Realistic print size for SL2-S

[Eclectic Man]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

People look a photographs for different distances.  At an exhibition of Gursky's enormous photographs (see https://www.andreasgursky.com/en ), you need to be at least 5 metres away to take the whole thing in, but looking at the details from 10cm is also exceptional.  But then he uses large format digital backs on large format cameras.  

Timo Lieber ( https://www.timolieber.com ) used a 100Mp Phase One camera for his images of Greenland in 'Thaw', and I can say they are good form 3 metres and also from 20cm.

OTOH, Ansel Adams used a 10x8 large format camera and printed quite small (20" long side sometimes).

If you want every twig on a mature oak tree visible on a large print, you'll need high resolution.  Maybe check out the images on the SL2-S images thread for ones you like to take and ask the photographers with a direct message.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

But the question is whether that twig - or not- makes any difference to the photograph. If it is not visible the viewer won't know that it ever was there.

[dpitt]

On 2/4/2024 at 7:50 PM, Jeff S said:

Well, 30x40 inch isn’t a problem with 18Mp and old technology, when the user is capable.

Jeff

It is even better. This article is about the M8, so its only 10MP. (2006 technology)
The quality of the files is amazing. I remember one of the discussions that said you can basically infinitely enlarge those 10MP files when viewed at sensible distance for the size they are printed at.

If 10MP works that way, I am sure that a 24MP file from the SL2-S will cope with any size you want.

[Jeff S]

55 minutes ago, dpitt said:

It is even better. This article is about the M8, so its only 10MP. (2006 technology)
The quality of the files is amazing. I remember one of the discussions that said you can basically infinitely enlarge those 10MP files when viewed at sensible distance for the size they are printed at.

If 10MP works that way, I am sure that a 24MP file from the SL2-S will cope with any size you want.

Yup, my mistake regarding MP.  As I wrote, viewing distance is the key (with good technique)… reason why billboards can be made with (old generation) iPhones.  In old threads, when someone has asked how big one can print with a given camera, I have replied “as big as you want if viewing distance is far enough.”

Jeff

[DadDadDaddyo]

If you hang out around printing forums (as opposed to camera forums) you'll find that the 300 dpi convention is a point of continuing discussion, specifically, how far can one go in reducing the dots-per-inch to achieve a given print size. The whole "dots" thing, of course is the result of the adoption of digital printers. Old fashioned analog prints ran into grain, not dots. 

There's a shot of my Grandad and Dad that I took with black and white film in my Pocket Instamatic 60 back in 1973 that I scanned and ink jet printed a few years ago at 8x10. It's grainy, but it's one of my most valued family photographs. That was a pretty small negative. 

I've got 16x20 prints from my old Fujifilm X-Pro 2 that I'm happy with. I've learned to be judicious about cropping, to try and get the shot I want in the camera. Those X-Pro2 prints look fine from "normal viewing distance", that is, if that's defined as "being able to see the whole image at once", maybe. There's no standard, universally-agreed-upon definition of "normal viewing distance".

I've got 24x36 prints from the Fujifilm GFX100 that will simply blow you across the room. They stand up very, very well to naked-eye close examination.

The shots I'm getting from my M11, and especially, my M11M, look at least as good at 16x20 as the GFX shots did at 24x36. They're very reminiscent of the shots I got from my GFX50R. That camera, and its lenses, looked great at 16x20. The 60 mp Leicas, and their lenses, easily match them for sheer output size potential. The M11M, and specifically, the quality of its output at 16x20, is the reason I sold off my GFX equipment, which opened the door to additional wonderful lenses for my M-series equipment - and even a Frankenfinder (just because). 

Many folks with large format printers are willing to take the dpi down into the upper 200s and toward the mid-200s to achieve the print size they want. The idea is to crop the picture as you want, then set things up for the print size you want, then check and see what dpi that print size results in. 

Then, of course, print anyway and examine the results in the real world. 

Yet there, too, the discussions usually boil down to viewing distance. 

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

Many folks with large format printers are willing to take the dpi down into the upper 200s and toward the mid-200s to achieve the print size they want. The idea is to crop the picture as you want, then set things up for the print size you want, then check and see what dpi that print size results in. 

Then, of course, print anyway and examine the results in the real world. 

We seem to be in a "big print" era, at least for gallery work. I often feel that photographers keep making their prints bigger, until they break down, and then forget to back-up a step. That's just me, I'm sure that many photographers really like the fact the the image breaks-down into its components (pixels, ink dots, grain, etc.) when you lean-in to the print.

 

Fun game, somewhat related: walk through any western art museum, and try to guess the decade a painting was made based on physical dimensions and frame style. My guesses are usually fairly close, at least for the major schools: French, Dutch, English, Italian. Photography has gone through similar trends.

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

19 hours ago, BernardC said:

We seem to be in a "big print" era, at least for gallery work.

Yes, because we can do it today with inkjets. However, printing big for the sake of it isn't sensible, of course. As usual, content and artistic intent should drive the size. A mediocre picture in a large format is only a great mediocracy (my greatest personal issue 🫠).

[Stuart Richardson]

I work as a printer, so deal with this shit every day. There is no upper limit...print as big as you want. I have printed meter wide prints from 640x480 pixel video stills. The client was delighted. But it also does not mean that more resolution will not make your print look better.

Without cropping, 24mp in a 2x3 aspect ratio outputs 300dpi at 13x20 inches, or 34x50cm. 300dpi was considered the resolution that was sharp enough to be considered more than adequate for most people's eyesight from a close distance. It is not a hard and fast rule, but it is generally a technical limit in digital printing (the standard resolution of most printers is either 300 or 360dpi. When fully maxed out it is 600 or 720, but that is generally only going to be visible in text or very tiny structures like grass or fences in the distance, but only when looked at extremely closely).

It just means that anything below that resolution (i.e. bigger than 13x20 inches) is generally somewhat of a loss in potential quality, and anything above that (smaller) is usually overkill. For prints on a wall, anything over 200dpi is probably plenty for a medium sized print, and anything over 120dpi is probably fine in quite larger prints. For 24mp that means something up to 100x67cm (roughly 40x27 inches) will give you 150dpi and look very good assuming the file is good (low ISO or at least appealing grain, good lenses etc). If you routinely see yourself making prints larger than 13x20 inches, or you intend to crop significantly, then you would likely benefit from a higher resolution camera. If you do not, then you will likely not see any benefit. If you do get a 24mp camera, you can certainly make big prints, but once you get past 20x30 inches or so prints from a higher resolution camera will have noticeably more detail and tonality etc. Whether that matters to you is totally subjective.

Edited February 7, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[Jon Warwick]

4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I work as a printer, so deal with this shit every day. There is no upper limit...print as big as you want. I have printed meter wide prints from 640x480 pixel video stills. The client was delighted. But it also does not mean that more resolution will not make your print look better.

Without cropping, 24mp in a 2x3 aspect ratio outputs 300dpi at 13x20 inches, or 34x50cm. 300dpi was considered the resolution that was sharp enough to be considered more than adequate for most people's eyesight from a close distance. It is not a hard and fast rule, but it is generally a technical limit in digital printing (the standard resolution of most printers is either 300 or 360dpi. When fully maxed out it is 600 or 720, but that is generally only going to be visible in text or very tiny structures like grass or fences in the distance, but only when looked at extremely closely).

It just means that anything below that resolution (i.e. bigger than 13x20 inches) is generally somewhat of a loss in potential quality, and anything above that (smaller) is usually overkill. For prints on a wall, anything over 200dpi is probably plenty for a medium sized print, and anything over 120dpi is probably fine in quite larger prints. For 24mp that means something up to 100x67cm (roughly 40x27 inches) will give you 150dpi and look very good assuming the file is good (low ISO or at least appealing grain, good lenses etc). If you routinely see yourself making prints larger than 13x20 inches, or you intend to crop significantly, then you would likely benefit from a higher resolution camera. If you do not, then you will likely not see any benefit. If you do get a 24mp camera, you can certainly make big prints, but once you get past 20x30 inches or so prints from a higher resolution camera will have noticeably more detail and tonality etc. Whether that matters to you is totally subjective.

Thanks Stuart for your comments, especially from someone who knows all about this!

My photos are typically always done via a 300dpi printer, and if the file size is too small (say, I want a 30x20” off a 24mp camera), I resample the resolution upwards to 300dpi in Adobe before sending it to print.

Curious if there’s any good reason to send a 30x20” image to print WITHOUT resampling beforehand in post, ie, sending an 30x20” image at 200dpi and letting the printer do the uprezzing to its native 300dpi - if it can even do that? (what I’m asking might not even make sense)!

[BernardC]

24 minutes ago, Jon Warwick said:

Curious if there’s any good reason to send a 30x20” image to print WITHOUT resampling beforehand in post, ie, sending an 30x20” image at 200dpi and letting the printer do the uprezzing to its native 300dpi - if it can even do that? (what I’m asking might not even make sense)!

Your printer software can also up-res the files. You can also use a standalone RIP (Raster Image Processor) software that handles that chore, among others.

It's easy enough to test: send two files to the printer, one re-sampled in software and one at the original resolution, and see which one looks better, or if there is any difference at all. I suspect that printer drivers are much better than they used to be, so the printer's own software should be good. I'm sure it depends on the make and model of your printer.

[Stuart Richardson]

I have not tried recently, but I agree with Bernard that it is quite likely that they are very similar at this point. I tend to just do it in Lightroom so I don't forget. I think if there are any differences in quality it is just as likely to be a mathematical/sampling difference that could be better or worse depending on the given file/printer combination. I really don't think this is going to make a meaningful difference unless you are doing extremely detailed small prints with the idea of viewing them close up.

One thing I did not mention, but I find very important: not all MP are created equal. When enlarging past the native DPI, the quality of the upsampling (and the quality of the print itself) are highly dependent on the quality of the pixel level data. This is where a camera like the SL2S with good lenses will blow other older or lower quality 24mp cameras out of the water. This is especially true of small sensor cameras and/or phones. Phones might give you a lot of pixels these days, but for the most part those pixels suck. So they might look fine on the screen and in small prints, but when they are pushed to the limit they fall apart. Meanwhile, since the detail is very crisp and accurate in a camera like the SL2S, the sampling can be very accurate and result in minimal loss in quality. So even if you don't have the pure resolution, they will look good enlarged. You miss the finest details, but the macroscopic print quality will remain very high. Film grain is great for this also...since the extinction resolution is variable and not a hard cut off, it enlarges much better than a mushy digital file might.

Overall, there really are no hard and fast rules. A extremely well done photo with few important details (such as portraiture) can often be enlarged much more than a highly detailed photo with a bit of camera shake or too much noise, etc. At the end of the day it is a judgement call, and of course if the photo is good enough, few are really going to be bothered anyway. I tend to approach it more rigorously since it is my job, but as I said above, I have made prints that have wound up looking good out of most any source file. It is usually down to the quality of the photo. That said, it is important to match your tools to your intended use...if you intend to make large prints it is best to have high resolution cameras and good lenses. It will make your life easier and the final results better.

Edited February 7, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[WvE]

I recently visited an exhibition of Anton Corbijn, no pixel peeping there, just great photos (and great subjects of course). This made me realise, it's not about MP's or APO's, unless you care about the finest details.  

[SrMi]

6 hours ago, WvE said:

I recently visited an exhibition of Anton Corbijn, no pixel peeping there, just great photos (and great subjects of course). This made me realise, it's not about MP's or APO's, unless you care about the finest details.  

Some photographs invite you to watch them from a distance. There are photographs that invite you to look at the details.

[WvE]

16 hours ago, SrMi said:

Some photographs invite you to watch them from a distance. There are photographs that invite you to look at the details.

That may be, but for me, a hobbyist, these expensive high MP cameras and APO lenses are just overkill and unnecessarily burning our hard earned money.  

[Ghiry6591]

 

I think you can feel truly at peace. Nowadays I almost exclusively print the 40X60 centimeter format, i.e. 2.4 square metres! I attach a photo, taken with the SL2-S and an "R" lens from the 90s, which you will see on the screen with the resolution that is necessary to observe for publication in our beautiful Forum. Imagine what the SL2-S can do when you mount an Apo Summicron Asph lens and use all 24 million pixels in the print! (photo including feet taken with iPad) Hi

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!

Edited February 9, 2024 by Ghiry6591

[justru49]

No complaints about your message, but you should rethink the square meter calculation 😎

[Ghiry6591]

7 hours ago, justru49 said:

No complaints about your message, but you should rethink the square meter calculation 😎

You are absolutely right. Enthusiasm is a wonderful, sometimes treacherous thing 😂. 👋

[Stuart Richardson]

I calculate my price by sq meters, and it makes me wish that a 40x60 was 2.4 sqm, ahaha. I would be doing a lot better!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[schaffi]

Am 7.2.2024 um 14:38 schrieb Stuart Richardson:

For 24mp that means something up to 100x67cm (roughly 40x27 inches) will give you 150dpi and look very good assuming the file is good (low ISO or at least appealing grain, good lenses etc). 

So it is and there are many Details in the picture!

An 4K Screen with 55" has only 80 ppi an most people say that this is sharp and has enough details.

 

[proenca]

Bit late to the party, but its up to you and your standards but more importantly , viewing distance.

For "gallery" work or display purposes, rough guide (  albeit some people here gave a much more in detail, valuable explanation than probably I can ever achieve ) , 50x40cms or 60x40 or somewhat , 24mp is more than fine and fine detail.

Lot of variables are to be taken into account : 

 

- noise/iso on the image

- processing of the image

- lens accuity and intended and perceived sharpness

- and so on

 

But as a very rough guide, 24mp from a SL2-S, which outputs very clean and clear images, is a great point to start.

when I worked in London, I remember making and outdoor photo, several meter wide, made with a Canon 1DS ( original ) with a 24mm L prime and nobody, as in nobody ever complained about the 11mp resolution - because the viewing distance was not not near at all and few meters away.

I did a few exbihts, before switching to canon ( bless CPS to working pros ) , from a Nikon D1X and got a few stuff published on paper and magazines ( printed ) from a D2h ( paltry 4mp ) and nobody complained - I did have to be careful not to post crop much but it was fine.

24mp is a luxury, specially when it comes from such nice clean sensor ( SL2-S ) and inevitably some fantastic L lenses.