print comparison

Hi Rick:

You bet I would like to see the prints.  As some smart person said 'the print is the end result of any photographic process',

BTW  What is your take on the comparison prints?

rick decker wrote:

I did a print comparison of a Q and M image. The images are 20x30. If I get enough interested, I will start them out on a "tour" - get them, look them and pass them on. All you would be out is some postage. Each image was re-processed for the printing.

For US/Canada only.

Rick You must have read my mind, I was actually thinking about this the other day, this is the sort of comparison that needs to be seen.

I do love to pixel peep my DP3m files, thats not who I was as a photographer before, but something about the detail in those files and I just can't help myself, maybe others felt the same way the DPM files and thus the Merrill files has developed a soft spot amongst users that was always going to be hard to overcome. I have to wonder if the Quattro files may not look all that at 100% on a screen (compared to a Merrill anyway) but in print form at equal sizes may well be more equal than seen on screen. Personaly when I've seen Merrill files and Quattro files on screen at 100% I've been more impressed by the levels of detail of the Merrill files and though sometimes I have been disappointed by the noise levels of my DP3m its seems to be a bigger issue in Quattro cameras... although truthfully I've only had my DP2Q for a a week and haven't had the chance to put it through its paces to really test it in person.

I would like to hear your personal opinion on the prints you have before you, and the views of others as they see them for themselves, I can't really do a similar experiment between 3M and the 2Q. Two totally different cameras, I never even had plans to get the 2 camera, although I had got a 2s years ago for my wife who needed a general purpose camera at the time, I never felt that focal length was something I needed, I always though I would want something closer, hence the DP3m purchase, or wider, or just fall back to my SD camera for more general shooting, however I couldn't resist that B&H price and just had to take the plunge into Quattro territory.

At some stage though I would like to either get the DP1m or the DP1Q to compliment the DP's I already have and this sort of experiment might end up swaying me in one  direction over the other. I find something special in the Merril files, something very foveon like, a look that is different enough for the competition that has kept me shooting with Sigma Cameras since I picked up a SD14 cheap.Thats a look that has kept me away from the charms of other Mirrorless cameras or other makes od DSLR's. On screen anyway the Quattro looks more bayer like to my eyes, which to me is a little disapointing but at the end of the day though I don't see myself pixel peeping too often, I want a wall full of prints I want to see images I like and love. So Rick what's you personal opinion? Merill Or Quattro, or little difference between the two....

Steven

rick decker wrote:

The images were edited to taste. Both came out of SPP NR off, zeros except for -1 sharpening. I brought up the contrast with the Q and resharpened the Q USM A/R/T 100/.3/0. Very light shadow-raising with the M.

They are close. I will let everyone decide and add their comments.

R

One thing I've also keen to know more of from users in the this forum is the differences in shooting and post production between a Merril and a Quattro.

Steven

Thank you Rick, but can you even tell the difference between the two cameras in the details captured and printed in those two prints? Do you think it would be worth the effort?

rick decker wrote:

It is just a good exercise in what the reality is for large prints. More so now with the debate on which is better. I am stuck with having to shoot both 1Q and 1M. I have a slight preference for the 1Q here on the islands, and a slight preference for the 1M out in the American West. I don't know if you were around when Kendall and I did a tour of 30x48 SD1 prints. It was both educational for most and very entertaining.

Yes. I had them for a while. I liked the photo of the house on the hill, shot with the 70mm f2.8 macro. Too bad you can't make 40x60 prints from the DP cameras for this print tour. I might be able to do that for you, if you like. I have been working at a friend's office in Fort Lauderdale. He's a printer and has a wide format printer. What do you think Rick? Shall I give it a try? (I'll need the two TIFF files.)

Put yourself on the list.

R

-- hide signature --

It's a tough job living in Hawaii but somebody's got to do it.
http://www.rickdecker.photography
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker

rick decker wrote:

For distant landscape, 40x60 might be pushing it. I am going to review some of the samples and see what we have.

Rick, if you're confident that those two photos are samples that are as detailed as the two cameras can produce, then why not use them? From the looks of this, I'd say the Quattro definitely is capturing more fine detail (maybe just as much micro-contrast too?):

Screen capture (.png), showing 100% views of one part of both images. DP2 Merrill is the top one.

I see more detail in the grass and tree trunk in the bottom image. I wouldn't mind seeing these two printed really large. If you have two other images, which you think would make better prints to hang on a wall, and they show the detail differences just as well, I would love to see them.

Rick, would you be willing to post the raw files?

The DP1Q has better edges/corners (the DP1M was blurrier).

The DP1Q had better/richer color (though the sky was a bit purple?)

The DP1M had a very slight edge on some center details.  Very slight...

The shadows on the DP1M shot were lighter for some reason?

Noise was not noticeable in either print, even in the sky.