Jump to content

30 x 40 inch M8 Prints


davidada

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Jamie. I don't have the IP rip. Do you know if it's required to get these kind of results?

I have found that to get the best results from the 7600-9600 series you do need a rip.

From the 9800 the built in software is really excellent and a rip is only necessary for production and self profiling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This is just about the best discussion I have seen on this forum. I read every post and learned a lot.

 

Thanks especially to David and Jack for their input. I made the M8 plunge last week and can't be happier.

 

Just thought many of us that did not see this post originally should have the opportunity.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hello People,

 

Again, David, and several others, many thanks for sharing the fruits your research and labour here on the forum.

 

A quick couple of questions for David, and/or anyone else who feels qualified to answer:

 

Have you taken the M8 files beyond 30x40, and if so, what did you make of them?

 

If one were to desire close-up, B&W portraits at say 30x40 and even 40x60, do you think that the M8 would be a good contender for the task based on what you've seen so far?

 

I am labouring over whether to go for the Mamiya 7, an Ebony 4x5 or now, perhaps, the M8. I am very keen to print BIG B&W although the initial uses of the images will be for magazine spreads. I have used these cameras quite extensively in the past, including several delightful Leica Ms, but not, of course, the M8.

 

I have only just come across this thread today and it is now past 2am - that may give you some idea of how much this discussion has held my attention.

 

Thanking you in advance for any advice and knowledge that you can throw my way.

 

Cheers, Ivan

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...

The thread that will not die.

 

This is the thread which convinced me to switch to the M8, thereby ensuring that I am the poorest underground artist in the region. And yes, I too read every single contribution.

 

.................Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A few remarks.

 

1) I can see where David is coming from with his initial observation.

A few years ago we took our crew photo for a movie project on 4x5 (Schneider APO lens), Hasselblad 16MP digi back and a Canon 1Ds.

 

It was interesting to see that although the 4x5 scan was by far the most detailed; that in a very large print the difference between the files was less apparent.

 

I suspect that the lack of an AA filter in the M8 and the very high micro contrast of the the Leica glass have a lot to do with what David is seeing. In my experience M8 files perform better when up-scaled than those from other DSLR cameras, because you are starting out with a file that has much better accutance. People shooting with the Foveon / Sigma cameras report similar success, because they are not fighting the Bayer pattern 'smear'. The Canon 1DsII has a lot of pixels, but not so spectacular pixel for pixel sharpness. This was one of the reasons whyI got rid of my 5D.

 

2) I take David's word that he believes that the prints look great. He's been doing this long enough and I don't think he could have survived at the high-end of the biz for as long as he has, if was peddling BS.

 

3) In my experience many photographers are lousy judges of print quality. I once knew a famous shooter, who thought the black and white prints coming out of his 2200 on Epson glossy were as good as any of the custom silver prints he had made by his wet printer...

 

4) On dissent and contrary opinion. I always find it amusing how anyone here who dares to questions the findings or opinions of the 'experts', is summarily jumped on by the local fanboys, who fall over themselves condemning that individual, while fawning over their hero.

 

When did we turn into such a bunch of sheep who swallow everything that we are told hook, line and sinker? Experts are not always right, no matter how successful they are in their field.

 

David made a pretty bold statement that flies in the face of conventional experience. I doubt that David didn't expect a certain amount of heated resistance to his findings. But David is a big boy and as we saw he was perfectly capable of defending his position in a professional manner.

 

Anyhow, it's nice to hear that the M8 is producing top notch output.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So - here is a good question, and perhaps it deserves a separate thread. People have questioned the ability of digital, and particularly non-MF digital, to handle good wide angle shots. The M8 has introduced a few things to help deal with that, including microlenses that compensate for wide angle lenses and per-lense in-camera adjustment of even the RAW files.

 

Do people think this makes this significantly different that previous-gen digital cameras for wide angle?

 

By wide angle I mean 19 - 28mm, although 16 is great too (go Zeiss!). Note that I posted this on Photo.net, but it just turned into some sort of snot-throwing match, much like this thread early on - but this one pulled out of it, while my other one on Photo.net never really did. Hmm.. I wanted to put a link to the other thread but can't find it right now.

 

When I think wide angle I'm thinking Mamiya 7II 43mm lense, Horseman 6X12/6X9, Hassy/Contax/Mamiya MF with the wide's, etc.

 

I would be interested in the M8 - and would perhaps get the wide TriElmar with it, but at that price I can now get the Mamiya digital back at same price point... (I'm currently very happy shooting film on Mamiya 645afd with all the wide's except the newest one - 17mm equiv. Oh - and I tend to shoot landscapes/nature sans wildlife).

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So - here is a good question, and perhaps it deserves a separate thread. People have questioned the ability of digital, and particularly non-MF digital, to handle good wide angle shots. The M8 has introduced a few things to help deal with that, including microlenses that compensate for wide angle lenses and per-lense in-camera adjustment of even the RAW files.

 

Do people think this makes this significantly different that previous-gen digital cameras for wide angle?

 

By wide angle I mean 19 - 28mm, although 16 is great too (go Zeiss!). Note that I posted this on Photo.net, but it just turned into some sort of snot-throwing match, much like this thread early on - but this one pulled out of it, while my other one on Photo.net never really did. Hmm.. I wanted to put a link to the other thread but can't find it right now.

 

When I think wide angle I'm thinking Mamiya 7II 43mm lense, Horseman 6X12/6X9, Hassy/Contax/Mamiya MF with the wide's, etc.

 

I would be interested in the M8 - and would perhaps get the wide TriElmar with it, but at that price I can now get the Mamiya digital back at same price point... (I'm currently very happy shooting film on Mamiya 645afd with all the wide's except the newest one - 17mm equiv. Oh - and I tend to shoot landscapes/nature sans wildlife).

 

Thanks!

I'm not sure what you mean by "good," but I shoot the M8 mostly with a 28, but also a 21 and 25, and I find it excellent in terms of any comparison to a film M or a Hasselblad with a 50. So I don't know what that says about the M8 versus "previous-gen digital."

 

And, yes, a most worthwhile thread. I have been using a 4800 for a couple of years, went through the RIP thing and monochrome ink sets, and I'm back to the Epson software and inks for both their quality and consistency. I learned a lot from this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thread, lots of good comments and info!

 

I am finding that a really good M8 print falls anywhere between 8%-20% behind the 5D in terms of overall real world image quality when it comes to apparent sharpness. This is using several different post processing engines and methods and the finest glass either maker. Considering the smaller sensor and output, this is not really too bad.

 

This is also going as big as 30x40.

 

And for some strange reason, images at infinity from the 5D provide the biggest gap with the M8 just not pulling the really fine details like the 5D can. At 10x15 and smaller, you really can not tell the difference. But start getting above 18x20 and you will begin to notice it.

 

There is also an occasional "blobing" of pixels to a different color in between distant foliage in the M8 files against light blue or overcast skies, easily visible in a print as small as a 8x10. The blobs are mostly blue with some red and only partly respond to more aggressive color noise reduction in PS-3 RAW.

 

Printing in magazines in reportage mode with objects from close focus to about 30 feet, the M8 is simply awesome. If a "Reportage" style is needed in commercial work, the M8 would work in that area too given that the style is less about sharpness than it is pure moment.

 

So for any kind of high resolution commercial stuff or real landscape work, I am at least turning to my 5D if not a 6x9 film camera for the landscapes.

 

I think the M8 prints real nice. The rendition of tonal range and chromatic distribution arm feel wonderful in the M8 print. But I really do feel the images do look better in the larger sized prints with other than the M8 when it comes to the details.

 

I am having a lot of fun with the M8 either way...:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, that's funny--I find exactly the opposite in printing very large between the M8 and the 5d, which is not what I expected given the resolution advantage.

 

"it always all depends" when you're printing, anyway ;) So many variables, so little time!

 

I'm still going to get David A. to print me a 30 * 40 M8 shot, too ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, that's funny--I find exactly the opposite in printing very large between the M8 and the 5d, which is not what I expected given the resolution advantage.

 

"it always all depends" when you're printing, anyway ;) So many variables, so little time!

 

I'm still going to get David A. to print me a 30 * 40 M8 shot, too ;)

 

How are you processing it then? I would definitely like to get better sharpness out of the M8...

Link to post
Share on other sites

How are you processing it then? I would definitely like to get better sharpness out of the M8...

 

Well, I'm sorry to be so elliptical here, and sorry for the long-ish post, but I actually have two different output processes depending on whether I'm going to inkjet output (like a 9800) or continuous tone like a Lambda (which to my eyes, under the best conditions, still has a bit more dynamic range on the right paper, but of course you're limited to that paper and to the lab conditions).

 

I've found that comparing various workflows for up-rezzing the M8 or the 5d files, including a ton of various plug-ins, a couple of different RIPs and manual ways of upscaling, that I settled on Alien Skin's Blow-Up as giving the best results from either the 5d or the M8 (and the DMR, 1d2 and 1ds2, for that matter).

 

Sharpening depends too on the image and what it needs, and so isn't something I can quickly summarise here. Suffice to say I use a variety of output sharpening methods including the old hiroloam and luminance sharpen standbys and other PS channel operations for contrast and noise control where necessary.

 

With similar optics (the 50R Lux on the 5d via adapter) and the 50M Lux ASPH on the M8, I found past a certain point that the M held up to my (admittedly aggressive) sharpening routines a little better than the 5d. Not a lot, but noticeably in the final print nonetheless.

 

And in fact, I had to tweak my sharpening routine from the Canons (1d2, 1ds2 and 5d) to the M8 and DMR quite a lot--it's easier to oversharpen an M8 file than the Canon, IMO.

 

The end result probably has more to do with contrast control and shadow detail than actual resolution, by the way, but that's the name of the game when you're looking at mucho uprezzed big prints anyway, IMO.

 

Oh--FWIW, I also use C1 for initial output, though I'm sure that doesn't matter as much as the uprez method. But I don't get "blotches" out of the M8 RAW convert, so that would help :)

 

Hey--I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm not getting the most out of my 5d shots! Still, I like to think I am ;) Are you doing anything special for the 5d shots?

 

I wonder how David A. likes printing from the M8 now its been out awhile?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jamie

 

If I may, can I ask just when you add ASBU (AlienSkin Blow-up) to your flow? My current flow is image to PhotoKit Sharpener for initial sharpening. On to the rest of the work, maybe a resize/crop. Then PKS output sharpening.

 

So now with ASBU in the mix I read on the AS forum several opinions on when to Blow-up. AS says it should be the last step , but maybe you should do output sharpening after the Blow-up. That is of course unless you use the sharpening in ASBU and not in PKS.

 

See? Gets a little confusing all the options. If PKS capture sharpen in a way that readies for PKS output sharpen I'd want to stay that way.

 

I like the add grain options in Alien Skin Exposure more than ASBU.

 

So if you'd share, when do you use ASBU and do you use the sharpening and/or grain in ASBU.

 

Thanks for the informative post

 

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, that's funny--I find exactly the opposite in printing very large between the M8 and the 5d, which is not what I expected given the resolution advantage.

 

 

Ditto Jamie... I have a pair of 5D's that I regularly shoot with some of the best Canon glass available, and in my estimation the M8 file is good for two whole print sizes larger than the 5D files.

 

The big secret I have found with the M8 is to NOT oversharpen on conversion -- just a touch is all that's needed, then the file uprezzes very cleanly, like no other. I use my own uprez method, free and described in detail here: Workflow Technique #060 @Digital Outback Photo , though ASBU is clearly an excellent tool too.

 

Cheers,

Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, Jack nails it: you shouldn't oversharpen any digital file on capture.

 

Now we're only talking RAW here, though I suppose some of the principals apply to unsharpened JPEGs (though they have artifacts to begin with, especially often in the blue channel).

 

So with the M8, I found it was easy to oversharpen coming from a RAW Canon 1 / 5d workflow, where the files can take more substantial sharpening without inducing initial artifacts. As a result, my first M8 files didn't upres and print as well as I would have liked.

 

But that was my operator error!

 

I soon realized what Jack has said here, that working on the file at its native resolution without inducing halos was the key (and it is for the 5d too) to getting the best out of very large prints.

 

So, to Neil's question, now I don't use PKS for "capture" sharpening anymore but a very (very) light C1 sharpen. I do what Jack has described--I work the file the way I want it and then use USM in LAB (yeah, I know you can use a luminosity layer--old habits die hard!) I find it easier to control than PKS. But PKS would work, as long as you have a very light hand.

 

I actually hadn't read Jack's article on over-ressing then downressing, but since I know Jack is an exceptionally fine printer I'm going to try that today! It's a truly great idea :)

 

Anyway, I use ASBU as I said, and I do it last, and use their output sharpening to inkjet. For the Lambda, I prefer PKS output sharpening and do that last.

 

Now the interesting thing about Lambda printing is that it does a truly magnificent job at 200ppi if the lab and paper is good. So you're a little ahead there in upressing anyway, with any camera at all!

 

But for really fine work you can feed the machine 400 ppi. The differences aren't jaw-dropping, but they are there, if you have some really fine detail.

 

(oh--make sure you tell your lab to TURN OFF SHARPENING on the Lambda. Got a roll back of 100 square feet that needed to be re-run once :))

 

When I'm going for the big print from the Lambda and maximum output, I will often add very light grain to help the effective accutance. I use ASBU because it's not for "film-like" purposes I'm doing this, but just to mask any noise at these extreme sizes (up to 52" wide from our lab at any length--at 400 ppi) from "small format" cameras.

 

The only exception to the above (there always is one) is BW--where I'd like to upres the file without added grain in ASBU and then apply the ASExposure BW methods. But currently, I'm on 32 bit Windows, and so I generally do the BW conversion first and decide then grain or no grain--thats one reason why Exposure has all those "no grain options" and then upres.

 

I prefer the grain for film looks in ASExposure too, so I can't wait to have, oh, 10 GB of RAM or something to do this once the file is actually at print size and not have to take a break in working. (I know--get a Mac :))

 

Anyway, I hope this helps Neil!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...