What's the largest M10 Monochrom print you have made?

[mediumformula]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm preparing some 4x5 negative scans for eventual large-scale prints in the range of 40" x 50".  Got me wondering.  How well would a M10M file hold up at those levels?  I'm talking about relatively close gallery viewing, not hundreds of feet away on a billboard.  Does anyone have actual experience with this?  How did they turn out? 

[Advertisement]

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

[IkarusJohn]

M9 Monochrom image, taken in the Southern Alps, printed by Whitewall just over a metre wide.  Perfect close viewing.

[ECliffordSmith]

Again with whitewall, 120cm x 80cm. The fine details (it is a Manhattan view from a high building) are incredible and your eyes give up due to being too close before the detail does. This could have been printed quite a bit larger with the same quality I think. I was very impressed. 

[mediumformula]

Thanks for the advice regarding Whitewall.  I live in NYC and will have to check them out.  

[overexposed]

0cm

[LeicaS2]

I have printed that size and larger with architecture. With landscapes individual leaves on distant trees are not prefect when your face is up to the paper.

[unclejace54]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My personal preference as to printing high resolution images is to use 300ppi. So with the long side of the sensor having 7864 pixels that gives a length of 26" or ~66cm. If I have to print larger and know the image will be view farther away then I'll go down to 240ppi. It really all depends on the viewing conditions, but if you are looking at detail in a print then 300ppi is a good value. If you are blowing up an image to banner size and viewing from 10 ft away then you probably wouldn't even notice a resolution of 120ppi.

Edited February 17, 2022 by unclejace54

[davidmknoble]

The S007 is 37mp, so assume that any size the S007 has been printed well, would easily apply to the monochrom.  The key is a sharp image!

[geotrupede]

I have used ON resize (version 10) back in 2017 to create some large files for an exhibit. then few of these images were printed as large as the gallery walls, approx 7 x 3m. The end result was very good. This exhibit was done with a friend who at the time was shooting on the M9, while me on MM. The MM was landscape, while for the M9 we had to go portrait and arrange few images next to each other. These were the opposite walls at either end of the gallery.  I think that one can really print large with 18MP with great impact. G/

 

[Jon Warwick]

My feel has always been the Monochroms (due to less processing to create the image due to the absence of an RGB color filter array) can produce large sized prints in a more natural & filmic way than most other digital cameras. 60x40 inches that's been something that's been pretty straightforward for me. I do like adding some minor grain just to add texture, especially given my film background that also includes 5x4 large format, and also like textured paper like Fine Art Baryta. I'd certainly agree with David's comment above, the key is a sharp image! - and especially when you think a 60" wide print is big 40x enlargement factor of the sensor dimension ..... any vibration will make a difference once you scale it up that much, IMHO, and it's nice to know one has the best file possible as a starting point in terms of maximum recording of the fine detail. If I'm doing landscape or architecture I habitually have an M on a tripod, even if it's just a light one such as a 1-Series Gitzo Mountaineer.  All in all, a Monochrom with an RRS bracket + 1-Series Mountaineer + P0 Arca monoball = a whole LOT easier to carry and use in poor weather conditions than my 5x4, with pretty amazing image quality for that small size! Again, as I say, I'm much more confident of getting a pleasing (my definition here = less digital looking / less processed / more filmic) BIG enlargement from a Monochrom than I am from the same megapixel color camera.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2022 by Jon Warwick

[Herr Barnack]

I have yet to make any prints from my M10 Monochrom, but my M-P 240 with its "tiny" 24mp sensor is capable of producing exhibit quality prints at 24x36 inch (0.6x0.9m) size.

With the M10M's 40.89mp sensor, I think it would easily make 32x48 inch exhibit quality prints, if not a bit larger. 

Even for a gallery exhibit, a four foot (1.2m) wide print is about as big as I would want or need.

 

[lmans]

Does the size of a print really matter or should we encourage and concentrate on the impact the photo has? Force the viewer to be awed and impacted by the context the image is putting forth as opposed to having the viewer become in awe by the size and technical aspects and literally can't see the 'image thru the image'!

[Herr Barnack]

@lmans  IMHO, print size is just one variable - it is not the be all and end all.  If an image is lifeless, it will be lifeless no matter how large you print it.

The thing I like about large prints is that it feels like they draw me in to the scene more so than smaller print sizes do.  The first time I saw an Ansel Adams exhibit, it left me weak kneed.  Most of his prints were large in size, but even the smaller sized prints were fully capable of knocking the wind out of me.  Content reigns supreme.

Probably the most moving photograph I have ever seen in person was not that large, perhaps 10x15 inches for the image size, with a mat and frame that were slightly larger.  It was Steve McCurry's Afghan Girl.  It was as if the young Sharbat Gula were there, looking at me with those haunting eyes. 

Print size is pretty much a non factor for images that transcend space and time. Afghan Girl is one such image.

Edited April 9, 2022 by Herr Barnack

[lmans]

Spott on Herr....with Steve McCurry's Afghan Girl. It has impact from the word go and how large or small is immaterial. I know that I got this thread a bit off track for the question didn't have anything to do with impact but with size of photo. So apologize if I hyjacked this forum so will move my follow-up question will be on another thread.... jim

 

[mediumformula]

IMO certain types of photos only look good if they are printed large. And if one shoots with print size in mind that also makes a difference in the work.  It's the same concept behind certain styles of photos that will do well on Instagram.   It's part of the medium and understanding that is critical to the impact of the photograph.  If you know your audience is on Instagram you're less likely to be taking Ansel Adam's style photographs. 

[Jon Warwick]

I think large scale images have been a critical component for some photographers’ style ….I’m thinking here of Crewdson, Struth or Gursky, for example. Their 80”++ images lend a different feel entirely compared to small prints, and I think the subject matter works for their choice of large scale. In terms of portraits, I tend to favor smaller prints and I enjoyed the need to stand up close to view the smaller picture of Afghan Girl ……but then again, if you’ve ever seen one of the larger (roughly 80” tall) prints from Avedon’s “In the American West”, there is room for large scale portraits too IMHO, that series is utterly epic off his 10x8!

As I mentioned already above, and I guess to tie it back into this thread ….one of the things I like about the Monochroms is just how well they resample to very large sizes and still look pleasing (less processed, less digital) when compared to a color filter array camera.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Jon Warwick

[DadDadDaddyo]

I have a Canon 24 inch printer, so the art show pictures I print are generally in the 16x20-ish family. High resolution images permit me some framing latitude, if needed. though I usually print close-to the full image.

With an SL2, an M10M, and a Fujifilm GFX100S, it's nice to have it to fall back on, but for the most part the resolution of the images from these cameras simply disappears as a factor in my thinking. Even with the M246 and the original SL (which I keep as backups) resolution at this print size has not been an issue.

[Jeff S]

19 hours ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

I have a Canon 24 inch printer, so the art show pictures I print are generally in the 16x20-ish family. 

Presumably you also print larger, as this size print can be accommodated with a compact 17 inch printer (albeit with careful matting).

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[DadDadDaddyo]

Yes indeed, I'll sometimes print with a 22" image size on the short side of the frame.

But I've found it takes the right kind of image to work at, say, the ~ 24"x36" scale. Certainly, it's about viewing distance, but not only. 

If the picture is strong enough (I know, that's not well defined) that it has an impact from across the room, then perhaps it will do well as a large print. On the other hand, simply making a print that large will not artificially infuse it with that kind of impact; it may merely look silly, or worse, pretentious.

I remember running into a platinum print by Edward Westin of a nude I'd seen reproduced in books many times. 

it was a contact print, and tiny, perhaps 6 x 9 cm. 

But matted and lit, it glowed like an absolute jewel. 

I'd never had any idea the negative was that small, yet even as a contact print, its impact was huge. It demonstrated the perfect conjunction of subject, lighting, and total mastery of craft.

Like being taken to school.

So, yeah, I tend to be cautious about print size, and of the measures I take to command the eye.

Bad music is bad enough, but played loudly, it's worse.

Edited April 24, 2022 by DadDadDaddyo
typo

[Jeff S]

7 hours ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

I remember running into a platinum print by Edward Westin of a nude I'd seen reproduced in books many times. 

it was a contact print, and tiny, perhaps 6 x 9 cm. 

But matted and lit, it glowed like an absolute jewel. 

I'd never had any idea the negative was that small, yet even as a contact print, its impact was huge. It demonstrated the perfect conjunction of subject, lighting, and total mastery of craft.

Like being taken to school.

So, yeah, I tend to be cautious about print size, and of the measures I take to command the eye.

Bad music is bad enough, but played loudly, it's worse.

Indeed.  I’ve studied and collected vintage prints (silver and platinum, from Weston and many others) since the 70’s, and none of them are large; some are tiny. Nor would they be better by being larger. And yes, display/viewing lighting can be the difference between a very nice print and one that truly ‘sings’.  
 

This has informed (and humbled) my own shooting and printing experience and standards, both with film and digital. I now find a 17 inch printer more than sufficient, and valued as much for ink cartridge economies as for print size capability.

Jeff