Is digital ready for large print output?

[Thor Magnusson]

I am currently using the F100 film SLR and producing prints up to 40x60 inches although most of my prints are produced in 30x40inch. It's produced as art images for sale in galleries. I am wondering if to go digital. I have not yet seen anything from the D1 or D1x in those print sizes. Has anyone tried to produce so large prints from these digital cameras and what was the result like compared to film.

Currently I use traditional enlarger, Fuji roll paper and traditional color process. Which digital printers are available if any at reasonable cost that can produce similar quality prints as the traditional process? Also I hear that the ink does not last, are there any new digital processes out there that lasts more than a few years?

 

[Carol Steele]

I have just had a test print of 33"x52" from a Durst Lambda printer. Initial result was a little disappointing until I realised where I was going wrong (I let the lab upsample a presharpened image in their RIP to the final print size). I have now worked out a route which should give much better results.

The method and a very small cropped area of the print can be seen at:-
http://www.carolsteele.btinternet.co.uk/test/test.html

Hope that helps

I am currently using the F100 film SLR and producing prints up to
40x60 inches although most of my prints are produced in 30x40inch.
It's produced as art images for sale in galleries. I am wondering
if to go digital. I have not yet seen anything from the D1 or D1x
in those print sizes. Has anyone tried to produce so large prints
from these digital cameras and what was the result like compared to
film.
Currently I use traditional enlarger, Fuji roll paper and
traditional color process. Which digital printers are available if
any at reasonable cost that can produce similar quality prints as
the traditional process? Also I hear that the ink does not last,
are there any new digital processes out there that lasts more than
a few years?

 

[David Schloss]

Thor,

I'm a technology journalist and photgrapher who has a LOT of experience in digital imaging technologies, especially the path from image to large format digital output.

I'll be doing a series of test prints off my Epson 7500 with the Nikon shortly, but in the meantime here's my thoughts.

Simply put the 6mp sensor in a D1x cannot come close to the resoution of data pulled off a good 35mm transparency on a 4000 dpi desktop scanner such as the Polaroid Sprintscan and Nikon Coolscan 8000 (both of which I have and use constantly.) Even more the 6mp isn't going to scratch what one could pull off a piece of 6x45 or higher film on one of those scanners. My polaroid routinely makes 300mb scans, when a 24x36 print doesn't need that much data. I could easly output at the sizes you mention.

(Yes there are programs like Genuine Fractals that will help upsample smaller files, but it's still not 30x40 worthy, and certainly not gallery quality.)

Already I've done 13x19 prints off the Nikon D1x with good results, but not as great as the results of my scans of Provia 100F. Keep in mind the D1x is intended with the photojournalist in mind, a person who needs to only meet magazine resolution. For newsprint folks that might be a very low linescreen. Even the double page spread in sports illustrated was smaller than 13x19 (if i'm correct) and printed in CMYK which loses some of the RGB colors anyhow.

If you're doing gallery work, you really need to look at medium format solutions for your digital work, or really high resolution scans of your film. The Kodak professional back for Hassys is a great example of a gallery quality back, though it costs $20,000. (An amount a fashion photograph can make up in saved film costs and reshoot fees in relativley little time.)

As to the longevity of output, the Epson line of archival printers (2000P, 7500 and 9500/10000) have a tested print life of 200 years+. The gamut is amazing, and after learning to use photoshop I closed down my home darkroom and never looked back.

The epson 7500 costs about $5000 without the RIP (not really needed for the size of the images) and produces 24x36 prints, at a cost of about $3 for that 24x36 image, inclusive of ink and paper, not including things like electricity or paying off the damn printer.

The epson 9500 costs about $7500, with about the same per-square-foot costs.

Epson papers come in a variety of textures, including glossy, matte, luster, etc. A nice thing about the epson printes is that you can output to specialty papers like watercolor paper, vinyl, etc.

Here's my workflow. Shoot off either F5 or Mamiya 645. Scan images on 4000 dpi scanner (about $5k). Touch up in photoshop. Print on Epson 7500. Drymount.

The speed of digital work lets me run circles around most darkrooms, with the advantage taht once an image is dialed in, I never have to go back and reset my darkroom to do a print. Or worry about variations in chemical temps. It's wonderful.

Anyhow, hope that addresses your questions. I'll let you all know when I do the large format output tests.

D

The method and a very small cropped area of the print can be seen at:-
http://www.carolsteele.btinternet.co.uk/test/test.html

Hope that helps

I am currently using the F100 film SLR and producing prints up to
40x60 inches although most of my prints are produced in 30x40inch.
It's produced as art images for sale in galleries. I am wondering
if to go digital. I have not yet seen anything from the D1 or D1x
in those print sizes. Has anyone tried to produce so large prints
from these digital cameras and what was the result like compared to
film.
Currently I use traditional enlarger, Fuji roll paper and
traditional color process. Which digital printers are available if
any at reasonable cost that can produce similar quality prints as
the traditional process? Also I hear that the ink does not last,
are there any new digital processes out there that lasts more than
a few years?

 

[Greg Governale]

The 6mp image from the D1X may not have has much information as a 35mm transparency but the information it does contain is much, much cleaner. { No Grain }

I'm a technology journalist and photgrapher who has a LOT of
experience in digital imaging technologies, especially the path
from image to large format digital output.

I'll be doing a series of test prints off my Epson 7500 with the
Nikon shortly, but in the meantime here's my thoughts.

Simply put the 6mp sensor in a D1x cannot come close to the
resoution of data pulled off a good 35mm transparency on a 4000 dpi
desktop scanner such as the Polaroid Sprintscan and Nikon Coolscan
8000 (both of which I have and use constantly.) Even more the 6mp
isn't going to scratch what one could pull off a piece of 6x45 or
higher film on one of those scanners. My polaroid routinely makes
300mb scans, when a 24x36 print doesn't need that much data. I
could easly output at the sizes you mention.

(Yes there are programs like Genuine Fractals that will help
upsample smaller files, but it's still not 30x40 worthy, and
certainly not gallery quality.)

Already I've done 13x19 prints off the Nikon D1x with good results,
but not as great as the results of my scans of Provia 100F. Keep in
mind the D1x is intended with the photojournalist in mind, a person
who needs to only meet magazine resolution. For newsprint folks
that might be a very low linescreen. Even the double page spread in
sports illustrated was smaller than 13x19 (if i'm correct) and
printed in CMYK which loses some of the RGB colors anyhow.

If you're doing gallery work, you really need to look at medium
format solutions for your digital work, or really high resolution
scans of your film. The Kodak professional back for Hassys is a
great example of a gallery quality back, though it costs $20,000.
(An amount a fashion photograph can make up in saved film costs and
reshoot fees in relativley little time.)

As to the longevity of output, the Epson line of archival printers
(2000P, 7500 and 9500/10000) have a tested print life of 200
years+. The gamut is amazing, and after learning to use photoshop I
closed down my home darkroom and never looked back.

The epson 7500 costs about $5000 without the RIP (not really needed
for the size of the images) and produces 24x36 prints, at a cost of
about $3 for that 24x36 image, inclusive of ink and paper, not
including things like electricity or paying off the damn printer.

The epson 9500 costs about $7500, with about the same
per-square-foot costs.

Epson papers come in a variety of textures, including glossy,
matte, luster, etc. A nice thing about the epson printes is that
you can output to specialty papers like watercolor paper, vinyl,
etc.

Here's my workflow. Shoot off either F5 or Mamiya 645. Scan images
on 4000 dpi scanner (about $5k). Touch up in photoshop. Print on
Epson 7500. Drymount.

The speed of digital work lets me run circles around most
darkrooms, with the advantage taht once an image is dialed in, I
never have to go back and reset my darkroom to do a print. Or worry
about variations in chemical temps. It's wonderful.

Anyhow, hope that addresses your questions. I'll let you all know
when I do the large format output tests.

D

The method and a very small cropped area of the print can be seen at:-
http://www.carolsteele.btinternet.co.uk/test/test.html

Hope that helps

I am currently using the F100 film SLR and producing prints up to
40x60 inches although most of my prints are produced in 30x40inch.
It's produced as art images for sale in galleries. I am wondering
if to go digital. I have not yet seen anything from the D1 or D1x
in those print sizes. Has anyone tried to produce so large prints
from these digital cameras and what was the result like compared to
film.
Currently I use traditional enlarger, Fuji roll paper and
traditional color process. Which digital printers are available if
any at reasonable cost that can produce similar quality prints as
the traditional process? Also I hear that the ink does not last,
are there any new digital processes out there that lasts more than
a few years?

 

[Stephen Livick]

Hello Everyone,

I do wish I could believe the 200+ years life span. I would switch to their ink jet prints for my photographic mural work. It would speed my production enourmously.

Many times what people don't know is that the prints may last 200 years but only in total darkness under humidity and temperature controlled contitions. Just the fact that Epson calls for prints to be behind glass in order for the 200 year claim frightens me off.

Important little details are often ommited when test results are stated by the manufacturers. With all the trouble Epson has had with its papers in the past few years I personally need more proof than just reading something printed in their advertising. We all know what advertising is... don't we.... HYPE.

To me they do not have a solid foundation of stable prints behind them which they can point to.

Stephen

http://www.livick.com

As to the longevity of output, the Epson line of archival printers
(2000P, 7500 and 9500/10000) have a tested print life of 200
years+.

 

[David Schloss]

Thor,

That last statement is a bit subjective, and really depends on a lot of things.

Let's say you light two scenes evenly, so that you get say 1/125 of a second at f16 at iso 100. Shoot the scene with the D1x and with an F5 with some average 100 iso print film.

Scan the average film on a Nikon 4000 or other 4000 dpi scanner. You get a 56mb 8bit image. From a D1x raw NEF you get a 34ish MB image.

So look at the two images, the so-so print film and the D1x. Converting both to 8 bit you get a 17mb image from the D1x which measures 41"x27" at 72 dpi.

The 4000 dpi scanner gives you a 74"x51" image at 72dpi. So there is 1.8 times as much data captured on the 4000 dpi scan from film.

Downsampling the 4000 dpi image to the same size as the D1x would remove even the slightest trace of grain.

Now let's say you want to make the D1x image 74"x51 at 72dpi. That's an enlargement of 1.8 times. Even at that you start to see the artifacting from the digital CCD (pixelizing instead of "grain") while the 4000 dpi image retains all of the original quality. Even if there were grain in an average roll of print film, there certainly would be less visible distraction from grain than from the "noise" generated from enlarging the D1x image.

Now let's say you wanted to go 2x that size, to 148" at 72dpi (or in real world terms, 37" at 300 dpi for inkjet printing). You've only doubled the 4000 dpi scan while the D1x image has increased 3.6 times. Certainly at this point even an average film is outshining the D1x. (and i'm not talking about playing with Genuine Fractals since that can be done to the film too.)

Okay, and here's the point I'm getting to. Take a great film, something like a Provia 100F in slide, light the scene. Scan the image. Shoot the same thing with the D1x. The Provia 100F will have no grain at the scanned size. The Provia will have no grain at 2x the scanned size, and will still be attractive at 24x36. I regularly take 35mm up to 24x36 and have very controlable grain. (And forget about medium format, it's another world.) Take any 6mp image to 24x36

Now take a great high speed film, something like Kodak Portra VC 800. That film has the great exposure latitude of print film, but awesome nearly grain free images at ISO 800. Now shoot a dimly lit sceen with both the D1x and the F5 with the Portra. You're absolutely going to see digital artifacts such as noise at 800 dpi. Push the film a stop and you'll get an increase in grain. Push the D1x to 1600 and it's going to be very noisy.

So to say there is "no noise" on the D1x is kinda sorta almost true. At capture resolution at 125 iso there is no grain, since it's grain free. There may be pixelization in the shadow however. At 100 ISO Provia is grain free as well. And there's data in the highlights and the shadows. It's sharp, and smooth. Of course with film one also can choose Velvia 50 ISO which is marvelous. Or 1600 Neopan.

To say it's "cleaner" though is just not true. There is no such thing as a digital image without a digital artifact. (jaggies, halos, pixelization, etc.) There is such a thing as film without analog artifacts.

And the "cleanliness" and 'grain' of the D1x image falls apart under the conditions of the original post, ie gallery/exhibition display.

D

I'm a technology journalist and photgrapher who has a LOT of
experience in digital imaging technologies, especially the path
from image to large format digital output.

I'll be doing a series of test prints off my Epson 7500 with the
Nikon shortly, but in the meantime here's my thoughts.

Simply put the 6mp sensor in a D1x cannot come close to the
resoution of data pulled off a good 35mm transparency on a 4000 dpi
desktop scanner such as the Polaroid Sprintscan and Nikon Coolscan
8000 (both of which I have and use constantly.) Even more the 6mp
isn't going to scratch what one could pull off a piece of 6x45 or
higher film on one of those scanners. My polaroid routinely makes
300mb scans, when a 24x36 print doesn't need that much data. I
could easly output at the sizes you mention.

(Yes there are programs like Genuine Fractals that will help
upsample smaller files, but it's still not 30x40 worthy, and
certainly not gallery quality.)

Already I've done 13x19 prints off the Nikon D1x with good results,
but not as great as the results of my scans of Provia 100F. Keep in
mind the D1x is intended with the photojournalist in mind, a person
who needs to only meet magazine resolution. For newsprint folks
that might be a very low linescreen. Even the double page spread in
sports illustrated was smaller than 13x19 (if i'm correct) and
printed in CMYK which loses some of the RGB colors anyhow.

If you're doing gallery work, you really need to look at medium
format solutions for your digital work, or really high resolution
scans of your film. The Kodak professional back for Hassys is a
great example of a gallery quality back, though it costs $20,000.
(An amount a fashion photograph can make up in saved film costs and
reshoot fees in relativley little time.)

As to the longevity of output, the Epson line of archival printers
(2000P, 7500 and 9500/10000) have a tested print life of 200
years+. The gamut is amazing, and after learning to use photoshop I
closed down my home darkroom and never looked back.

The epson 7500 costs about $5000 without the RIP (not really needed
for the size of the images) and produces 24x36 prints, at a cost of
about $3 for that 24x36 image, inclusive of ink and paper, not
including things like electricity or paying off the damn printer.

The epson 9500 costs about $7500, with about the same
per-square-foot costs.

Epson papers come in a variety of textures, including glossy,
matte, luster, etc. A nice thing about the epson printes is that
you can output to specialty papers like watercolor paper, vinyl,
etc.

Here's my workflow. Shoot off either F5 or Mamiya 645. Scan images
on 4000 dpi scanner (about $5k). Touch up in photoshop. Print on
Epson 7500. Drymount.

The speed of digital work lets me run circles around most
darkrooms, with the advantage taht once an image is dialed in, I
never have to go back and reset my darkroom to do a print. Or worry
about variations in chemical temps. It's wonderful.

Anyhow, hope that addresses your questions. I'll let you all know
when I do the large format output tests.

D

The method and a very small cropped area of the print can be seen at:-
http://www.carolsteele.btinternet.co.uk/test/test.html

Hope that helps

I am currently using the F100 film SLR and producing prints up to
40x60 inches although most of my prints are produced in 30x40inch.
It's produced as art images for sale in galleries. I am wondering
if to go digital. I have not yet seen anything from the D1 or D1x
in those print sizes. Has anyone tried to produce so large prints
from these digital cameras and what was the result like compared to
film.
Currently I use traditional enlarger, Fuji roll paper and
traditional color process. Which digital printers are available if
any at reasonable cost that can produce similar quality prints as
the traditional process? Also I hear that the ink does not last,
are there any new digital processes out there that lasts more than
a few years?

 

[Uwe Steinmueller]

http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/printing/lightjet.html

http://www.mountainlight.com/articles/op699.html

Just visited Galen Rowell's new gallery in Bishop. All great LightJet prints.

Uwe

I am currently using the F100 film SLR and producing prints up to
40x60 inches although most of my prints are produced in 30x40inch.
It's produced as art images for sale in galleries. I am wondering
if to go digital. I have not yet seen anything from the D1 or D1x
in those print sizes. Has anyone tried to produce so large prints
from these digital cameras and what was the result like compared to
film.
Currently I use traditional enlarger, Fuji roll paper and
traditional color process. Which digital printers are available if
any at reasonable cost that can produce similar quality prints as
the traditional process? Also I hear that the ink does not last,
are there any new digital processes out there that lasts more than
a few years?

 

[Greg Governale]

I did not mean to mislead anyone when I stated that the D1X image was cleaner. I just scanned 100 speed trans. at 4000 dpi, I printed the image at 11 x 17 . I also printed an image from the D1X at 11 x 17. To my eye the image from the D1X looks less noisy and less grainy. In many ways beter then the image on 100 asa film. I used a Epson 9500 for output.
Lightjet prints look better then any Cibachrome print.

I'm a technology journalist and photgrapher who has a LOT of
experience in digital imaging technologies, especially the path
from image to large format digital output.

I'll be doing a series of test prints off my Epson 7500 with the
Nikon shortly, but in the meantime here's my thoughts.

Simply put the 6mp sensor in a D1x cannot come close to the
resoution of data pulled off a good 35mm transparency on a 4000 dpi
desktop scanner such as the Polaroid Sprintscan and Nikon Coolscan
8000 (both of which I have and use constantly.) Even more the 6mp
isn't going to scratch what one could pull off a piece of 6x45 or
higher film on one of those scanners. My polaroid routinely makes
300mb scans, when a 24x36 print doesn't need that much data. I
could easly output at the sizes you mention.

(Yes there are programs like Genuine Fractals that will help
upsample smaller files, but it's still not 30x40 worthy, and
certainly not gallery quality.)

Already I've done 13x19 prints off the Nikon D1x with good results,
but not as great as the results of my scans of Provia 100F. Keep in
mind the D1x is intended with the photojournalist in mind, a person
who needs to only meet magazine resolution. For newsprint folks
that might be a very low linescreen. Even the double page spread in
sports illustrated was smaller than 13x19 (if i'm correct) and
printed in CMYK which loses some of the RGB colors anyhow.

If you're doing gallery work, you really need to look at medium
format solutions for your digital work, or really high resolution
scans of your film. The Kodak professional back for Hassys is a
great example of a gallery quality back, though it costs $20,000.
(An amount a fashion photograph can make up in saved film costs and
reshoot fees in relativley little time.)

As to the longevity of output, the Epson line of archival printers
(2000P, 7500 and 9500/10000) have a tested print life of 200
years+. The gamut is amazing, and after learning to use photoshop I
closed down my home darkroom and never looked back.

The epson 7500 costs about $5000 without the RIP (not really needed
for the size of the images) and produces 24x36 prints, at a cost of
about $3 for that 24x36 image, inclusive of ink and paper, not
including things like electricity or paying off the damn printer.

The epson 9500 costs about $7500, with about the same
per-square-foot costs.

Epson papers come in a variety of textures, including glossy,
matte, luster, etc. A nice thing about the epson printes is that
you can output to specialty papers like watercolor paper, vinyl,
etc.

Here's my workflow. Shoot off either F5 or Mamiya 645. Scan images
on 4000 dpi scanner (about $5k). Touch up in photoshop. Print on
Epson 7500. Drymount.

The speed of digital work lets me run circles around most
darkrooms, with the advantage taht once an image is dialed in, I
never have to go back and reset my darkroom to do a print. Or worry
about variations in chemical temps. It's wonderful.

Anyhow, hope that addresses your questions. I'll let you all know
when I do the large format output tests.

D

The method and a very small cropped area of the print can be seen at:-
http://www.carolsteele.btinternet.co.uk/test/test.html

Hope that helps

I am currently using the F100 film SLR and producing prints up to
40x60 inches although most of my prints are produced in 30x40inch.
It's produced as art images for sale in galleries. I am wondering
if to go digital. I have not yet seen anything from the D1 or D1x
in those print sizes. Has anyone tried to produce so large prints
from these digital cameras and what was the result like compared to
film.
Currently I use traditional enlarger, Fuji roll paper and
traditional color process. Which digital printers are available if
any at reasonable cost that can produce similar quality prints as
the traditional process? Also I hear that the ink does not last,
are there any new digital processes out there that lasts more than
a few years?

 

[Andrew Pietrzyk]

The method and a very small cropped area of the print can be seen at:-
http://www.carolsteele.btinternet.co.uk/test/test.html

Carol,

You don’t work as a sales rep for one of the RAM manufacturers, do you? My scratch disk hit 1.85 GB when I tried to follow your recipe (with image of same size as your Capture 2 image) in Photoshop

Don’t you think the difference between Capture and Bibble image could be due to massive up-sampling of Bibble file from 60Mb/16-bit to 201Mb/8-bit (402Mb/16-bit) by un-even number in one step?

I wonder what would happen if you’d up-sample Bibbles 4018x2614 pixels by even 200% to give printer respectable (for this print size) 154 ppi @ 52”x33.5” and let his RIP handle that?

Andrew

 

[Carol Steele]

You don’t work as a sales rep for one of the RAM
manufacturers, do you?

LOL!! You know I don't Andrew

My scratch disk hit 1.85 GB when I tried to
follow your recipe (with image of same size as your Capture 2
image) in Photoshop

Yes, I have a 2Gb partition for PS's scratch disk and it can overflow onto 2 other drives with a total of another 5Gb free space

Don’t you think the difference between Capture and Bibble
image could be due to massive up-sampling of Bibble file from
60Mb/16-bit to 201Mb/8-bit (402Mb/16-bit) by un-even number in one
step?

No, I don't think so. Ron Reznick has seen this type of artefact appearing in some of his comparisons
(see http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&page=1&message=1253274
for more details

I wonder what would happen if you’d up-sample Bibbles
4018x2614 pixels by even 200% to give printer respectable (for this
print size) 154 ppi @ 52”x33.5” and let his RIP handle
that?

Andrew

 

[Ron Reznick]

Here is a 1:1 crop showing a similar, closely-spaced parallel-line situation.



Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net

You don’t work as a sales rep for one of the RAM
manufacturers, do you?

LOL!! You know I don't Andrew

My scratch disk hit 1.85 GB when I tried to
follow your recipe (with image of same size as your Capture 2
image) in Photoshop

Yes, I have a 2Gb partition for PS's scratch disk and it can
overflow onto 2 other drives with a total of another 5Gb free space

Don’t you think the difference between Capture and Bibble
image could be due to massive up-sampling of Bibble file from
60Mb/16-bit to 201Mb/8-bit (402Mb/16-bit) by un-even number in one
step?

No, I don't think so. Ron Reznick has seen this type of artefact
appearing in some of his comparisons
(see
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&page=1&message=1253274
for more details

I wonder what would happen if you’d up-sample Bibbles
4018x2614 pixels by even 200% to give printer respectable (for this
print size) 154 ppi @ 52”x33.5” and let his RIP handle
that?

Andrew

 

[Stephen Livick]

Hello Uwe

I think if I was working commercially that's how I would be going, LightJet out put from my digital files.

Quality is simply breathtaking, there is a large sized Light Jet process machine just a few blocks from my studio and I am always stunned and at the same time just a little revolted at their sample prints.

Revolted because of the high gloss commercial look of the prints. But if you are wanting to impress your clients with spit and polish, sharpness and eye catching leap off the wall colour that's the way to to it.

Personally I work on heavy 300lb/640gm lush watercolour paper using a hand coated process and the looks are world's apart.

Stephen

http://www.mountainlight.com/articles/op699.html

Just visited Galen Rowell's new gallery in Bishop. All great
LightJet prints.

Uwe

I am currently using the F100 film SLR and producing prints up to
40x60 inches although most of my prints are produced in 30x40inch.
It's produced as art images for sale in galleries. I am wondering
if to go digital. I have not yet seen anything from the D1 or D1x
in those print sizes. Has anyone tried to produce so large prints
from these digital cameras and what was the result like compared to
film.
Currently I use traditional enlarger, Fuji roll paper and
traditional color process. Which digital printers are available if
any at reasonable cost that can produce similar quality prints as
the traditional process? Also I hear that the ink does not last,
are there any new digital processes out there that lasts more than
a few years?

 

[Kevin Sprague]

Just to get back to the original question. Yes, I am doing large format output of my D1 files (and soon my D1x...waiting...) onto an epson 9500. We produce prints for our clients (we are graphic designers and photographers) for all kinds of display and postering work. I've had great success outputting D1 files up to 40" x 60". Yes, obviously there is not nearly the resolution TECHNICALLY as film, but curiously, because the noise is lower, and the sharpness (that is, the contrast between differing luminances) is higher (and the D1 images can handle higher degrees of unsharp masking than film) the overall effect is a sharper image than even the medium format film that I shoot. And I do this without any genuine fractals of GB size partitions. In fact, I ran some test of GF against basic photoshop interpolation and photoshop won out hands down....In case you are saying, well that's nice, but what about art prints, I say: look at the content of the image, not the technical spexs. We are a working with Crane Paper on applications of digital iamging to their line of high-end inkjet papers (marketed by Epson under their brand for the 9500 series printers). The Museo papers have a wonderful smooth or textured surface and the images are bright, full gamut and beautiful. There is a slight softening effect that is caused by the non-coated sufrace of the papers, but it only softens the kind of "specular" effects seen on glossy inkjet prints. But to go back to content. D1 images, say of trees or broad landscapes with a lot of small apparent details, say leaves or grass, are generally unsatisfactory when enlarged significantly. On the other hand, images that have smooth tonalities, say marco images of flowers, or shots of canyon walls, or carefully lit bodies, can enlarge quite satisfactorily.

The long and short is, you have to assess your style of shooting, and the subject matter that you prefer, when factoring in HOW you will be shooting.
Kevin
http://www.studiotwo.com

 

[Greg Governale]

I agree with most of what Kevin stated. The lack of noise and/or grain using digital can sometimes allow extreme enlargement with excellent results.

Some images really look great BIG, Some do not. I believe this to be true regardless of how the image was captured. Film or Digital. Some images actually loose impact as the are enlarged. Other images seem to cry out to me.......I need to be BIG....I need to be BIG.... Sometimes I guess right about which images to print BIG, Sometimes I do not. I let my customers make those choices for me.
In my tests GF does a much better job then PS When resizing images.

Just to get back to the original question. Yes, I am doing large
format output of my D1 files (and soon my D1x...waiting...) onto an
epson 9500. We produce prints for our clients (we are graphic
designers and photographers) for all kinds of display and postering
work. I've had great success outputting D1 files up to 40" x 60".
Yes, obviously there is not nearly the resolution TECHNICALLY as
film, but curiously, because the noise is lower, and the sharpness
(that is, the contrast between differing luminances) is higher (and
the D1 images can handle higher degrees of unsharp masking than
film) the overall effect is a sharper image than even the medium
format film that I shoot. And I do this without any genuine
fractals of GB size partitions. In fact, I ran some test of GF
against basic photoshop interpolation and photoshop won out hands
down....In case you are saying, well that's nice, but what about
art prints, I say: look at the content of the image, not the
technical spexs. We are a working with Crane Paper on applications
of digital iamging to their line of high-end inkjet papers
(marketed by Epson under their brand for the 9500 series printers).
The Museo papers have a wonderful smooth or textured surface and
the images are bright, full gamut and beautiful. There is a slight
softening effect that is caused by the non-coated sufrace of the
papers, but it only softens the kind of "specular" effects seen on
glossy inkjet prints. But to go back to content. D1 images, say of
trees or broad landscapes with a lot of small apparent details, say
leaves or grass, are generally unsatisfactory when enlarged
significantly. On the other hand, images that have smooth
tonalities, say marco images of flowers, or shots of canyon walls,
or carefully lit bodies, can enlarge quite satisfactorily.
The long and short is, you have to assess your style of shooting,
and the subject matter that you prefer, when factoring in HOW you
will be shooting.
Kevin
http://www.studiotwo.com

 

[Paul Richman]

I make 24" x 36" and larger prints from my D1 images, typically by taking a landscape using 4 - 8 shots, and stitching them together in Photoshop very carefully. I get file sizes from 14 MB to 76 MB this way, with great results, usign a Lightjet printer

Because my vistas have been distant from the camera, I haven't needed to worry about nodal points. Sometimes, I've used a Kaiden tripod head, sometimes just hand held.

Anyone else doing this?

Paul

Just to get back to the original question. Yes, I am doing large
format output of my D1 files (and soon my D1x...waiting...) onto an
epson 9500. We produce prints for our clients (we are graphic
designers and photographers) for all kinds of display and postering
work. I've had great success outputting D1 files up to 40" x 60".
Yes, obviously there is not nearly the resolution TECHNICALLY as
film, but curiously, because the noise is lower, and the sharpness
(that is, the contrast between differing luminances) is higher (and
the D1 images can handle higher degrees of unsharp masking than
film) the overall effect is a sharper image than even the medium
format film that I shoot. And I do this without any genuine
fractals of GB size partitions. In fact, I ran some test of GF
against basic photoshop interpolation and photoshop won out hands
down....In case you are saying, well that's nice, but what about
art prints, I say: look at the content of the image, not the
technical spexs. We are a working with Crane Paper on applications
of digital iamging to their line of high-end inkjet papers
(marketed by Epson under their brand for the 9500 series printers).
The Museo papers have a wonderful smooth or textured surface and
the images are bright, full gamut and beautiful. There is a slight
softening effect that is caused by the non-coated sufrace of the
papers, but it only softens the kind of "specular" effects seen on
glossy inkjet prints. But to go back to content. D1 images, say of
trees or broad landscapes with a lot of small apparent details, say
leaves or grass, are generally unsatisfactory when enlarged
significantly. On the other hand, images that have smooth
tonalities, say marco images of flowers, or shots of canyon walls,
or carefully lit bodies, can enlarge quite satisfactorily.
The long and short is, you have to assess your style of shooting,
and the subject matter that you prefer, when factoring in HOW you
will be shooting.
Kevin
http://www.studiotwo.com

 

[brian47964]

Paul:

I have had pretty good results stitching together two images taken with my 28mm shift lens moved to opposite extremes. The two images are really part of the same oversized image produced by the lens, so that the illumination at the boundary is exactly correct. When I've tried your technique I tend to get noticeable boundary lines to do inevitable illumination falloff. How do you deal with this, and what lens do you typically use? Also, I never run into perspective problems like sudden bends in straight lines using two images from a shift lens, but I always seem to get this from normal lenses. How do you deal with this? Aside from problems in visualizing the composition, I've always thought that stitching images together in this way should provide incredible image quality.

Brian

Because my vistas have been distant from the camera, I haven't
needed to worry about nodal points. Sometimes, I've used a Kaiden
tripod head, sometimes just hand held.

Anyone else doing this?

Paul

Just to get back to the original question. Yes, I am doing large
format output of my D1 files (and soon my D1x...waiting...) onto an
epson 9500. We produce prints for our clients (we are graphic
designers and photographers) for all kinds of display and postering
work. I've had great success outputting D1 files up to 40" x 60".
Yes, obviously there is not nearly the resolution TECHNICALLY as
film, but curiously, because the noise is lower, and the sharpness
(that is, the contrast between differing luminances) is higher (and
the D1 images can handle higher degrees of unsharp masking than
film) the overall effect is a sharper image than even the medium
format film that I shoot. And I do this without any genuine
fractals of GB size partitions. In fact, I ran some test of GF
against basic photoshop interpolation and photoshop won out hands
down....In case you are saying, well that's nice, but what about
art prints, I say: look at the content of the image, not the
technical spexs. We are a working with Crane Paper on applications
of digital iamging to their line of high-end inkjet papers
(marketed by Epson under their brand for the 9500 series printers).
The Museo papers have a wonderful smooth or textured surface and
the images are bright, full gamut and beautiful. There is a slight
softening effect that is caused by the non-coated sufrace of the
papers, but it only softens the kind of "specular" effects seen on
glossy inkjet prints. But to go back to content. D1 images, say of
trees or broad landscapes with a lot of small apparent details, say
leaves or grass, are generally unsatisfactory when enlarged
significantly. On the other hand, images that have smooth
tonalities, say marco images of flowers, or shots of canyon walls,
or carefully lit bodies, can enlarge quite satisfactorily.
The long and short is, you have to assess your style of shooting,
and the subject matter that you prefer, when factoring in HOW you
will be shooting.
Kevin
http://www.studiotwo.com

 

[Andrew Pietrzyk]

Here is a 1:1 crop showing a similar, closely-spaced parallel-line

Carol, Ron

As a prospective owner of D1x I’m digesting all the data I can find with great interest.

In your opinion, is there clear winner for processing raw NEF files, especially those destined for large printed output?

Or is it fair to say that one would need all three (Bibble, QIP and Capture) and Photoshop of course to effectively deal with variety of images?

Andrew

 

[Carol Steele]

Carol, Ron
In your opinion, is there clear winner for processing raw NEF
files, especially those destined for large printed output?

Or is it fair to say that one would need all three (Bibble, QIP and
Capture) and Photoshop of course to effectively deal with variety
of images?

Andrew

For myself, I can say that I do over 90% of initial post production work in NC2 Andrew. However, NC2 I suspect will become a static app and not be upgraded at least until the arrival of the next Nikon. Eric and Mike are constantly refining Bibble and QIP and no doubt will surpass what NC2 is capable of doing at this moment in time.

If I had to give advise at the moment though to somebody who has just drained their bank account buying the camera and accessories, it would be to go for NC2 over the other two and later, when funds have improved and the other two programs have equalled or bettered NC2, then spring for either (or both) of them.

But that's just MHO, others may differ in the advice they would give.

 

[Paul Richman]

Brian,

I use a Nikkor 70 - 180 Macro Zoom the most, but also a Nikkor 35 - 70 Macro Zoom and rarely a 17 - 35 AFS.

I do often see lightness differences, at the join and even overall. I correct that with Photoshop "Levels", sometimes just at and near the join, and sometimes overall.

I find I like the "A" setting on the D1 whitebalance, but this sometimes leads to color variations across boundaries. I correct this using the color balance dialog in Photoshop.

As for trouble with lines bending, I haven't had that problem because I find that the landscaptes I shoot a pretty free of such lines. Were I to try this with skyscrapers, I'd certainly face the problem. I find landscapes quite forgiving at the joins, with a natural, sharp look not that hard to achieve, if care is taken to zigzag a join in just the right spots. I typically select ground areas at the join with a tolerance of about 8, to avoid blurring at the join. In sky, I'll use 33 - 55.

I get it all to look good on screen at 100% or more magnification, and then tweak further based on 13" x 19" Epson 1270 prints.

Hope this helps!

Paul

Brian

Because my vistas have been distant from the camera, I haven't
needed to worry about nodal points. Sometimes, I've used a Kaiden
tripod head, sometimes just hand held.

Anyone else doing this?

Paul

Just to get back to the original question. Yes, I am doing large
format output of my D1 files (and soon my D1x...waiting...) onto an
epson 9500. We produce prints for our clients (we are graphic
designers and photographers) for all kinds of display and postering
work. I've had great success outputting D1 files up to 40" x 60".
Yes, obviously there is not nearly the resolution TECHNICALLY as
film, but curiously, because the noise is lower, and the sharpness
(that is, the contrast between differing luminances) is higher (and
the D1 images can handle higher degrees of unsharp masking than
film) the overall effect is a sharper image than even the medium
format film that I shoot. And I do this without any genuine
fractals of GB size partitions. In fact, I ran some test of GF
against basic photoshop interpolation and photoshop won out hands
down....In case you are saying, well that's nice, but what about
art prints, I say: look at the content of the image, not the
technical spexs. We are a working with Crane Paper on applications
of digital iamging to their line of high-end inkjet papers
(marketed by Epson under their brand for the 9500 series printers).
The Museo papers have a wonderful smooth or textured surface and
the images are bright, full gamut and beautiful. There is a slight
softening effect that is caused by the non-coated sufrace of the
papers, but it only softens the kind of "specular" effects seen on
glossy inkjet prints. But to go back to content. D1 images, say of
trees or broad landscapes with a lot of small apparent details, say
leaves or grass, are generally unsatisfactory when enlarged
significantly. On the other hand, images that have smooth
tonalities, say marco images of flowers, or shots of canyon walls,
or carefully lit bodies, can enlarge quite satisfactorily.
The long and short is, you have to assess your style of shooting,
and the subject matter that you prefer, when factoring in HOW you
will be shooting.
Kevin
http://www.studiotwo.com