Okay, so here's the deal...

[audidudi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I love using my DMC-L1K, I love the 4/3 format, and I love the quality of the images it captures. But now that I'm actually printing my images again (using an Epson 3800) rather than just viewing them on a monitor, I'm very disappointed that I can't seem to print images captured with this camera any larger than, say, 7.5" x 10" or so, with a satisfactory amount of resolution.

 

This puzzles me because 1) I'm not a novice to digital imaging and printing by any means, and I know plenty of "tricks" when it comes to up-sizing files, optimally sharpening images for printing, etc., and 2) in combination with all of the above, I've previously been able to print stunningly detailed 12"x12" to 16"x16" images using older generation Epson 1280 and 7600 printers that originated on MF film and were digitized using a modest 1120dpi film scanner.

 

Is it just me or are others experiencing similar results? No matter what I seem to do, I simply can't make anything larger than a modestly sized print with the sort of details and resolution that are an important part of my photographic style...

 

Alternatively, is there another camera that would better serve my needs here? From what I gather, none of the other present or forthcoming 4/3-format cameras will prove to be a better solution for me, especially with regard to ease of use (I love those manual controls! ), but I do have a handful of Contax N-series lenses that could be adapted to work on a Canon body. Alas, the Canon bodies are a 3:2 format and, frankly, the full-frame ones (at least) are simply too large and clunky for my taste. I have also been thinking about selling everything and possibly buying an M8 with a lens or two, but it's also a 3:2 format design, lacks the "live view" feature which I find handy at times, and my preference is to shoot more tightly than a rangefinder camera generally allows...

 

So, what do I do here? I'm getting a Betterlight scanning back for use with my view camera, but this obviously won't work with handheld photography and this is something I've been enjoying quite a bit lately.

 

Any input or comments will be greatly appreciated!

[jdlaing]

Take a look at QImage.

 

Bicubic adjustments, if you have Photoshop, may work as well.

[carstenw]

Have you considered hanging in there for an E-3?

 

I doubt that the upressing is causing your problems if, as you say, you know the usual tricks. Are you applying sufficient sharpening for the print size? How do the L1 images look at the pixel level compared to the DMR and M8?

[audidudi]

Have you considered hanging in there for an E-3?

Yes, but the Olympus' lack of ability to control the lens aperture manually is a bit of a negative for me.

 

I doubt that the upressing is causing your problems if, as you say, you know the usual tricks. Are you applying sufficient sharpening for the print size? How do the L1 images look at the pixel level compared to the DMR and M8?

 

I've applied sharpening using my usual multi-step process (which hitherto has been very successful with other source images) to the point where the prints start showing visible artifacts, so I don't think that's it. Given that my LC1 likewise struggles to produce an acceptable print larger than 7.5"x10" and it's only a 5MP camera, I believe the issue is primarily one of resolution/file size -- hence fundamentally uncorrectable -- but I wanted to hear about some other people's experiences before I reach any conclusions.

 

As for the DMR and M8, I'm afraid that although there is a local Leica dealer, I have no experience of any consequence with them. I was just thinking that if I do make the switch to an M8, I'd like to do so before the upcoming price increase, thus the semi-urgency of my question.

 

Thanks for your input!

[sdai]

Most 4/3 aficionados haven't realized that the L1 is an incredibly BIG camera considering all the blah blah blah about size and weight advantages.

 

The L1 measures 146x87x77 mm body alone, the 5D is 152x113x75 mm and the 40D is 146x108x74 mm.

 

The Canons are only slightly taller because of the 4/3 camera's lacking of a prism.

 

If you depend on your equipment as a professionally money making tool ... you should by all means go for a APS-C size or 35mm full frame body, the progress the larger format cameras are making in less than 6 months is well worth the homework a 4/3 camera will take for more than 2 years.

 

The APS-C and full frame cameras are mostly in the 12MP+ territory now while even the phantom 4/3 flagship will still come as a pathetic 10MP model ... putting these side by side, you have enough room to crop from the 3:2 frame.

 

And think about it ... after the E-3, what will Olympus and Panasonic do? they can't live with that model forever, and they can't beat physics by stuffing more than 16mp in such a tiny sensor either.

 

It's only a matter of time when they'll give up and go for APS-C or even larger frames.

[designdog]

I don't know - I have a 20D, the L1 and a Digilux 2, and have made very nice prints at 13" x 19" with each - on an Epson 2200.

 

Not to disabuse your intelligence, but I have found with Epson that you really need to use their paper. Also, I upres in Photoshop at 10% increments, but you already knew that.

 

You might experiment with where you apply sharpening - before or after upres and see what works best. There are also 3rd party solutions available, Genuine Fractals for example.

 

Finally, remember that the larger the print, the more it is designed to be viewed from a distance. Ever see a billboard up close?

 

-ddog

[audidudi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The APS-C and full frame cameras are mostly in the 12MP+ territory now while even the phantom 4/3 flagship will still come as a pathetic 10MP model ... putting these side by side, you have enough room to crop from the 3:2 frame.

 

I disagree with you about this, as a 12MP 3:2 image cropped to the 4:3 format will result in a smaller image file than a 10MP 4:3 original. This is one reason (besides price!) that I've been hesitant about the M8...

[audidudi]

I don't know - I have a 20D, the L1 and a Digilux 2, and have made very nice prints at 13" x 19" with each - on an Epson 2200.

 

I suspect my standards are higher than most, which is why I frequently go to the trouble of shooting with an 8x10 view camera. I have no problem making LARGE prints (up to 4'x5'!!) with that...

 

Not to disabuse your intelligence, but I have found with Epson that you really need to use their paper. Also, I upres in Photoshop at 10% increments, but you already knew that.

 

I'm using their Archival Matte with a custom profile and Yes, I know all about the various upres schemes in Photoshop.

 

You might experiment with where you apply sharpening - before or after upres and see what works best. There are also 3rd party solutions available, Genuine Fractals for example.

 

Yes, I've played around quite a bit with sharpening, including several programs that claim to do a better job than I can myself. Also have a copy of Genuine Fractals on hand and fwiw, I generally find Irfanview does a better job of upresing than PS...

 

Finally, remember that the larger the print, the more it is designed to be viewed from a distance. Ever see a billboard up close?

 

I haven't forgotten this. However, when I compare my L1 images to those shot on Fuji Astia with, say, a '50s vintage Minolta Autocord TLR and subsequently scanned at a mere 1120dpi with a Minolta consumer-grade film scanner, which produces files that are 25% smaller than the L1's to begin with, I expect to see more resolution, not less, and this is what's puzzling me. There's no question my L1 images are very nice looking indeed, it's just that I can't see to make them hold up at what I think are relatively modest print sizes...

-ddog

[sdai]

I disagree with you about this, as a 12MP 3:2 image cropped to the 4:3 format will result in a smaller image file than a 10MP 4:3 original. This is one reason (besides price!) that I've been hesitant about the M8...

 

Most standard paper sizes are or close to either 2:3, 4:5 ... and you won't lose much in those cases.

 

In the mean time, some people are claiming they can print M8 files as big as 40 to 50 inches wide with quality beating large format scans, heck ... so you cut off half from the original file, there's still plenty for 20 to 25 inches wide.

[ptomsu]

Most 4/3 aficionados haven't realized that the L1 is an incredibly BIG camera considering all the blah blah blah about size and weight advantages.

 

The L1 measures 146x87x77 mm body alone, the 5D is 152x113x75 mm and the 40D is 146x108x74 mm.

 

The Canons are only slightly taller because of the 4/3 camera's lacking of a prism.

 

If you depend on your equipment as a professionally money making tool ... you should by all means go for a APS-C size or 35mm full frame body, the progress the larger format cameras are making in less than 6 months is well worth the homework a 4/3 camera will take for more than 2 years.

 

The APS-C and full frame cameras are mostly in the 12MP+ territory now while even the phantom 4/3 flagship will still come as a pathetic 10MP model ... putting these side by side, you have enough room to crop from the 3:2 frame.

 

And think about it ... after the E-3, what will Olympus and Panasonic do? they can't live with that model forever, and they can't beat physics by stuffing more than 16mp in such a tiny sensor either.

 

It's only a matter of time when they'll give up and go for APS-C or even larger frames.

 

Why do you come to the magic number of 16MP? Over time the 4/3 sensor size will be holding 20MP and deliver ISO6400 results comparable with today's Nikon D3 - just a matter of time, sensor technology and SW.

[audidudi]

Most standard paper sizes are or close to either 2:3, 4:5 ... and you won't lose much in those cases.

 

I generally "float" my images on large sheets of paper, so paper size limitations aren't a factor here.

 

In the mean time, some people are claiming they can print M8 files as big as 40 to 50 inches wide with quality beating large format scans, heck ... so you cut off half from the original file, there's still plenty for 20 to 25 inches wide.

 

LOL! Like I said, I appear to have higher standards than most ... heck, I'm still sweating whether I can get by with a 53MB Betterlight back for my view camera and that creates a file that's multiple times larger than anything that an M8 -- let alone an L1! -- can swing...

[sdai]

LOL! Like I said, I appear to have higher standards than most ... heck, I'm still sweating whether I can get by with a 53MB Betterlight back for my view camera and that creates a file that's multiple times larger than anything that an M8 -- let alone an L1! -- can swing...

 

So, you've got the idea, sir.

The 4/3 standard is a specter haunting Olympus ... and it had a notorious name called Pen F. Even Olympus themselves admit it's a huge failure (check this ... Olympus Olympus History : the Semi-Olympus I - the Pen Series ), funny enough, they blame themselves for closing up the system so no other company could build their own Pen F so now they feel the need to bring Panasonic on board ... Leica was then kidnapped by Panasonic because they had no choice and Panasonic didn't make the LC1 anymore.

 

It's like the end of a desperado ... if he is gonna die, then no one else could live. :D

[sdai]

Why do you come to the magic number of 16MP? Over time the 4/3 sensor size will be holding 20MP and deliver ISO6400 results comparable with today's Nikon D3 - just a matter of time, sensor technology and SW.

 

I could change the number to 12 if you don't like 16, doctor.

 

By the time Olympus can cram 20MP on to the 4/3 sensor, I bet Nikon can do 200MP on "their" FX sensor then and ISO 25600 will become norm ... drink beer and live long, anything can happen. LOL