How many of you print large with APS-C? I mean LARGE!!!

third son · Nov 1, 2017

Good morning,

I frequently read on these forums (primarily Fuji and MFT) who compare the IQ to "full frame (35mm) digital cameras. I can't get over the fact that the output from crop sensor cameras give excellent prints for most folks, yet the question persists on pixel peeping and ultimate IQ (as it probably should---this is a gear forum).

My question to the masses here if you care to answer:

1) What is the typical size you print and

2) What is the largest print you have EVER made with a crop sensor camera and were you happy with the result?

Please do not include any data from a sensor larger than APS-C.

I frequently print 11 x 16 family portrait prints with both Fuji (16 and 24 MP) and MFT (16 MP) formats but have done a couple 10 x 30 panoramas and some A3 prints. Nothing bigger than that. Many less than 8 x 10

Anyone routinely print larger than that?

Please choose the largest size you routinely print and then answer if you printed larger than that and what you experience was.

Thanks!

Labe · Nov 1, 2017

I print A3+ weekly and 30" by 20" evry few months . I`ve even printed 30" by 20" with 1 1/17 9mp bridge camera without issues . My 14mp nex3 with kit lens does this with ease.

zackiedawg · Nov 1, 2017

third son said:
1) What is the typical size you print and

Typical for me would be 8x10 or occasional 11x16. That's been standard since 10MP APS-C sensors, and stayed through 14MP, 16MP, and 24MP sensors.

third son said:
2) What is the largest print you have EVER made with a crop sensor camera and were you happy with the result?

I've done 24 x 36" prints with a 16MP sensor and 24MP sensor...I've been happy with both. The 24MP does hold some advantage when pushing up to those print sizes if you analyze them up close, but most prints of that size are meant to be hanging on a wall and viewed from 5+ feet away, so once you step back the differences are negligible.

I wouldn't call it 'routine' at that size - just occasionally, for a few personal prints in my house and a few sold prints at that large size.

* Per request...I'm editing to add the cameras used...the 16MP prints were with either a Sony A580 DSLR or NEX-5N mirrorless. The 24MP prints were with a Sony A6000 or A6300 mirrorless. Various lenses.

--
Justin
galleries: www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

third son · Nov 1, 2017

Also: If you could identify the camera you normally use for these large prints, that would be helpful information.

Leonard Migliore · Nov 1, 2017

I normally print 11X14 from my 12Mp D300. Pictures look good. People buy them. I do take some care in selecting sharp images.

I don't consider 11X14 to be a "LARGE!!!" (or even "large") print size. I don't think anything smaller is worth hanging up. The largest I've printed from the D300 was 12 X18; I doubt if I'd go bigger than that with 12Mp.

I've made 11X14 prints from my 1" sensor RX100 but I had to beat the images quite severely before they would behave properly. And even then no one bought any.

I have not yet printed anything from my D750 but expect it to be significantly better. It might even be possible to make a LARGE!!! print. Now all I have to do is take a decent picture with it.

Armin Hermann · Nov 1, 2017

resolution is not relevant to large scale prints, since your viewing distance increases. In fact a small print on glossy paper needs more resolution than a larger one.

I usually print a1 and all my d700 shots look perfectly good with plenty of details.

Your technique is much more relevant to the final look than your gear.

I read this nonsense every so often and wonder why people still give a penny about this marketing nonsense. In fact more resolution can make your prints look less sharp. The additional resolution that your eye is unable to resolve at a given distance decreases micro contrast.

For every print there is a viewing distance and you need to take that into account. Only gear heads look at a large print at nose distance and worry about resolution. Ridiculous, since when the print look good at that distance it will suck at its natural viewing distance.

-a

third son · Nov 1, 2017

Leonard Migliore said:
I normally print 11X14 from my 12Mp D300. Pictures look good. People buy them. I do take some care in selecting sharp images.

I don't consider 11X14 to be a "LARGE!!!" (or even "large") print size. I don't think anything smaller is worth hanging up. The largest I've printed from the D300 was 12 X18; I doubt if I'd go bigger than that with 12Mp.

I've made 11X14 prints from my 1" sensor RX100 but I had to beat the images quite severely before they would behave properly. And even then no one bought any.

I have not yet printed anything from my D750 but expect it to be significantly better. It might even be possible to make a LARGE!!! print. Now all I have to do is take a decent picture with it.

third son · Nov 1, 2017

Armin Hermann said:
resolution is not relevant to large scale prints, since your viewing distance increases. In fact a small print on glossy paper needs more resolution than a larger one.

I usually print a1 and all my d700 shots look perfectly good with plenty of details.

Your technique is much more relevant to the final look than your gear.

I read this nonsense every so often and wonder why people still give a penny about this marketing nonsense. In fact more resolution can make your prints look less sharp. The additional resolution that your eye is unable to resolve at a given distance decreases micro contrast.

For every print there is a viewing distance and you need to take that into account. Only gear heads look at a large print at nose distance and worry about resolution. Ridiculous, since when the print look good at that distance it will suck at its natural viewing distance.

-a

Exactly! This is the kind of discussion that I wanted to generate....thanks!

Brad Bohland · Nov 1, 2017

zackiedawg said:
I've done 24 x 36" prints with a 16MP sensor and 24MP sensor...I've been happy with both. The 24MP does hold some advantage when pushing up to those print sizes if you analyze them up close, but most prints of that size are meant to be hanging on a wall and viewed from 5+ feet away, so once you step back the differences are negligible.

I bought a 30x40 print which has exquisite IQ and it's my experience that a really fine print draws you closer to it and doesn't invite you to step further away to see it in a more favorable light.

You can bring your nose to within inches of the 30x40 and it's even more amazing at that distance than from further back.

(As an aside, I think you need 108MP to make a 300dpi 30x40, but I'm not sure how sensor size affects that, other than that you're probably not going to find that many MPs on anything smaller than a medium format camera, not sure though. And then there's the question of upscaling which may be an option up to a point.)

Mike CH · Nov 1, 2017

Armin Hermann said:
resolution is not relevant to large scale prints, since your viewing distance increases. In fact a small print on glossy paper needs more resolution than a larger one.

Agreed. The viewing and less the original resolution determines how large you can print.

Armin Hermann said:
For every print there is a viewing distance and you need to take that into account. Only gear heads look at a large print at nose distance and worry about resolution.

There are examples of really large prints that are meant to be seen both close up and from afar. But they are rather seldom, and I think the people that can produce are them are even more seldom...

Regards, Mike

Mike CH · Nov 1, 2017

Leonard Migliore said:
I've made 11X14 prints from my 1" sensor RX100 but I had to beat the images quite severely before they would behave properly.

You beat your images? And you admit that, here?

Leonard Migliore said:
And even then no one bought any.

Well, no wonder! I certainly hope you get a visit from PETP very, very soon!

Beating up on innocent images - well, I've never!

If they at least had been from a Canon sensor, but no.

Regards, Mike

PS: I better add a couple of those

in case the above is too little over the top

FRGorga · Nov 1, 2017

The large majority of my prints are 8"x 10". I routinely make 11"x 14" and 16"x 20" prints. On rare occasion, I have had made prints larger than 16"x 20"... probably less than a half dozen at 24"x 36" in the past decade. I never print smaller that 5"x 7".

As far as cameras go... started with a Nikon D70 (6 MP) and have progressed to a D300 (12 MP) and now a D500 (21 MP). I also use a Nikon 1 V1 (10 MP). Of course, I crop pretty much all of my work to 4:5 so the actual amount of data is always less that the sensor's native size.

The camera is really irrelevant. I have great 16" x 20" prints from all of them.

Mike_PEAT · Nov 1, 2017

Armin Hermann said:
resolution is not relevant to large scale prints, since your viewing distance increases. In fact a small print on glossy paper needs more resolution than a larger one.

Agree. In the old days we only had 2mp cameras with tiny sensors, but we used software to up the size of the image...you had to use what you had.

Armin Hermann said:
Your technique is much more relevant to the final look than your gear.

The software we used to use was "Genuine Fractals"...was renamed "Perfect Resize" and then "ON1 Resize".

Armin Hermann said:
For every print there is a viewing distance and you need to take that into account. Only gear heads look at a large print at nose distance and worry about resolution. Ridiculous, since when the print look good at that distance it will suck at its natural viewing distance.

I remember the first time I looked at a billboard up close...there was a billboard that's meant to go up high at ground level, so I could get a close look at the half-tone printing:

third son · Nov 1, 2017

FRGorga said:
The camera is really irrelevant. I have great 16" x 20" prints from all of them.

Horoscope Fish · Nov 1, 2017

third son said:
1) What is the typical size you print and

5x7, 8x10 and 11x14 are our most common print sizes. 16x20's do happen, but far less frequently. The aps-c cameras in the house are a D7100 and a D5300.

third son said:
2) What is the largest print you have EVER made with a crop sensor camera and were you happy with the result?

20x30.

It turned out looking great. That particular shot was taken with the D7100.

Plutla · Nov 1, 2017

I have a 60"x40" 3 panel canvas done with my Nikon d300s. If you get right up to it you can see the lower resolution of course but from a few feet back (where its viewed) you cannot tell. I believe the texture of the canvas helps with that as well.

DLGW · Nov 1, 2017

Largest single print is a multi-shot pano at 20x40 inches. (or was it 30x60? I don't recall - I printed it for a charity auction). I have several 18x48 inch pano's at home.

I have done several single shot prints at 24x36 but the results vary depending on subject. Very detailed landscapes look fine from normal viewing distance but suffer as you get a bit closer - 16 MP cropped down to 3:2 ratio doesn't show alot of small detail as you get closer. For shots where lots of fine details isn't as important, they are fine.

16x20 is definately do able on 16 MP m43 - I'd image 24x36 is good for 24 MP APS sensors for most uses.

All this assumes you are starting with a sharp image, not cropping much and are properly processing and sharpening your final image - this can be tough to get right.

If you start getting into the multi-shot hi res mode for scenes where nothing is moving... I'm thinking you are going to start running into the problem of where to store such large prints!

The Davinator · Nov 1, 2017

Armin Hermann said:
resolution is not relevant to large scale prints, since your viewing distance increases. In fact a small print on glossy paper needs more resolution than a larger one.

Not really true. In gallery settings, when viewing a large print, people tend to stand back to take the entire photo in, and then move in close to immerse themselves in the detail.

Armin Hermann said:
I usually print a1 and all my d700 shots look perfectly good with plenty of details.

A 12mp a1 print isn't "detailed."

Armin Hermann said:
Your technique is much more relevant to the final look than your gear.

Only partially correct

Armin Hermann said:
I read this nonsense every so often and wonder why people still give a penny about this marketing nonsense. In fact more resolution can make your prints look less sharp. The additional resolution that your eye is unable to resolve at a given distance decreases micro contrast.

It isn't marketing nonsense. I've viewed landscape work by some of the best in the world in their galleries. Clyde Butcher, Rodney Lough Jr, Ed Weston, , David Fokos, Peter Lik, Bruce Barnbaum, among others. People did exactly as I said...stepped bck...then stepped in.

Armin Hermann said:
For every print there is a viewing distance and you need to take that into account. Only gear heads look at a large print at nose distance and worry about resolution. Ridiculous, since when the print look good at that distance it will suck at its natural viewing distance.

-a

No...there actually isn't a viewing distance. That is a myth. Looking at a 40x60 print for example...people will not be satisfied with your D700 over a D850 for example.

Sorry, but after having attended many gallery settings, people are not doing what you seem to think they are.

The Davinator · Nov 1, 2017

This really depends on a number of factors. I have for many years produced large prints from everything from apsc sensors, fullframe, medium format digital and film, and 4x5 film. The biggest I normally used to sell was 40"x60".

What does it depend upon? Type of subject matter, resolution of sensor and optics, post processing technique and output media. Don't believe for second that "viewing distance" will save you. It won't. For street photography, even out to 30"x45", no one really gets in close. For landscape, virtually everyone does. Here are some samples from apsc, FF, and 4x5. In large print, you can easily tell the difference between the apsc and 4x5. Between the apsc and FF of the same rez...not at all really.

Each media and format has its place. But, like I said, for many types of work, viewing distance as an excuse won't save you.

Lancaster · Nov 1, 2017

I routinely print large three to five times a month for my own use and rotate them through the house every once in a while.

My most common print size is 2'x3' with 3'x4' to a lesser extent, as well as smaller sizes.

Almost every image is a crop from the full size image in my Nikon D7000 & D7200. But more and more I am using my two G7X Mk2's for large prints and finding the results excellent.

My personal stuff is mainly wildlife and tight crops are common. I sometimes use ON1's Resize module to tweak the image but I am finding that my cameras really don't need that on regular basis for large prints.

My pro stuff is mainly for an agency in the United Nations in Afghanistan and they very much like to take my images and print them really really large as backdrops for conferences and presentations to donor nations. We are talking head-shots of people 8 to 10 feet tall and landscapes of 10 foot and more across. The results are stunning but of course not if you are of the pixel peeper persuasion. They are meant to be viewed from several steps away.

My sister is a pro photographer in Toronto who is eccentric enough to only carry an ancient iPhone when on vacation. Last year she took a snapshot in Ireland that Guinness bought from her to use on a roadside billboard. I do believe however that she ran it through a resizing program first before pitching it, but maybe not.

Again, it is about the viewing distance. Even the Mona Lisa looks crap from a few inches away.

I used to fuss over resolution charts and pore over mathematical formulae involving pixel numbers and print sizes but now I have little hesitation in going very large if the image looks like it might work, and it usually does.

What changed for me was the realization that the quality, (the superb quality,) that I was getting out of the D7200 and the MkII's put me into a mindset that the image should rule and not the limitations of print size charts. If the image strikes me, and I have a good space in the house to hang it, then I will just have it printed regardless. It almost always works quite well.

How many of you print large with APS-C? I mean LARGE!!!

How many of you print large with APS-C? I mean LARGE!!!

Senior Member

Labe

Guest

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

New member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Active member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts