Printing large from M10 or SL (100cm x 150cm, 40" x 60")

[PeterSchlicht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ladies and gents,

 

I searched the net since quite some time for experiences and examples that demonstrate the performance and quality of Leica M10 or SL files for large printing. With large prints I mean sizes up to 150cm (60") on the long side. There are lots of comparisons and reviews between cameras of different makes, e.g. between SL and Hasselblad X1D, but they concentrate mainly on usability or spec-sheet resolution etc. They don't say anything about the final product, which is the print. Print quality from files of a particular camera is nearly never mentioned or discussed. I would like to ask the community here for experiences with printing large from Leica full frame cameras such as M10, SL, 240 or even M9. I know, many of the answers will state "quality is subjective", "depends on viewing distance" or "depends on expectation", etc. But maybe this thread is able to shed some more light on people's experience. I'm sure there must be some prints out there of such sizes. Did you send your SL or M images for example to services such as whitewall.com to produce such large prints? Do you print yourself? How do M or SL files hold up in a 40x60" print? Are they totally inferior to a print from digital medium format... ?

 

Cheers, Peter

[Advertisement]

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

[andybarton]

I have a 60” wide print on my wall made by Whitewall in Germany, from a 12Mp Nikon D700 file.

 

An M10 or SL file will be more than enough.

[BlackDoc]

 A few month ago i was asked to take a foto 90x160mm, finally it was printed by SaalDigital. Picture was taken with Leica SL and 24-90, printed on Alu Dibond. The main problem was not the Leica or the picture.... The details and printing itself were quiete good. But not the postprocessing ans sending. Finally i had 4 (!) identical pictures and not one of them was in perfect condition.

 

At the end the print was done from a local printer, and surprisingly to me.... it was cheaper....

 

The picture: https://www.flickr.com/gp/133359838@N06/E87A73

Edited January 21, 2018 by BlackDoc

[lik]

My printer is an Epson stylus Pro 9900 - my prints are up to 100 x 150 cm and even more when stitched - in canvas.

FromM10 (and before M240) as well as from SL results are great. Honestly I don’t find differences between them.

My only prints which can outperform this and are easier to handle are from my S2.

Easier to handle means: I don’t care that much about sharpening and post production as as I do with the M10 / SL.

 

I also had some prints from whitewall for clients who wanted it. Results from whitewall are really stunning.

 

It’s useless to present anything here from prints. I only can say - Peter: don’t hesitate. If you have pics in good condition/ image quality you want to have in large formats on the wall - just do it. You’ll be happy with them!

Regards

lik

 

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro

[LD_50]

The camera itself has little to do with the print quality. It’s more a question of the sensor resolution you want and the lens used.

 

You can download a lot of high quality files to test print and make a decision.

 

I’ve a lot of prints from 24 MP Leicas with various lenses and 12-16 MP Nikons with various lenses. They all look fine but I’ve chosen the print size based upon the viewing distance, subject matter, and quality of the photos. There is no general way to answer this.

[fsprow]

I have made a good many large prints in this category for display and would say that images from an M10 or Full Frame DSLR do very well, except when compared with those from a MF camera -- the Leica S (used to have until too many lens failures) or the Hasselblad X1D or H6D-100c - both of which I use extensively. Both the fine detail and the three dimensional character stand out from these images.

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My prints for that size go to a pro lab in London for printing via their Lambda or laser printer.

I print large, and 60”x40” off a Leica 24mp camera can yield “satisfactory” results to my eyes. My view of “satisfactory” is against the much higher image quality that I get from 5x4” large format film + drum scans that max out the scanner (the resultant image opens at 60” wide at 300dpi without interpolation!)

A lot does depend on subject matter ....image quality when the photo contains high-frequency detail like tree branches can fall apart (and look “digital”) at smaller prints compared to dense objects like a building / bricks, in my view.

Aside from subject matter, the best lenses and best technique (tripod) typically make a difference.

In terms of the Ms, I see the b&w M246 pull away clearly in image quality at this print size. Same with the S cameras vs color Ms.

Within the 24mp FF category, at these massive image sizes, I personally see the 50 SL Summilux (and I expect the new SL Summicrons) as making a difference and exposing relative image superiority over their smally-built M brethren.

[vortex]

This is an image of a print from my last exhibition, size 40"x60" (100x150_cm) Light-jet print, in November 2017.
Leica Q f5,6_1/13 sec handhold, with adapted post-production and the quality is excellent for a 35 mm sensor file.

I came from analogue large format photography and used 8"x10" to 4"x5" cameras, so the discussion concerning better quality of MF_cameras

compared to 35 mm full frame is like comparing apples and oranges !

 

Best to you all.

roger

 

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!

[sillbeers15]

This is an image of a print from my last exhibition, size 40"x60" (100x150_cm) Light-jet print, in November 2017.

Leica Q f5,6_1/13 sec handhold, with adapted post-production and the quality is excellent for a 35 mm sensor file.

I came from analogue large format photography and used 8"x10" to 4"x5" cameras, so the discussion concerning better quality of MF_cameras

compared to 35 mm full frame is like comparing apples and oranges !

 

Best to you all.

 

roger

Thanks for sharing. Can you share further from your experience if the printsize you showed taken by Leica Q cannot match after post processing if the same pics were to be taken by a MF digital camera of today? Such as clarity in details, color rendering, depth of field?

[vortex]

Thanks for sharing. Can you share further from your experience if the printsize you showed taken by Leica Q cannot match after post processing if the same pics were to be taken by a MF digital camera of today? Such as clarity in details, color rendering, depth of field?

MF digital is different than 35 mm full frame. Handling_Weight an File size a different story!

I tried the Hasselblad X1D, well it gives me larger image size but for the rest impossible to do the work i'm used to do with SL and Q.

Inferior Viewfinder, slow and noisy Auto-focus....etc.

Everybody has to find the way to get out best results from his used stuff

Best.

 

roger

[amoebahydra]

This also depends on the resolution of the printer used, for example the Durst Lambda 131 printer supports two resolutions of 200 dpi and 400 dpi.  This means when choosing 200 dpi for the images from Leica SL, i.e. 6000x4000 pixels, the printer can output a print of 20x30 inches without any interpolation.  For print larger than that, raster image processor (RIP) has to be used to process the image file and image degradation started.

[Irakly Shanidze]

For the size this large you obviously need to interpolate either with internal printer engine (if available), or manually in Photoshop. The best way to do it is to use a fractal plugin such as ON1 Resize. With Leica files you will be able to get away with 600-700% upsizing from an uncropped file. Then print it at 240ppi and enjoy

[Paul J]

Yes some formats are more superior to others but you can make a 2m or more print just fine from a 12MP camera. I did a 3m print from 12MP once and it was fine for what it was.

 

The only time it becomes an issue if it's being judged against a high pixel camera in a way that is important to you. Like a commercial scenario where high res is expected.

 

Big prints are expensive so just make a file at your big print size (e.g. 2m) check it on the monitor to see how it looks to you. Then find the most important part of it and do a print test of just that area cropped to A3 or something. But view it in the context of viewing a large print.

 

It's only a problem if it's a problem to you. You have to make a test and see for yourself.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Paul J

[otto.f]

... I know, many of the answers will state "quality is subjective", "depends on viewing distance" or "depends on expectation", etc. But maybe this thread is able to shed some more light on people's experience.

 

Cheers, Peter

... see how it looks to you...

It's only a problem if it's a problem to you. You have to make a test and see for yourself.

Sigh...

Edited February 7, 2018 by otto.f