Reading mode: Light Dark

24x36 or bigger prints from m4/3?

Go to last post
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.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with this. Sharpening never gets you more detail. If the detail is not there, you can't create it with sharpening. You can bring out detail that is there. Or you can over sharpen and create artefacts that didn't exist in the scene you photographed and should not be in the image at all.

But to suggest you can turn a 16MP image into a 90MP one by simply sharpening is to be ruthlessly frank, bonkers.
 
Sean Nelson said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think that is about right. The B&W neg 645 scans I have been working on from the 1950s look about the same resolution-wise as my Canon 5D2 work. I imagine the 36MP FF cameras from the last couple years would then approach 4x5 work of old, especially paired with a T-S lens. Of course we can stitch now, so in many cases there is no real limit on DPI anymore.
 
Hi Rey,

I have made a number of 24 x 36 posters from pictures taken with my OM-D E-M5. Below is an example of a picture that worked out just fine.

However, I would say that in order for a picture to be suitable for a bit enlargement like this, you really need to do lots of things well, and the subject itself needs to be able to contain enough detail to sustain the viewers's attention.

So, you asked about whether this could be done reliably and constantly in m43. I would say that this depends on the subject and the shooting environment. If you are doing sports in low light, I think it would be hard to consistently produce the quality of pictures that would suitable for such big prints. (Although I am sure someone will come up with one.) The picture below was taken under poor lighting conditions, but, as you can see, nothing was moving very fast.

But if your pictures already look good enough to you in projection, I bet they will look just fine printed. It seems like you already have the answer.

Best regards,

Jeff

 

Attachments

  • 2963874.jpg
    2963874.jpg
    13.7 MB · Views: 0
LOL ... aren't that so ; having a couple of friends who always constantly pixel peep and worry too much about the technicals and so too here. Kind of hard to well reason with them ,,
 
It's not like your audience is going to get out of their chairs and pixel peep. You're printing large for the people in the back row.

Even look at a billboard close up? Looks fine from the freeway though.

Really, any solid camera system can print big and look great. Never worry about the print size unless you're selling fine art for thousands.
 
jeffpix said:
Hi Rey,

I have made a number of 24 x 36 posters from pictures taken with my OM-D E-M5. Below is an example of a picture that worked out just fine.

However, I would say that in order for a picture to be suitable for a bit enlargement like this, you really need to do lots of things well, and the subject itself needs to be able to contain enough detail to sustain the viewers's attention.

So, you asked about whether this could be done reliably and constantly in m43. I would say that this depends on the subject and the shooting environment. If you are doing sports in low light, I think it would be hard to consistently produce the quality of pictures that would suitable for such big prints. (Although I am sure someone will come up with one.) The picture below was taken under poor lighting conditions, but, as you can see, nothing was moving very fast.

But if your pictures already look good enough to you in projection, I bet they will look just fine printed. It seems like you already have the answer.

Best regards,

Jeff

Click to expand...
Thanks for the info, Jeff. My images will mostly portraits in B&W, so hopefully they will meet the criteria you've outlined.

And now I have out ask about your photo: what exactly is that?

Thanks,

Rey

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

Loading…

500px.com
 
tko said:
It's not like your audience is going to get out of their chairs and pixel peep. You're printing large for the people in the back row.

Even look at a billboard close up? Looks fine from the freeway though.

Really, any solid camera system can print big and look great. Never worry about the print size unless you're selling fine art for thousands.
Click to expand...
 
Reybabes said:
jeffpix said:
Hi Rey,

I have made a number of 24 x 36 posters from pictures taken with my OM-D E-M5. Below is an example of a picture that worked out just fine.

However, I would say that in order for a picture to be suitable for a bit enlargement like this, you really need to do lots of things well, and the subject itself needs to be able to contain enough detail to sustain the viewers's attention.

So, you asked about whether this could be done reliably and constantly in m43. I would say that this depends on the subject and the shooting environment. If you are doing sports in low light, I think it would be hard to consistently produce the quality of pictures that would suitable for such big prints. (Although I am sure someone will come up with one.) The picture below was taken under poor lighting conditions, but, as you can see, nothing was moving very fast.

But if your pictures already look good enough to you in projection, I bet they will look just fine printed. It seems like you already have the answer.

Best regards,

Jeff

Click to expand...
Thanks for the info, Jeff. My images will mostly portraits in B&W, so hopefully they will meet the criteria you've outlined.

And now I have out ask about your photo: what exactly is that?

Thanks,

Rey

--
The best things in life aren't things...
Photo blog: www.2guysphoto.com
http://500px.com/reyspadoni
Click to expand...
Hi Rey,

This is one of two end pieces of the CMS particle detector at the LHC. For more info, see

CMS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN - people working

Hi all, Here are a few pictures of the CMS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva, showing a bit of what it is like to work in the underground cavern. Currently, running is paused for upgrades to the accelerator and the experiments, but data taking will resume in 2015. All...
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com

Best regards,

Jeff
 
vin 13 said:
Only last week I printed an em5/12-40 image 32x24". I also took the same shot with a 6d/17-40. Sample equiv focal lenght and aperture. One has to really look close to see the difference, which is really minimal. Point being that the latest m43 cameras with the best lenses are well able to produce images that print well to a that size. I would say that's about their limit though.
Click to expand...
Hi Vin,

1) To what ISO you have set these two cameras - M5 and 6D?

Thank you.

Leo
 
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

--
The best things in life aren't things...
Photo blog: www.2guysphoto.com
http://500px.com/reyspadoni
Click to expand...
I have asked on this forum a similar question several months ago before buying an Olympus PM2. The list of replays was shorter but nevertheless very helpful. A very good and helpful advice was from Anders. He strongly advised for the best results to photograph RAW (I always do) and ETTR by using "blinki" as indicator. The photo bellow was taken handheld with PM2 with a 40-150 mm lens , which considered to be just an average quality lens. I was learning my new PM2 and was shooting left and right. The camera/lens settings were also nothing special: PM2, 150mm, F8 at ISO 200 and 1/500s. The distance to the mountain is approximately 6-7 miles. I was photographing from a 600 feet hill on a dry day at the Sun setting time. You can see there are a high voltage transmission line tower on side of the mountain. I was very surprised to see on the photo not only the towers but also the lines (cables) stretched between the towers. I have printed this image as 13x19 on my home printer. This image easily could be printed as 24x36 retaining it s sharpness and details. The shown image is reduced for the web from 16MP to 1.2MP (1600x 730).

Leo


Lick Observatory on Mt Hamilton, San Jose California.
 

Attachments

  • 3053434.jpg
    3053434.jpg
    733.6 KB · Views: 0
Leo said:

Lick Observatory on Mt Hamilton, San Jose California.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the perspective, Leo. This shot has great tonality and a nice palette of grey tones. Very nice.

Rey

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

Loading…

500px.com
 
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