michael friedberg Posted November 2, 2008 Share #1 Posted November 2, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Greetings, I'm just curious: how large of a print have you made with an M8 image? If so, did you print from a non-compressed TIFF (converted from a DNG file)? If so, did you use a third-printer (and if successful any strong recommendations)? I ask because the best I've done successfully, more or less, is about 20 x 30,, but I'd like to push the envelope with larger prints. Thanks in advance, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 2, 2008 Posted November 2, 2008 Hi michael friedberg, Take a look here Print Enlargement Size?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
TimF Posted November 3, 2008 Share #2 Posted November 3, 2008 I saw some beautiful A2 approx prints on Saturday, which were straight in-camera jpegs. Given the criticism which M8 jpegs have come in for I was astounded by how good these ones were. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 3, 2008 Share #3 Posted November 3, 2008 Do a search on the forum. This has been discussed recently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted November 3, 2008 Share #4 Posted November 3, 2008 It all depends on the viewing distance. Go to an art museum and look at the visitors instead of the paintings. You will find that most of them do spontaneously look at the paintings from a distance which is approximately = the diagonal of the picture frame, or a little bit more. We cannot perceive of an image as an image, as a whole or a composition, if it subtends an angle much greater than this. Measure the diagonal of your monitor screen. From what distance do you view it? A4 or 18x24cm or 8x10" is about the largest size image that can be comfortably viewed at the eye's natural close focus distance, which is 25–30cm or 10–12in. When we have to look at larger pictures we increase the distance in proportion. So the conclusion is that if you can do a visually sharp A4 or 18x24cm or 8x10" print, then you can print any other size. You can of course make a 2x3 meter or yards or miles print and scrutinize it with a magnifyer, or why not a microscope. But that is not what photography is for. Not our kind of photography at least. If we are in that business, we are talking of technical or scientific applications for which the photographic image is a tool, not an end. The old man from the Age of the Darkroom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael friedberg Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share #5 Posted November 3, 2008 Do a search on the forum. This has been discussed recently. Sorry! I wouldn't have asked if this was discussed recently. But I did run a search and really didn't find anything, at least going back to July of this year. Cindi Cooper did post a similar query on October 20th, and no one replied then. There also were two strings on "image upsizing" for larger prints but those really were asking for PS plug-ins or other software alternatives. My question was less technique-driven (at least relative to post processing issues) and more "output" related. Lars was kind enough to reply with a somewhat philosophic perspective on viewing distance. But I also would have thought that there is a mathematical correlation of some sorts between (a) number of pixels plus ( lens accuity, on the one hand, and © print size on the other. I have seen reports elsewhere "relating", somewhat amateurishly (a) to © but I would have thought that lenses than produce better resolution or contrast might have some bearing. I also haven't seen that discussed in the context of a particular form of non-compressed image, such as the DNGs produced with the Leica software or perhaps their conversions to TIFFs. I also didn't know if the sensor, such as that used by the M8, is a variable in print size beyond number of pixels. But given that I was treading on old ground, if I missed some string perhaps you can direct me by private message. I didn't want to create a redunancy and apologise for that. Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex7075 Posted November 3, 2008 Share #6 Posted November 3, 2008 Hi Michael, I just printed a 34x50 cm. directly from a jpg obtained from the original DNG. This is because the lab asked for a jpg for its lambda printing machine. Absolutely wonderful quality. Kind Regards, AF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morten Grathe Posted November 3, 2008 Share #7 Posted November 3, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Michael, I my self have been asking this question. Qurrently I only have an A3+ printer, but i am thinking about purchasing the new Epson Stylus Pro 7900 (A1+). What I did was to upscale the whole image to 60 X 90 cm's, do outputhsharpen and print a section that fits on my A3+ printer. Then I nailed the photo to the wall and looked at it from about 1 meters distance. To my eyes it looked fine. I think the best way is to see for yourself and decide from there. Morten Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted November 3, 2008 Share #8 Posted November 3, 2008 Yes the best way is to look at it yourself from a correct viewing diatance. Just yesterday I took a image and cropped a little over a 1/3 of it out then uprezed it to print a 12"x18" on 13"x19" paper. The image is wonderfull, even looking at it close up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted November 3, 2008 Share #9 Posted November 3, 2008 For advertising purposes, I've had monochrome banners printed in monochrome from a small crop of an M8 24mm shot, and they're 6 feet high and 3 feet wide. They look surprisingly good, even close up, and I had people comment about the quality of the image all through the show. Was that a fine art print? No, but it gave me some appreciation for just how good the original files really are, and just how far I could blow them up if the application called for doing that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trs Posted November 3, 2008 Share #10 Posted November 3, 2008 Found the very first thread (I believe) regarding how big you can print from M8. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints.html -T Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted November 4, 2008 Share #11 Posted November 4, 2008 I've gone up to 40x60 inches (101X152 cm) on canvas with good results. 20x30 or 24x36 inches on Photo rag or Museo looks good. I think 16x24 inches on a nice baryta paper like Illford Gold Silk is about a perfect size for a M8 file though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paga Posted November 4, 2008 Share #12 Posted November 4, 2008 Duggal in NYC asked me to bring a TIFF file for printing a 40x60 ish if memory serves me right. The main idea is to pick a resolution for the file, the highest the better for printing but higher resolution might require more hairy extrapolation for enlarging your original file. For example to print 48x96 at 100dpi you will provide a 4800x9600 i.e. 132MB file but at 300dpi your file should be 14400x28800 i.e. 1160MB (bring a CD-ROM ). Hello Photoshop! You can go higher in size (they offer almost as a standard on the pricing sheet 72x120 - inches - for a mere $890 on paper or $1190 on canvas...) but I am afraid that would be stretching it a bit for the M8 although I would be curious to see if someone actually tried that much, anyone? I am not affiliated with Duggal, just mentionning them because they are 2 blocks from where I live and hence they are "my" lab, they are not cheap but they kick *ss and work mostly with Pros it seems Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted November 4, 2008 Share #13 Posted November 4, 2008 Hi Michael,I my self have been asking this question. Qurrently I only have an A3+ printer, but i am thinking about purchasing the new Epson Stylus Pro 7900 (A1+). What I did was to upscale the whole image to 60 X 90 cm's, do outputhsharpen and print a section that fits on my A3+ printer. Then I nailed the photo to the wall and looked at it from about 1 meters distance. To my eyes it looked fine. I think the best way is to see for yourself and decide from there. Morten Well that's a perfect illustration to what I wrote above. The diagonal of a 60x90cm print is 108cm. And your viewing distance was one meter = 100cm. Q.E.D. The old man from the Age of the Darkroom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted November 4, 2008 Share #14 Posted November 4, 2008 Lars was kind enough to reply with a somewhat philosophic perspective on viewing distance. But I also would have thought that there is a mathematical correlation of some sorts between (a) number of pixels plus ( lens accuity, on the one hand, and © print size on the other. ... If you increase the print magnification while not changing the viewing distance, you will obviously at some point start seeing the sensor pixels. Before that, you will likely overstep the resolution of the lens. Leica do not publish MTF curves for resolutions grater than 40 line pairs per millimeter, and only the best Leica lenses manage too keep the contrast retention of these line pairs above fifty percent all the way out from the optical axis. If contrast drops below some 25%, even though the resolution might be there, it will be so low in contrast that it is largely unprintable. Even the present 10.5 MPx sensor of the M8 is a tough test for lenses, and if you go above 20, you are travelling in the home of the hype and the land of the absurd. The reason why magazines want more is that stupid and lazy designers want acres of empty background all around the subject so that they can crop the image to fit any harebrained layout they can dream up. That is the territory of medium format. If you want your pictures treated that way, buy a Hasselblad and go pro. The old man from the Age of the Darkroom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.