A2 prints .... ?

[jackal]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

anyone made any A2 prints from M8 files

 

from a few uprezzing experiments i've done at 300dpi, it looks as if they will turn out superb

 

?

[Shootist]

There is a excellent thread in the Digital Post Processing forum on uprezing images from the M8.

From one mans point of view, he has some very good experience, QImage wins on uprezing.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jackal]

its ok, i know how to up res

 

i just wanted to know what the prints look like

[Shootist]

I've done prints on 13x19 that look fantastic. In fact I had someone comment on one image "It's like you are standing in the room when looking at it".

[wlaidlaw]

I did a couple of prints at 90 x 60 cm and was amazed how well they came out. They were done by my local professional digital photographers on a big Epson roll printer. I offered to up-rez the image on PS-CS3 but the printer said he would do it on the software that comes with the Epson Pro RIP engine. I was very impressed.

 

Wilson

[okram]

I have done B1 and billboard portrait- trust me its ok...even little back focused...wide open-I wouldn`t dare to do that with L primes

 

 

OH- resized in rip- allvays the best. Let the printer (guy who prints) do it.

[jackal]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did a couple of prints at 90 x 60 cm and was amazed how well they came out. They were done by my local professional digital photographers on a big Epson roll printer. I offered to up-rez the image on PS-CS3 but the printer said he would do it on the software that comes with the Epson Pro RIP engine. I was very impressed.

 

Wilson

 

 

thats more like A1

 

 

impressive

 

will ahev to get some done

 

 

my portfolio is at 18x12 and looks glorious

 

but A2 would be nice

[thompsonkirk]

I routinely print 14x21" on A2+ (17x24) roll paper & see no artifacts. I up-res with Genuine Fractals (best for Mac; use QImage for Win?) to 600 ppi, the native resolution for Canon wide-format printers. With PhotoKit Sharpener capture sharpening @ 66% opacity & output sharpening at 100% opacity, I've pretty much defeated up-ressing & sharpening artifacts at that size range. You do, however, need a pretty competent computer to get the best results - files can swell to 1.7GB.

 

14x21" fits nicely in the standard US cut mat size of 22x28". I have no IQ problems with prints up to 16x24", my printer's max, except that the matting is clumsier (in US sizes, too much wasted mat board).

 

So go right ahead! It'll work very nicely, assuming you do only a modest amount of cropping.

 

(I'm waiting for the viewfinder upgrade so that I can frame more accurately & have a bona fide 10MP camera, instead of cropping somewhat to account for inaccurate framelines & ending up with more like 9MP!)

 

Kirk

 

PS, this probably should move over on the new post-processing thread.

[wlaidlaw]

When I had those big prints done, the printer's wife had been taking photos of the same event (a traditional Provençal village music festival) with her Nikon D3 + 50mm f1.4. The printer commented how differently the cameras behaved, with the Nikon providing better detail on the brightly lit areas but he said he could pull much more detail out of the shadows on the M8 image. Overall he felt that there was little to choose between the ultimate image quality of the two cameras, when blown up to 60 x 90 cm, which was a considerable surprise to him, comparing the 10MP APS 'C' and 12MP FX sensors. I was using 35 and 50 ASPH Summiluxes.

 

Wilson

[tashley]

anyone made any A2 prints from M8 files

 

from a few uprezzing experiments i've done at 300dpi, it looks as if they will turn out superb

 

?

 

I have 24" roll paper HPZ3100 and I just exhibited a number of images printed to A1 size. Some were taken on a 1DSIII, most on an M8 and one on a Sigma DP1.

 

At the opening, about half the crowd were photographers. Not one of them asked me which image was taken with which camera, they just asked about the images themselves (or drank free wine!) which I take as meaning that all the prints were convincing.

 

I make my prints pretty carefully, starting from the RAW file with a workflow dedicated to the final output size. I have A1 prints from crops of M8 files that can easily hold their own in an exhibition. But as I say, a carefully taken and treated DP1 file can do the same.

 

But I agree with Wilson: there's more shadow detail in the M8 files than in those from many other cameras - and though there is more overall detail in the 1DSIII files, and therefore more cropability, they lack the wow factor that the M8 files often have.

 

Tim

[jackal]

I have 24" roll paper HPZ3100 and I just exhibited a number of images printed to A1 size. Some were taken on a 1DSIII, most on an M8 and one on a Sigma DP1.

 

At the opening, about half the crowd were photographers. Not one of them asked me which image was taken with which camera, they just asked about the images themselves (or drank free wine!) which I take as meaning that all the prints were convincing.

 

I make my prints pretty carefully, starting from the RAW file with a workflow dedicated to the final output size. I have A1 prints from crops of M8 files that can easily hold their own in an exhibition. But as I say, a carefully taken and treated DP1 file can do the same.

 

But I agree with Wilson: there's more shadow detail in the M8 files than in those from many other cameras - and though there is more overall detail in the 1DSIII files, and therefore more cropability, they lack the wow factor that the M8 files often have.

 

Tim

 

interesting

 

when you open up a mkiii image and an M8 image in photoshop the canon file is so much bigger

 

you would expect large prints from both to be very different subjectively

 

 

maybe the glass has something to do with it ? I have heard others comment that L glass is stretched at 21MP... so maybe at least partially, a 1dsmkiii is just uprezzing itself rather than acquiring extra resolution unobtainable at 10mp

 

 

to be honest, I am quite tempted to rent a mkiii and do some comparative tests myself. Emotionally I would love to put this whole M8 resolution bugbear to bed in my mind. As stated, my 18x12 prints are stunning and do not lack resolution or detail and they have a real distinct and seductive look. But it would be nice to know how the same 1ds iii image looks in comparison.

[tashley]

interesting

 

when you open up a mkiii image and an M8 image in photoshop the canon file is so much bigger

 

you would expect large prints from both to be very different subjectively

 

 

maybe the glass has something to do with it ? I have heard others comment that L glass is stretched at 21MP... so maybe at least partially, a 1dsmkiii is just uprezzing itself rather than acquiring extra resolution unobtainable at 10mp

 

 

to be honest, I am quite tempted to rent a mkiii and do some comparative tests myself. Emotionally I would love to put this whole M8 resolution bugbear to bed in my mind. As stated, my 18x12 prints are stunning and do not lack resolution or detail and they have a real distinct and seductive look. But it would be nice to know how the same 1ds iii image looks in comparison.

 

Did you ever move to Sussex?

 

I think you're right about the glass though some of the stuff I exhibited was shot on the 1DSIII with R glass and that has pop. I find it hard to describe what it is that I find slightly unsatisfying about the files from the 1DSIII it's almost emotional rather than logical. It's as if there's a sort of slightly grainy feel to them that you can't quite see...

 

t

[jackal]

no, realised that i belong in Hampton Court

[jevidon]

Ditto on Genuine Fractals by On One. Much better than the image resize in CS3. I routinely print A3 on my HP Pro B9180, from both DX NEF raw and the larger Leica DNG raw images.. Absolutely no problem. Prints are clean and sharp with minor post processing.

 

Jim Evidon;

[nikonian]

anyone made any A2 prints from M8 files

 

from a few uprezzing experiments i've done at 300dpi, it looks as if they will turn out superb

 

?

 

i own a epson 3800 printer and regularly print A2, mostly files taken with my Nikon D2X.

overall i'm quite happy with this camera, but on several occasions i'd like something more convenient in terms of size and weight. this led me to a M8, which i could test for one full day a few weeks ago.

 

afterwards i printed some M8 files without any sharpening or adjustments directly out of aperture and i must say they are stunning! very, very sharp by nature, rich shadow detail and with a distinctive "look" you cannot define technically. maybe its in the glass.

 

overall: highly recommended!

[dfarkas]

In my store, all the M8 prints hanging on the walls are 20x30 inches and they look phenomenal. We print them in our own pro lab on photographic paper using a Durst Theta. I perform no uprezing at all. In fact, I use the same exact 10MP JPG file (processed from the M8 DNG) to print my 4x6 proofs as I do to print a 20x30. Granted, we are using a Kodak professional lab management software which does its own render, but I've had customers give me uprezed files and frankly, the only thing that is increasing is the amount of hard drive space. I have seen no appreciable difference in output quality from a native res camera file or an uprezed one. You just can't create more information than what your camera captured. This has been my experience in the 18 years that I have done digital imaging professionally .

 

David

[ChrisC]

... I have seen no appreciable difference in output quality from a native res camera file or an uprezed one....

 

David,

 

David I thought I knew what you meant by this statement and started my reply on that basis. On re-reading, I am now unclear what your intended meaning is. Either the uprezzing is done in a software prior to output presentation, or it is done by software which is part of the output. Are you making the point that your printer's software is good at uprezzing? Maybe you actually do mean that a native resolution file will match an uprezzed one. There is ambiguity here, could you please clarify?

 

Thanks for your Photokina Blog report, it was enjoyable reading.

 

................. Chris

[tashley]

David,

 

David I thought I knew what you meant by this statement and started my reply on that basis. On re-reading, I am now unclear what your intended meaning is. Either the uprezzing is done in a software prior to output presentation, or it is done by software which is part of the output. Are you making the point that your printer's software is good at uprezzing? Maybe you actually do mean that a native resolution file will match an uprezzed one. There is ambiguity here, could you please clarify?

 

Thanks for your Photokina Blog report, it was enjoyable reading.

 

................. Chris

 

Chris,

 

Not to jump David's gun but I think he means that the output process is good at uprezzing and I think with certain qualifiers he is right.

 

What I have learned from a variety of sources plus my own experience of large format printing from an M8 file is as follows:

 

If the native file (as shot and then cropped if cropped, but NOT uprezzed) can print to the physical dimensions you want to print at 180 PPI or better, then DON'T UPREZ in software - let the printer driver work it out. The results will be better than uprezzing in software.

 

If that file, printed to the size you want, would be printing at lower than 180PPI then DO uprez. Only ever upres to 200% or if the file quality is very good and you need to, 400% EVEN IF THAT GIVES YOU MORE PPI THAN YOU THINK YOU NEED.

 

In other words if the cropped image size, not uprezzed, would print to your preferred physical output size at 160PPI for example, you might think that it only needs enough uprez to get it to 180 so you might tell your uprez software to do just that but if that means the uprez percentage is, say 131% (or whatever) then ALWAYS go all the way to 200% and let the printer and driver handle the rest.

 

I can't prove this but I learned it from watching hours of Luminous Landscape video tutorials and personal experimentation on a lot of images.

 

Finally, I prefer to uprez in Photoshop using Bicubic Smoother, all in one go rather than incremental. There's a lot of JuJu talked about uprez and in the end it's about whatever the individual's eye finds convincing. I personally usually find Genuine Fractals results less than convincing, especially on foliage but everyone has a favourite way.

 

Best

 

T

[ChrisC]

Tim - Well that's clearly put. You are right about the Juju aspect of large print file management, the confusion is, I think, because the processes keep improving and too few people are well placed enough to keep up to date with those improvements. I don't recall seeing before your case for scaling files 200% when the print resolution would otherwise fall below 180dpi. I understand working that way with Epson printers whose native resolution works at multipliers of 360, but I didn't think it was an industry standard and would have thought an HP printer would have a different native resolution. However, the 200% solution followed by printer driver consolidation is intuitively attractive to me and I'd really like to hear other feedback on the idea.

 

Perhaps current 'output' scaling now makes redundant the idea of working one's file at the largest output size [which of necessity included accurately scaling the file prior to starting post-production]. I can see some possible working disadvantages to working with the smaller file size, though the storage bonus is a big incentive. Would anyone else with working experience regarding the two distinct processes [software versus print driver scaling] like to comment on their pros and cons?

 

[EDIT - I should add that I recall Buckhorn Cortez' informative recommendations to use Quimage software for scaling, but it is a Windows only application and I have read elsewhere that there are impracticalities for it's use with a Mac [i use Mac]].

 

A1 is a pretty damned big print from a small sensor camera Tim, were there landscape images included in your show as well as 'people' pictures? Do you have an image of the show demonstrating that exhibition scale you'd be willing to post?

 

................. Chris

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[dfarkas]

I'm sorry if my post was unclear. Here is what I meant:

 

I never uprez. Ever.

 

By native file, I mean that I go from DNG -> JPG (in C1, Fixed Output Sizing) -> printer. No Photoshop. No Genuine Fractals. No PKSharpener. Just straight output. That's it.

 

The 20x30 prints I make are almost A1 size, and 55% larger than A2.

 

My printer (Durst Theta 51) outputs at 400 PPI. That doesn't mean that I have to send it a file at that resolution. It will lay down that res regardless. If I send it a 100 PPI file, it will "fill in the gaps" where needed.

 

I think that the term uprezzing might be confusing here. I would prefer to use scaling instead. When I make a print from my native 10MP file, our printing software is scaling it to the appropriate size in pixels based on output size. It doesn't create more information than what is there. Same with bicubic scaling in Photoshop. Geniune Fractals attempts to randomize the scaling as to hide repeating artefacts from increasing the pixel dimensions. But to me, this has the same effect as aggresive noise reduction on digital cameras. Just a smearing of information, not an increase.

 

Look, YMMV, but for me I prefer the most straightforward workflow with the least amount of steps and the highest possible image quality. Perhaps my $250,000 printer running $20,000 software requires less fiddling and hand-holding than a $5,000 inkjet system. But, I also print using 44" Epsons and a StudioPrint RIP and use the same approach with absolutely no uprezzing or scaling in Photoshop. The results are the same.

 

I hope this helps. Sometimes I feel like the guy that says the Emperor is naked. Simple is good. And I'd offer the that the proof is in the print.

 

David