Reading mode: Light Dark

D3 X Just cant wait.....

Go to last post
I agree with Ednaz and think his comments are the most accurate on this topic. On the client side, they don't want to bear the costs for the higher quality levels, and many cannot even deal with RAW files. Some may argue the photographer should do all the RAW adjusting, but in recent years past the photographer was done when he delivered the film. Delivering a digital product is much more expensive and time consuming, and the clients have for the most part not covered this at all.

The better results are with digial backs that cost upwards of 30 grand -- without a medium format body or lenses. And where's the back up back if you're shooting models -- better hope everything works flawlessly.

Plus art directors frequently ask you to give them a lot more space (pull back) from what the layout requires -- just in case their client wants to do more things with the photo -- and of course when you pull back and crop later you're reducing the amount of pixels.

The D3x may prove to be something great. Right now I really love my D3. I think this is a hard topic to discuss until Nikon releases specs.
--

Nikon D3, Nikon D300, Nikon Lenses 10.5, 14-24, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 VR, 60 2.8 AF-S Micro, 85 1.4 Other brands: Zeiss 50 1.4, Nikon TC-17E II 1.7x,Three SB800's, Canon G-9 & Underwater housing, Two Quantum 5d-r's, & More.
 
you could have enlarged it up to a football field size !
that doesnt change anything to the simple mathematics
the clients come up with.
its extrapolation not physical data !
Minimum without crop is 3350 pixel by 4960 pixel at 300 dpi !
That about 18 MP for a double page and around 24 MP with cropping area !
Thats common knowledge !
Peter
 
Dan - I've done a couple shoots with rented digital backs and I was awed and thrilled by the results. (Personal work.) OMG, I can only wish I had clients who valued that image quality enough to pay for it!

But I've also done a number of shoots where I shot medium format film, with the promise of drum scanning, and shot my d2x bodies side by side with medium format film - and the client never even asked for me to do the scans, they grabbed the d2x shots and went to press. That made me sell my MF gear - I was shooting Bronica and the connections to MF digital backs were kludgy.

I've actually, in a fit of pique, slipped several images shot with a 6mp body (d100) and then uprezzed, as 12mp images, to a few of the snotty ignorant art directors. To a person, they had the arrogant foolishness to use those images to lecture me on how valuable the 12mp cameras were - "look at the detail in this, you'd never get this with a 10mp camera..." Shot with a d100, 6mp. Barf. Idiots. It proved that the people who I'm trying to sell to don't rely on their eyes, but instead on some marketing concept of mo' pixels equal mo' betta.

Art directors have always wanted more for less, but since film technologies had been stable for 20 years or so, there was less screwy price pressure. Somehow there's this whole notion of "digital is cheaper" and "more pixels just means add a few megabytes"... Absurd. I'm not a fanatical cost accounting kind of guy, but what I've seen suggests my costs are not much different in total, digital versus film, but the way the money gets spent is radically different.

In shoots where I have some time to control the images, I've started shooting multiple image pano kinds of shots, so that if a client wants lots of space for text it's additive to the core image. That was so hard to do in the film world - in a lot of situations, I have frames that let me scale an image 4x, by adding other frames, if there's a need for text. I'm not sure that a 24mp body would allow me to stop doing that.

I'm craving a Nikon body that makes my 80-200AFS, 70-200 VR, 28-70 AFS and 50 1.4 lenses seem to struggle. No client would give a hoot. But for my personal projects, I'd love to produce images of that complexity.
Dan Wagner said:
I agree with Ednaz and think his comments are the most accurate on
this topic. On the client side, they don't want to bear the costs for
the higher quality levels, and many cannot even deal with RAW files.
Some may argue the photographer should do all the RAW adjusting, but
in recent years past the photographer was done when he delivered the
film. Delivering a digital product is much more expensive and time
consuming, and the clients have for the most part not covered this at
all.

The better results are with digial backs that cost upwards of 30
grand -- without a medium format body or lenses. And where's the back
up back if you're shooting models -- better hope everything works
flawlessly.

Plus art directors frequently ask you to give them a lot more space
(pull back) from what the layout requires -- just in case their
client wants to do more things with the photo -- and of course when
you pull back and crop later you're reducing the amount of pixels.

The D3x may prove to be something great. Right now I really love my
D3. I think this is a hard topic to discuss until Nikon releases
specs.
--
Nikon D3, Nikon D300, Nikon Lenses 10.5, 14-24, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 VR,
60 2.8 AF-S Micro, 85 1.4 Other brands: Zeiss 50 1.4, Nikon TC-17E II
1.7x,Three SB800's, Canon G-9 & Underwater housing, Two Quantum
5d-r's, & More.
Click to expand...
 
In his Fine Art Printing for Photographers, he writes the formula

res(PPI) = 300/VD(ft)

where resolution is in pixels per inch (or DPI before dithering), VD=viewing distance.

For a magazine, 1 ft is pretty standard, so one needs 300PPI. So 12Mp is barely enough for a double page spread like we see on many mags (NG has some 3-leaves spread sometimes).

For a pic hanging on the wall, usually seen at 2ft distance, 200PPI is more than enough and that translates into a large image, almost 24x16". Of course, if you get your nose close to it you'll see dots, but so would you if you enlarge a 35mm film negative to that size (I never did).

--
Regards, Renato Pedrosa

'Preparei minha máquina de novo. Tinha um perfume de jasmim no beiral de um sobrado. Fotografei o perfume.'
Manoel de Barros - Brazilian poet
 
ARE YOU GUYS BAD AT MATHEMATICS ?????????
12 MP ????? HUH

A double page is A3 !
Thats 297 mm x 420 mm

300 dpi = around 120 pixels per centimeter
or 12 pixels per mm

so thats 3564 pixels by 5040 pixels

THE LONG SIDE IS 5040 pixels !!!!!!!

3564 X 5040 = 17 962 Pixels

18 MP !!!!!!!!

Its 18 MP without crop - area !!!!!
 
You know, Rayman, I REALLY DO like your stance on this.
I like the way you're holding your ground in your arguement.
I like the way you're steady in your mission.

marc
 
PhotoRecon said:
You know, Rayman, I REALLY DO like your stance on this.
I like the way you're holding your ground in your arguement.
I like the way you're steady in your mission.

marc
Click to expand...
Photo Recon !
Its not my mission.....
Its simple mathematics and physics......
Its nice that it looks like Nikon see it this way too !
Peter
 
Psst.... there is no such thing as a D3x (if ever) ... BUT don't rerpeat it too loudly, all those who are too busy to take pictures because they are sitting at home wishing for a D3x (because they CANNOT afford a D3?) and speculating how such a camera would make them such great photographers - well, they might just get depressed!

This thread has brought tears to my eyes! I have not laughed so hard for so long in ages!!!
 
And when will you get to do the shoot with the D3x??? Where can I get one??? My shoot is tomorrow - HELP!!!
 
WARNING... You should NOT get the D3x... Wait for the D3xs - those have all the FLAWS of the D3x worked out... and is MUCH better!!!
 
Mr Peter,

Please tell... which magazine (using Offset technology - I presume) prints at 300 dpi?? Even the Pro Lab we use for photographic images prints at 250 dpi... These Art directors simply do not know what they are talking about as far as actual PRINTING goes...
 
actually doing some prints at a particular size.

I blew up nothing.. this was from the original file. No interpolation... why would you simply assume I interpolated?

If you simply want to argue your point to death and come up with any excuse to support your argument, that's fine with me. The facts are hard to argue and ultimately you have to tell it to yourself.

Meanwhile I am happy as are many others with the results of my 12MP files printing fine at large sizes. I could definitely use more room, of course, it is dumb to assume I wouldn;t. But it was you who made the argument in the first place. Problem is, your lack of real world knowledge of the subject has made you look foolish ... As far as I know, all printers use PPI not DPI and in their case, 200ppi is coffee table quality offset printing at very high gloss and quality.

12MP is plenty of data for that at a real world size.

Do you really sell that much work that goes tabloid all the time at that quality?

If that;s the case, there are plenty more advantages to the size of the sensor in a 40MP back like a Leaf. If you;re selling for such high end large size work, you;d be using that gear anyhow.

Many many arguments against yours and mostly supplant your claims.

Yes, I too want a 24MP D3X, but not because I am unhappy with my 12MP today ;-)
--
Manny
http://www.pbase.com/gonzalu/
http://www.mannyphoto.com/
FCAS Member - http://fcasmembers.com/
 
I think 8mp is quite enough to blow up to A4 double spread. I remember I did a double A3 with Olympus E-300 when it first came out, the art director was then convinced that 6mp is enough for most regular magazines. But at the end he still require digital back. The lesson here is not just the pixel they after, it's what other photographers are using that matter.

link to the double A3 I did for a magazine: http://flickr.com/photos/sim4nee/2430429542/in/set-765401/
 
first of all you dont have to get personal.... I dont do that either!
The medium format backs are good but not for everything.. because
mostly pretty slow !
PPI - DPI well thats not something that changes any quality does it !
In print you would say dpi and in sensor language ppi.....
If you blow up a 12 Mp file that much you are extrapolating !
those 24 MP slrs serve a different market that have not been
served before... and thats what I´m talking about here and want some
"CONSTRUCTIVE" imput !
Peter
 
When I read your comment, I realized that we may be creating our own "arms race" mentality. I know that I really want more and more pixels and bit depth just because I like to have that for my personal work and I'm as much of a tech weenie as anyone. But then, customers start to think, well, more must be better, and suddenly they want more pixels but don't want to put up more money. Maybe if we all just stopped buying new gear at some sensible pixel count, we wouldn't keep ratcheting up customer expectations.

Having spent several awful hours on Friday retouching out lots of pores, facial hairs, and tiny skin imperfections on a customer portrait, I think 12mp produces way more detail than most people WANT to see.
TS Sim said:
I think 8mp is quite enough to blow up to A4 double spread. I
remember I did a double A3 with Olympus E-300 when it first came out,
the art director was then convinced that 6mp is enough for most
regular magazines. But at the end he still require digital back. The
lesson here is not just the pixel they after, it's what other
photographers are using that matter.

link to the double A3 I did for a magazine:
http://flickr.com/photos/sim4nee/2430429542/in/set-765401/
Click to expand...
 
I shot some pics of my wife with my 85 1.4,, and she is 60 now, and they were too sharp.. if you know what I mean.. I had to use my portrait program on it to soften it up a bit.. can't complain with the D3 and the 85 I have.. awesome..
 
Not bad, only that one rarely sees a double spread w/o margins, besides, offset printers don't come often at 300DPI (before dithering).

An A3 print with a margin of 2cm is 26x38cm. Even if one had a 300dpi offset printer, using your own 120p/cm would be 3120x4560=14.2MP.

If you read my post againI wrote "barely enough", and I meant not quite with that.

But I'm not into polemics here, actually, I'm all for going up in the pixel count on full-frames, Nikon is coming with a 24MP it seems and some say an18MP smaller body later. (Even DX could go a bit higher than 12MP, at some noise cost though.)

So your A3 print will be covered by both, if there's a 300DPI offset printer out there (is there? probably yes, but I doubt any commercial mag uses that).
rayman 2 said:
ARE YOU GUYS BAD AT MATHEMATICS ?????????
12 MP ????? HUH

A double page is A3 !
Thats 297 mm x 420 mm

300 dpi = around 120 pixels per centimeter
or 12 pixels per mm

so thats 3564 pixels by 5040 pixels

THE LONG SIDE IS 5040 pixels !!!!!!!

3564 X 5040 = 17 962 Pixels

18 MP !!!!!!!!

Its 18 MP without crop - area !!!!!
Click to expand...
--
Regards, Renato Pedrosa

'Preparei minha máquina de novo. Tinha um perfume de jasmim no beiral de um sobrado. Fotografei o perfume.'
Manoel de Barros - Brazilian poet
 
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