viewed at a certain distance(I would say the OP will have no problem for example) won't benefit from greater IQ but to ignore the issue entirely just seems like gear fanboyism.
Click to expand...
EDIT: I misread your post earlier and now I have read it properly, I disagree completely.

There might be a few fanboys around but these are dwafed in number and in stupidity by the "FF is better" fraternity who largely have no clue, nor any need for the "better" results they think it universally provides.

I made a post a few weeks back about my impressions of my EM-1 and basically said there comes to a point where the quality is "good enough" and yes I could get lower noise and higher resolution from a new full frame camera, but would the advantage be worth it. The quality of output from my camera is so good, that realistically any improvement beyond the already staggeringly high standard is just not worth it for me.

If I can shoot poster size prints and clean, low noise images up to ISO 1600 and perhaps even further, do I really need any more? Historically I was very happy with Kodachrome 25 and 64 and Kodacolour 100. I didn't like the 400 because the colours were flat and it was too grainy!

The level of quality I can now get is just ridiculously good.
 
Last edited:
viewing distance is important, but one doesn't always know what the viewing distance is going to be. What's arguably more important is subject matter and the client / one's own idea of quality is.

For a start some images can be blown up more than others and look well because they have less fine detail to start with, for example a close up of a wedding ring vs a detailed landscape.

In my work I've had tiny files blown up to huge sizes, recently a 4mb file up to 2 metres, IMO it wasn't going to cut the mustard even at a 'normal' viewing distance, but the client either didn't notice or didn't care.

At the end of the day, if the image is good, most people (in my experience) won't notice any lack of 'Image quality' should there be any unless it's really extreme.

Of course it's best to have the best of both worlds!
 
provided you have a decent image base and get someone who know how to print large to do it for you ( or hand it over to some PRO in the lab ) I do print large myself , I always develop from RAW and for specific size when printing , that's one of the open secret of good printing and I would advice you to fellow ( what you develop that look good on your PC monitor might not look good when printed to 24X36 and vice versa )
 
in keeping their viewing distance unfortunately. Pixel Peeper are not a product of the digital age. Even back in old film days we always have viewers who like to stick their nose so up close to our large prints that they risk putting nose grease mark onto the print , and guess what they would turn around and say the print is not sharp, or it lacks definition etc etc .....

I guess most do not respect the 1.5X diagonal rule for a reasonable viewing distance
 
What does my response, or anyone else's in this thread have to do with "gear fanboyism"? The OP asked a question about getting good results from printing m4/3's files in large sizes.

He did not ask, "What gear will give me the optimum quality print?"

I don't think anyone here has stated that print quality is equal across all camera formats/brands. In my response, I stated that print quality has less to do with resolution than with the capability of the one doing the print. Perhaps I should have covered my tracks by adding, "Assuming the resolution output of current interchangeable lens cameras." :-)
 
Franka T.L. said:
in keeping their viewing distance unfortunately. Pixel Peeper are not a product of the digital age. Even back in old film days we always have viewers who like to stick their nose so up close to our large prints that they risk putting nose grease mark onto the print , and guess what they would turn around and say the print is not sharp, or it lacks definition etc etc .....

I guess most do not respect the 1.5X diagonal rule for a reasonable viewing distance
Click to expand...
 
MoreorLess said:
MoreorLess said:
Anyone who judges prints quality by getting really close and looking it in minute detail is really missing the point, IMHO. It's like criticizing a painting because the brush strokes are visible.
Click to expand...
I get the same impression that people on this forum constantly look to stick their head in the sand about any possible IQ advantages of larger formats.

I can definitely understand people believing that certain subjects and/or images that will be viewed at a certain distance(I would say the OP will have no problem for example) won't benefit from greater IQ but to ignore the issue entirely just seems like gear fanboyism.
Click to expand...
I don't get that impression at all. What I see is a constant picking of nits and an amplification of small difference into big differences - mountains from molehills. I see tons of "over analysis." Most of which has no practical advantage for the vast majority of people on the forums other than to make interesting conversation. In these un-blinded analyses we see people observing "3D" looks, "presence" and other intangible qualities that seem to disappear when image origins are not known. When it comes to side by side blind comparisons in practical real world situations, the reality is that these small differences are frequently invisible or inconsequential to the end viewer - even when the viewers are quite experienced in photography and especially when they are simply ordinary people.

Of course there really are situations where a larger format is the better choice. That's always been the case, and it always will be. It just isn't as often the case as many people might be inclined to think after an afternoon's session of looking at pixels at 100% on a monitor (where a clear difference can be seen) rather than looking at the image in the way it will finally be viewed by an audience.
 
MoreorLess said:
Sean Nelson said:
daddyo said:
I really don't understand all the angst over how large one can print from an m4/3's file. I have been doing large printing from digital files since I started shooting digital cameras about 14 years ago, and I have yet to get a large print that looks bad when viewed from any reasonable viewing distance.
Click to expand...
I often get the impression that a lot of people judge prints by sticking their nose into them to see if they can see any signs of softness, much as people do when they view their images at 1:1 magnification on the computer screen (1 image pixel = 1 monitor pixel).

The reality is that people don't normally view pictures that way, either on the monitor or as a print. There's a natural instinct to back up to the point at which the entire print fits into your field of view. That's completely sensible, because if the picture is composed properly then you should want to be able to see the whole thing at once.

Anyone who judges prints quality by getting really close and looking it in minute detail is really missing the point, IMHO. It's like criticizing a painting because the brush strokes are visible.
Click to expand...
I get the same impression that people on this forum constantly look to stick their head in the sand about any possible IQ advantages of larger formats.
Click to expand...
There seems to be a never-ending debate about the merits of M43 vs. larger sensors, especially when someone makes the mistake of uttering the word "equivalent" without sufficient qualification. This discussion of print sizes touches on another aspect of that.

It's true that larger formats give you a bigger envelope of shooting and presentation possibilities. But you don't have to be a fanboy if, for the situations you use it for, M43 gives you satisfactory results. And if that's true then arguments about the superiority of larger formats are pretty much irrelevant to you. If that's "sticking your head into the sand" then I guess I'm as guilty as anyone.

My advice to everyone on both sides of the argument is to stop worrying so much about what's on the other side of the fence and just be sure that you're happy with what you've got.
 
Last edited:
Chippy99 said:
Remember when people shot 35mm slide film and invited the neighbours round for viewing the slides via a projector and (say) 80" screen? I don't remember anyone complaining that the image quality was lousy at those sizes, but the slide film carried less detail than your 16MP sensor.
Click to expand...
I've done a lot of scanning from 35mm and medium format (6x6cm) slides and negatives I shot over the past 3-4 decades. The the medium format images hold up really well against anything I've got today, but the 35mm stuff is definitely lacking.

This has led me to speculate that current full frame (24 x 36mm) sensors are probably comparable to the kinds of image detail I would have been able to get from something like a 4x5" camera back in the day. I didn't need those kinds of capabilities in the past, and I certainly don't need them now.
 
daddyo said:
I images either would do a good job. I have not used either of the ones mentioned, but I do know many people who have used Mpix with great results.
Click to expand...
 
Keep in mind you can do several things in post processing to get more detail if you are not satisfied with the detail in the original image you captured.


Sharpening can take an image from 16MP up to up over 90MP if your original RAW file has enough detail for the software to interpolate. (If you shoot JPEG only, copy it to a TIFF or PNG before processing it) That is, it will convert the image and insert more detail where it thinks it should be.

Also you can use panaoramic setting, or shoot several images from the same angle to cover the subject and overlay them in post processing to create a larger detailed image. You may have to zoom in to create the array of images. For instance if you are taking an image of a person, you can frame them normally and get the 16MP, or you can zoom in and get 10 pictures of that person from head to toe a section at a time, and then paste them together in software. Then you have approximately 160MP image.
 
Last year I had two images from my E-M5 printed to 30x40in. Looking at them as close as my eyes will focus, I can see some tight, film-like noise, even at ISO 200, but plenty of detail in areas in focus. Compared with smaller prints or looking at an image on screen, at that magnification I'd say depth of field is smaller, or rather it's easier to see when something is away from the distance focused. Fall-off in sharpness toward the corners is minimal (admittedly I shot at 17mm on the Lumix 12-35 2.8 at f/5.6, 1/500sec with anti-shock, pretty much optimum settings).

Your E-M1 has slightly less noise and, with no anti-aliasing filter, should be sharper. And you're printing smaller. So you should be fine.
 
Spectre38 said:
Keep in mind you can do several things in post processing to get more detail if you are not satisfied with the detail in the original image you captured.

Sharpening can take an image from 16MP up to up over 90MP if your original RAW file has enough detail for the software to interpolate. (If you shoot JPEG only, copy it to a TIFF or PNG before processing it) That is, it will convert the image and insert more detail where it thinks it should be.

Also you can use panaoramic setting, or shoot several images from the same angle to cover the subject and overlay them in post processing to create a larger detailed image. You may have to zoom in to create the array of images. For instance if you are taking an image of a person, you can frame them normally and get the 16MP, or you can zoom in and get 10 pictures of that person from head to toe a section at a time, and then paste them together in software. Then you have approximately 160MP image.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the suggestion for future shooting. For this project, however, I'm looking at images already taken (on prior immersion trips). Thankfully, I shot RAW, which frankly is new to me. I previously touted the benefits (I should say ease) of JPG shooting, but more detailed experimentation in Lightroom since has given me incontrovertible evidence that I was a dope.

Rey
 
Mark B UK said:
Last year I had two images from my E-M5 printed to 30x40in. Looking at them as close as my eyes will focus, I can see some tight, film-like noise, even at ISO 200, but plenty of detail in areas in focus. Compared with smaller prints or looking at an image on screen, at that magnification I'd say depth of field is smaller, or rather it's easier to see when something is away from the distance focused. Fall-off in sharpness toward the corners is minimal (admittedly I shot at 17mm on the Lumix 12-35 2.8 at f/5.6, 1/500sec with anti-shock, pretty much optimum settings).

Your E-M1 has slightly less noise and, with no anti-aliasing filter, should be sharper. And you're printing smaller. So you should be fine.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Helpful affirmation.

Thanks to all posters for the info and feedback. Just what I was hoping for.

Rey
 
Reybabes said:
I've been using images to supplement/accentuate some work I've been doing with an international relief organization. To date, that has involved projecting the images onto a large screen. I've been asked to speak in a number of venues where projecting won't be possible, so I've thought about printing out several photos 24x36 size or larger and mounting them on foam core backing. At various times during the speech, I could plan on holding up the photos. Has anyone reliably and consistently printed this large and with good effect from m4/3? I'm shooting with an EM1 and have the 12-40 and 25/1.8 which have given me great results via projection.

Interested in feedback from those who've been down a similar path.

Thanks,

Rey
Click to expand...
I have a framed 30x40 of this image captured with the E-M1 and 12-40mm f2.8 at Jackson Lake Lodge in Wyoming on the back wall in my office at work. From 3-4 feet away, it looks great. Just loaded the full resolution image to Smugmug and let Bay Photo in SF do whatever they do in making a print of that size. No desire on this end trying and re-size/interpolate/etc myself. I can only hurt the process. :)



--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights
 
Last edited:
Gregm61 said:
I have a framed 30x40 of this image captured with the E-M1 and 12-40mm f2.8 at Jackson Lake Lodge in Wyoming on the back wall in my office at work. From 3-4 feet away, it looks great.



--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights
Click to expand...
I don't blame you for hanging this in your office. I bet it looks awesome. Can I ask: where did you get the 30x40 done? A local lab or one of the biggies?

Rey

--
The best things in life aren't things...
Photo blog: www.2guysphoto.com

Loading…

500px.com
 
Reybabes said:
Reybabes said:
I have a framed 30x40 of this image captured with the E-M1 and 12-40mm f2.8 at Jackson Lake Lodge in Wyoming on the back wall in my office at work. From 3-4 feet away, it looks great.



--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights
Click to expand...
I don't blame you for hanging this in your office. I bet it looks awesome. Can I ask: where did you get the 30x40 done? A local lab or one of the biggies?

Rey

--
The best things in life aren't things...
Photo blog: www.2guysphoto.com
http://500px.com/reyspadoni
Click to expand...
I have a Smugmug online account and just order prints through them. They offer a couple different labs. I use Bay Photo in San Francisco. They're very good.

--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights
 
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