File size , print size

[dna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone

I just got my Leica M9

There is something basic I dont understand. Why do the jpeg files look exactly as good as the DNG raw files even when I blow them up up PS4.

The DNG files are 36mb and the jpegs 4mb, I thought the image size would be larger in DNG format.

I have bought this camera because I want to produce large high quality prints.

Im getting 3468x5212 at 240 dpi DNG files, same as the jpeg files, but I'd like to enlarge them about 300%.

Would I still get a good print?

 

I appreciate your help in understanding this

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Hello DNA,

 

The JPG and the DNG have the same "pixel dimensions"

 

The JPG is compressed more than the DNG which is closer to what came from the sensor, meaning that you can massage the file more without degradation compared to the JPG.

 

As far as making large prints, the sharpness from either JPG or DNG will be the same, the difference is your ability to pull data out in shadow and highlights when you post-produce the images.

 

.

[Advertisement]

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

[dna]

Thank you so much! very helpful

[Luuk]

Hi dna,

 

There are a few aspects I'd like to put to your attention.

• pixel dimensions have no relation to print size
  
• actual output size is depends on the printresolution (dpi)
  

There is a bit of a contradiction in large size (over 100%) and high quality.

Ressing up a file doesn't improve detail. In most cases your shots will lose quality.

 

If large size is really a goal I can advise you to use an add-in like genual fractals from on one software. This PS plug-in will give you better results in ressing up your work.

 

In addition to Bo's remarks.

 

Extra care should be given to you sharpening to. Output sharpening in relation to the printresolution and sharpening in general must be in relation to the viewing distance (3 to 5 x diagonal size of your print) otherwise the sharpening effect will disappear.

 

You will be surprised by the looks of a well PP file on your screen.

 

Have fun,

Luuk

[dna]

Thanks Luuk

I will look into onOne Genuine Fractals

What does PP stand for?

[Luuk]

PP = Post Processing

 

Luuk

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not disagreeing with Luuk, but let me throw in this caveat:

 

I don't know which version of Photoshop you're using, but the resizing algorithms have supposedly been greatly improved recently over previous versions. There's nothing wrong with Genuine Fractals (except maybe the name), but you may find that resizing with Photoshop's Bicubic Smoother followed by careful sharpening may work as well. (If by PS4 you mean Photoshop version 4, everything has changed since then. If you mean Photoshop CS4, that's actually version 11 and you've got all the whizbangs.)

 

Photoshop has made a lot of changes under the hood during its lifetime, so some of the old rules (like never enlarging by an even percentage) no longer hold.

 

My suggestion is to try Photoshop first, since you have it, and to remember that there are a lot of products made to supplement or supplant it in certain cases.

 

 

From what you say, you're looking to enlarge your M9 images to about 40 x 60 inches, about a third larger than David Adamson was doing with the M8. He started a very informative thread on the topic, but it was on the old forum and is unfortunately no longer available. Working at those sizes is doable, but it requires a great deal of craft and care. (That's why David prints for the people he does. )

 

 

Glad to have you aboard, and congratulations on the M9. You're probably already aware that there's a lot of expertise available on the forum, and we're glad you're here!

Edited February 10, 2010 by ho_co

[dna]

Thank you ho_co

Yes, I did mean CS4 and not the very old photpshop:D

I just got it. So again thanx for the info

[ennjott]

I don't use PS but if it still offers only Bicubic interpolation, I still wouldn't use its resizing or lens distortion functions. Free software like GIMP and Hugin has offered sinc (Lanczos) interpolation for many years and it's far superior.

 

As for the raw file, it offers more data per pixel. For example white balance is a computing operation on the raw file which actually has fixed color reproduction, like film.

This makes the DNG data comparable to a negative, hence the name "digital negative".

[ho_co]

I don't use PS but if it still offers only Bicubic interpolation, I still wouldn't use its resizing or lens distortion functions. ...

It doesn't, NJ.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

Also, Ctein reported his findings after comparing Photoshop's offerings with some after-market add-ons in an article on TOP within the past year or so, IIRC.

Edited February 11, 2010 by ho_co

[adan]

Something I'm always curious about when I see these "how big can I print" threads. What standards do people use to limit print size for a given file size? Do images have to look like they were shot with 4x5, or they are failures?

 

When Edward Steichen put on the original "Family of Man" show back in the 1950's, he made wall-sized (10 feet by 15 feet, or 3 x 4.5 meters) prints, some from from 35mm film and pre-1960's lenses. And not Kodachromes, either. Up close they were grainy and fuzzy - but they still "worked."

 

http://phomul.canalblog.com/images/DSC_5922.JPG

 

I saw a Sebastiao Salgado show with 40" x 60" prints from Tri-X and TMax 3200 - the prints were sharp (i.e. the enlarged grain wasn't mushy) but the fine details were obviously not absolutely sharp blown up that much - but so what? They were still great prints of great images.

 

I'm perfectly happy with prints made at 175-180 pixels per inch if viewed from a rational viewing distance (i.e. far enough away that the museum guards won't toss you out). Even for nose-to-the-print evaluations I see no benefit in print resolutions higher than 240 ppi.

 

Those values correspond to 20" x 30" and 14" x 21" prints from an M9 file - with no uprezzing. Above those sizes, I would expect the audience to be standing so much further away that uprezzing still isn't needed - or to understand, as I did with the Salgado prints, that, well, they are big blowups from a small original.

 

So effectively, I don't see any limit to print size from a given file size. Certainly I would go as high as Steichen's wall-sized prints. I wouldn't expect them to look like Gigapxl images (even Leica lenses would poop out before then) - but most interesting photos don't need to look like Gigapxl images....

 

Image Gallery

[Guest WPalank]

This article by Jeff Schewe might be helpful:

The Art Of The Up-Res - Digital Photo Pro | DigitalPhotoPro.com

[AlanJW]

I have gotten excellent very large (48" or more on the long side) prints from an M8. I have not gone bigger than 17 x 25 on my M9 but do not anticipate a problem going as large or larger. I always use the DNG and Genuine Fractals (the latter probably out of force of habit now). Also, Nik Sharpener has specific output sharpening settings for print sizes/viewing distances, and works very well. For really big prints, there is some art to it and I only go to 17 x 25 without professional help.

 

The prior posts with info on the differences between file size, print size, etc. are spot on.

[wparsonsgisnet]

You might be interested in this thread, and it may be dated now, but

 

I compared PS, Genuine Fractals, and Blow Up to see what upsizing capabilities they had.

 

If you read the thread, you will see that in general, PS was preferred.

 

I use PS now if I need to do this.

[dna]

Great information here

Thanks!

 

@Bill- where is your thread?

[wparsonsgisnet]

Sorry, forgot to paste

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-post-processing-forum/21222-upsizing-comparison.html

 

Regards,

[ho_co]

Found Ctein's article, but it's older than I remembered, dating to March 2008.

 

 

He compares what was then simply Photoshop Bicubic, Genuine Fractals and Blowup.

 

The Online Photographer: It's Bigger, But Is It Better? Part III

 

 

Results similar to Bill's, but size-related; i.e., GF best but only at smaller interpolation sizes.