Tony Spore
Well-known member
I have the E-1 and a Epson2200 and I have printed 12x16's nicely, but I was wondering how large can I print up to without distortion on shots?
Thanks
-T
Thanks
-T
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
How Big can it go?
- Thread starter Tony Spore
- Start date
Graham Alcock
Well-known member
digital ed
Veteran Member
Not sure what you mean by distortion on shots. I regularly print 13x19 on my 2200. At that size on close examination I can see the limits of the E-1 resolution. But at a normal viewing distance for a 13x19 print it usually looks very good. 8.5x11 prints look very good.
Printing from PSCS or Qimage there is no distortion other than the inherent resolution of the picture file.
Best regards,
Ed
Printing from PSCS or Qimage there is no distortion other than the inherent resolution of the picture file.
Best regards,
Ed
Jono Slack
Veteran Member
Hi Graham
What sort of stuff are you printing to A1 size?
Are you shooting RAW or .jpg?
How are you upsizing the images for printing?
What printer are you using?
What software do you use for printing?
I don't have facilities for printing that big, but I've printed crops that would have been that big, and although they're fine from a reasonable viewing distance, I don't think it really cut's the mustard for landscape work.
kind regards
jono slack
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
What sort of stuff are you printing to A1 size?
Are you shooting RAW or .jpg?
How are you upsizing the images for printing?
What printer are you using?
What software do you use for printing?
I don't have facilities for printing that big, but I've printed crops that would have been that big, and although they're fine from a reasonable viewing distance, I don't think it really cut's the mustard for landscape work.
kind regards
jono slack
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
Tony Spore
Well-known member
For example, I have just printed up in 12x16 this picture of a dragon fly.
http://www.allplaces.net/randomuploads/dragonA.html
and it looks fine. I converted to jpeg from Raw, but only saved it in PSCS as 10 instead of 12. It is only 608k which is quite small. So I was just wondering if I could save it at 12 and blow it up to be a poster and if it would still look professional? Would it look better if I save it at 12 at a larger size? It look very good at 12x16.
Thanks.
T
http://www.allplaces.net/randomuploads/dragonA.html
and it looks fine. I converted to jpeg from Raw, but only saved it in PSCS as 10 instead of 12. It is only 608k which is quite small. So I was just wondering if I could save it at 12 and blow it up to be a poster and if it would still look professional? Would it look better if I save it at 12 at a larger size? It look very good at 12x16.
Thanks.
T
digital ed
Veteran Member
Hi Tony,
Jono is the best one to answer this as he only shoots jpeg with the E-1. I always shoot RAW and print from non-compressed tiff. The bigger you are going to print the more I think you should avoid compressed files. My opinion and my practice. Actually, the engineer in me hates compression of any type, be it photos, video or audio so that may be the basis of my bias.
Best regards,
Ed
Jono is the best one to answer this as he only shoots jpeg with the E-1. I always shoot RAW and print from non-compressed tiff. The bigger you are going to print the more I think you should avoid compressed files. My opinion and my practice. Actually, the engineer in me hates compression of any type, be it photos, video or audio so that may be the basis of my bias.
Best regards,
Ed
Jono Slack
Veteran Member
Hi Tony
Upsize the photo (bicubic-smoother in photoshop does an adequate job) to the size you'd really like, then cut a bit out and print it - voila.
You could also look at the difference between converting to .jpg and converting to .tif while you're about it.
I'd think you'd be fine with a dragonfly shot - it all starts falling apart when you're trying to shoot landscapes and printing large (IMHO).
Kind Regards
Jono Slack
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
Jono Slack
Veteran Member
Hi Tony
. One of the things I like about the Olympus cameras is that they offer 1:2.7 compression, which is pretty low (less compression than 12 in photoshop as far as I can see).
I'm also extremely careful about re-saving .jpg files, and the originals always remain exactly as they were.
Maybe I have cloth eyes, but in the testing I did comparing raw to jpg prints I didn't find any obvious artifacts in the .jpg files, but I did find unhelpful behaviour in all the RAW converters I used.
Still, horses for courses.
kind regards
jono slack
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
Well, I'm slightly the same way, but digital is digital (you can't make it analogue any way you try
. One of the things I like about the Olympus cameras is that they offer 1:2.7 compression, which is pretty low (less compression than 12 in photoshop as far as I can see).I'm also extremely careful about re-saving .jpg files, and the originals always remain exactly as they were.
Maybe I have cloth eyes, but in the testing I did comparing raw to jpg prints I didn't find any obvious artifacts in the .jpg files, but I did find unhelpful behaviour in all the RAW converters I used.
Still, horses for courses.
kind regards
jono slack
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
Skip Williams
Leading Member
I recently enlarged some E-1 images 400% to 24x30" and they looked very nice. I used Photoshop CS's Bicubic Sharper algorithm for the upsizing.
I found PS's B-sharper nicer than Genuine Fractals for retaining out-of-focus character. GF tends to try and make every edge very distinct, which, on out of focus items, tends to make them look plasticy. I also tried Bicubic, B-Smoother, a 10% stairstep action, and another upsizing program (can't remember the name).
The PS Bicubic Sharper was the best balance, although much of the decision of which technique to use depends on the subject matter. If hard edges or geometric shapes are prevelant and important, GF does a very good job with them.
Try it, you'll likely like it.
Skip
I found PS's B-sharper nicer than Genuine Fractals for retaining out-of-focus character. GF tends to try and make every edge very distinct, which, on out of focus items, tends to make them look plasticy. I also tried Bicubic, B-Smoother, a 10% stairstep action, and another upsizing program (can't remember the name).
The PS Bicubic Sharper was the best balance, although much of the decision of which technique to use depends on the subject matter. If hard edges or geometric shapes are prevelant and important, GF does a very good job with them.
Try it, you'll likely like it.
Skip
Tony Spore
Well-known member
Thanks for all your replies. I do shot in Raw. and then covert out afterwards to Jpeg, so I will try to use Tiff instead. Just wanted to be able to occassionaly send the files to a place like Costco, and get print outs. But usally I use my Hiti 730 for glossy prints 4x6-6x8 and then the 2200 fro 6x8 -12x16 luster photos. I have assumed that I should convert to Jpeg. But perhaps that is wrong. I will also try to blow the image up tonight and print out a section of it through my 2200. Also just to let you all know. I am always looking for cheap cartriges and I called costco on line today, and they are going to start to carry 3 packs of cartriges (3 Matte for example) for about $26.00. So I think that is very affordable. It won't be for the next 3-4 weeks before they are on line. Anyhow, I will also try to use the B-sharper tonight. Thanks for the help.
T
T
Tony Spore
Well-known member
I tried the B-Sharper to enlarge the picture and they came out nice. Not perfect but nice expecially for an enlargment. From this knowledge then why would I need a more Megapixel camera than the E-1?
Because from that size I would be producing a poster.
Because from that size I would be producing a poster.
Skip Williams
Leading Member
Graham Alcock
Well-known member
Both people and landscapes.
Shoot raw.
Olypus Studio
Epson 7600
QImage
Maintaining the correct viewing distance is important in evaluation.
A higher MP camera would provide more fine detail at larger sizes (good for landscapes for example). That said, when you are up to 30" prints, you ususally stand far enough away that fine detail belnds into the image anyway.
Simon
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum