Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
davidada

30 x 40 inch M8 Prints

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A quick tip for epson users - the printer makes its best imaging at either 360 dpi or 180dpi

the difference is really minimal.

Try 180dpi and you will be surprised by the results

180 at 27 x 40 (that is the M8 format) is about 100 megs as opposed to 200megs for the 360 and the file does not have as much interpolation.

Shorter RIP times etc,etc

 

Is this true for most Epson printers? I use an Epson 4000 with Imageprint rip and usually have used 300 dpi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... im working on my thesis in epistemology and i have no mood and pataince to do websites now....

 

who cares... besides, you seem to have a lot of "pataince" to hang around in forums.

 

david, your input is much appreciated and the file you chose makes perfect sense. that said, I like people who are passionate about what they do and want to share their passion with others. I don't understand how people can be so negative about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this true for most Epson printers? I use an Epson 4000 with Imageprint rip and usually have used 300 dpi.

 

I have a 4000 PRO and use the ImagePrint IP too, but they reccommend a setting of 360 dpi for best results. It is stated somewhere in the manual however I couldn't find just now, but I can assure you that the results are very, very good. I mainly do fine art B&W prints and this setting works!

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a 4000 PRO and use the ImagePrint IP too, but they reccommend a setting of 360 dpi for best results. It is stated somewhere in the manual however I couldn't find just now, but I can assure you that the results are very, very good. I mainly do fine art B&W prints and this setting works!

Regards

 

Thanks for the info I will try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is true of all of the Epson printers

I have done extensive testing and print comparisons and the difference is minimal and then only if you know what to look for, for instance one can print a file at 180 that is subjectively superior than one at 360 depending on the scanner.

Also whether one chooses to print at 1440 or 2880dpi has a similar effect ie. on a gallery wall under glass probably no one would be able to detect any difference- under close scrutiny by an expert, yes.

You have to take in all of the factors if you are producing 11x14 or 16x20 exhibition pictures then use 360 and 2880, if you are producing a 40 x 60 prints that will be viewed from 2 or 3 feet the no difference will be seen at 180dpi

Again you choose the most appropriate workflow for a variety of reasons, viewing distance, file size and availability and subject matter - one can print clouds as large as you like, however, close up's of fine textural details may limit you to higher resolutions both at the source and output stages.

Experiment and have fun we are in the great age of vintage digital!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

davida....

 

man.. your answer about epson optimal usage, and then a little remark about interpolation is great.. sure...

also, a very good remark about the optimal viewing conditions and intent of the print acording to viewing conditions.. very true and i agree with u totallyy... in one of the previous threads on this forum, i had a relativly extended discussion about printing and differeances between silvergelatin prints (and also platinum) and digital prints and the variable of optimal viewing element was one of the most important factors in my exerience... dont remember where it is but if u r intrested i can find it for u....

 

now, i said a word after leica offisal response to m8 that untill leica will not come with the next response about the camera problems, i will not talk anymore about m8 meanwhile... it is a matter of lovce to leica and a matter to give them another chance, as if nothing happened (although what happened is not exactly ignorable, both on emotional levle, and on profesional ethic level from the side of leica).

 

so ask once again and no more....

 

HOW LEICA M8 FILES ARE EQUAL OR BETTER THAN 4X5" FORMAT ?????

 

ignoring this question = admiting.... those who have a little knowledge and are a little retional people will understand it... those who think that lieca is not an amazing camera but actually a much more - a all-mighty camera will never understand it and will see this question as negative comment about leica..

i dont understand... what people think.... that those acordion like looking cameras are old vintage junks??? that those lenses from schneider are junk???

 

response about epson and your willingness are not the answer..... u r a serious proffesional man as i understand, and u have far more resposibility for your words than hobbist/fan/fanatic who will read everything possitve about leica as granted.

and also, to gane some new clients is also great, which is no problem of course. :-))))

 

but the question remains....

 

some people talk about me as being negative... read carefully what i write.... am i negative???? am i negative becasue anything that is not super possitive about leica is not valuable ??? i will not continue about this... i can become a real RUDE....

 

some other people asked about the sourse of my knowledge about those photographic issue....

well.. it is a god-given-gift... oh, and additionaly to it, it is alot of hard work, direct experience and a knowledge that i ganed thanks to many people i work with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

holy toledo

 

the textures so nice it looks like they troweled it on

 

thanks from me..

 

Riley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vic Vic - I am not avoiding your question it just seems you have a very fixed point of view which is OK.

As you know I have access to really good equipment and when I said the M8 file looked as good as a 4x5 scan perhaps better it was stated from actual viewable files.

I had finished a 4x5 scan and in comparing the two the M8 was as good. Is this true of all 4x5's ?

The M8 was 160 iso and I will have to check the 4x5 when I get back to the studio, but again sharpness and lack of film grain plus the techniques I use for printing workflow gave the visual edge to the final printed images between the two.

I hope this ends this I value your opinions but I have my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I hesitate to jump into this thread but I can't resist

 

Davidada - I happen to really like your picture, and I appreciate your input here - a person with your skills is a rare and valuable contributor. Same for you, Sean.

 

I am gobsmacked at the level of rudeness and ignorance shown by some posters here. I guess that's the price of free speech

 

And vic, if you want to find something to REALLY waste your time on - try philosophy. And remember, Wittgenstein committed suicide.

 

Now, I've got that off my chest, apologies to anyone who might be offended.

 

By the way, no one doubts that a 5x4 inch scanned tranny has more information than a 10MP file - the issue, however, is whether it makes any difference to the final print. We have an expert who is saying that, in practice it doesn't. I'm not in a position to argue the case, but I do know when to keep my mouth shut...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all:

 

I'm relatively new here, but also print large, digitally, and from a a variety of file sources.

 

Let me first say, the M8 file is the *best* native digital file I have ever seen, period. Next, I'll agree the M8 file approaches scanned 4x5 in quality -- to the point the advantages of the 4x5 scan are academic with respect to a final print. And yes, I know that is a big statement.

 

One thing David did not mention in his scanned 4x5 to M8 file-to-print comment is the unique combination of smoothness and detail you get from scanned 4x5 but usually do not get from a direct digital file when it is printed large (unless you work the heck out of it in post). For whatever reason, the M8 file carries that characteristic of smoothness along with remarkable detail.

 

FWIW, color neg film is sharper than color tranny films of similar ISO (and by a fairly significant margin), but color neg films show more significant grain, even with low ISO emulsions. Hence, a scanned chrome will be smoother and show less grain than a color neg scan, but the color neg scan will have more detail -- in the end you pick your poison.

 

Good work David, thanks for posting -- and I like the shot!

 

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jack - that is the point I was trying to make, having said that not all source materials are of equal quality.

A lot depends on the original source whether it is digital or analog , factors such a film stock / iso / development technique all play into this.

I am sure that certain 4x5 scanned negatives or positives will perform better than M8 dng files, what I found remarkable is that the M8 held this ground quite easily, after all it is a 10 megapixel camera AKA my remark on the D200 being unable to do this. I was comparing apples to apples.

Maybe I should have taken an absolute stance which will probably create more flaming and said the M8 outperforms by a wide margin any 35mm film stock I have ever scanned!

 

On a different note the M8 is such a joy to use and carry around I have an old contax camera bag quite small and I can pack the M8 plus three lenses and various bits and pieces in and the whole package seems to weigh about as much as my D200, also for the first time in years I don't feel like a Paparazzi when I am out shooting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi David,

 

Thanks for the post and info

 

Just a quick question about the color: There's a lot of magenta (at least on my monitor) in the shadow area in the foreground. How much did you tweak the color of the file before printing? I understand it was morning and so you will have blue in the shadows but that's quite strong blue with a twist of magenta in the foreground. I'm one of those who don't have the M8 yet, but am curious about how it handles colors. Have you found that you've had to pull back on the saturation as I've read from a couple of other users? Thanks for taking the time to post here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember there was an intense amount of blue from the wall reflected onto the parking lot

the parking lot was typical macadam slightly wet and with a lot of oil on the surface.

To be honest, I have been using PS for so long now that my workflow is instinctual i.e. I do not really see the file until it is on my monitor in C1 - then I decide how I want it to look by choosing the white point etc, I have found that you do not have to apply any noise reduction or sharpness, if I find the file needs sharpening it would be the last step I would makeafter deciding on output size.

I process in 16 bit, larger files but greater latitude for correction if needed, I opened up the shadows on this image, set the white point from the sign and that was all.

Processed the file as a 10 x 7 at 360dpi - then used Alien skin blow up to rez up and added a tiny amount of grain to subdue any artifacts then printed at 28 x 40.

As far as I remember I did not touch the saturation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply and info David - your workflow info is appreciated too

 

One other question if you've got the time for it: When you're adding grain to subdue artifacts, are you using a plug-in (i.e. Exposure) or are you just adding noise in PS? I haven't printed up to 30 X 40 before and I'm wondering what type of artifacts you have to deal with. Thanks again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, you can add grain in blow up or exposure.

Exposure has a much greater facility of managing the grain structure so that is what I generallly use.

 

As to why - I find it analogous to adding dithered noise into a digital recording, just as our ears perceive a smoothing and easier to listen to sound by this process. I think adding grain structure allows us to read gradients as well as digital artifacts such as steps on hard diagonals in a pleasing manner.

 

Also with the M8 DNG files this is a very small adjustment and the grain is not perceptible on viewing the final print, it is almost subliminal. Remember that once the printers RIP takes over the files are being re-rendered and printed at 2880 dpi with a stochastic dot pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think adding grain structure allows us to read gradients as well as digital artifacts such as steps on hard diagonals in a pleasing manner."

 

Got it - I figured this is what you meant. I usually add a very slight touch of grain to 100 ISO files (from DSLRs) anyway just for that touch of texture. Thanks again for the responses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

davidd hi..

 

man.. read this:

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/7687-reasons-not-go-digital.html

im sure if we were face to face we could rather have a very nice chat about this stuff... so read it in this nice mood......

im sure u will understand what and how i see printing....

man... im not printer per-se and i dont run printing busnesses.. in fact, in my place i dont even have high end digi post production scanner or printer... so i use services with people like u when needed of course.....

but im of those type of photographers who go with my photos all along... thinkling about them and imagining them, without camera and up to making the final print... if not everything is always done by me myself, then at least i accompany my work along... so i do have some knowledge about printing wether darkroom or digital :-))))))))))))

so, who knows.. when in NY, u may print my pics :-)))))))))))

 

 

ah... now it depends on the stuff u use for 4x5.. ???????

ok, also agree with u.. lets take for example....

linhof, with apo-symar-L schneider lens on it...

and lets take ....... ok.. provia film on it...... (it is one of my fave film today after no more agfa rsx and also it is eassy to work with after scaning in case u want to take it more towrds astia, or alternativly valvia.. very flexible and high quality almost like astia quality)... ah, and of course developed in e6 - the real 6 step kodak stuff.

good enough? it is not 100 years old 4x5 of course :-))))))))))

u want b/w....... ok.... lets take ilford fp4 either in rodinal or id-11...

or lets take the super-sexy film - kodak tri-x (4x5 320iso) for realy hot film look in case of big format...

:-))))

 

we may keep on this stuff in more cinstructive way :-))))

 

and as by the way maybe some people here too can benefit from it instead of reading - leica m8 is better than 4x5 film..... u know.... it is very sensetive situation now with all that people hear and read about what happened....

it is my beleif that realistic and construsctive attitude to those things (leica issues) will only benefit leica in this situation and maybe and hopefully the promise will come true ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davida..

 

[ The image posted is not meant to be anything other than a quick technical example of print and lens/camera quality ]

 

ya.. so u want to show us the super quality of the print on the monitor over the inertent, and u want to show us a super performance of lens and sensor on tiny internet file ?????

another joke....

 

[ Looks like a 4x5 scan (maybe even better) ! ]

 

again... im full and blind... it is only me who cannot see how inferior is current 4x5 photography compared to small digital cameras in the hands of brand fanatics....

are u serious about this statement????

man... i have files from LEAF APTUS and IMACON/HASSELBLAD digi backs... they dont really look like 4x5" photogrpahy.. not even close to their richness and depth.... can u explain me what is my problem with my eyes that i see things wrongly...

 

small leica camera look like 4x5 print or even better ... my god...

first let leaf and hassleblad to aproach a bot closer to what one can see on 4x5, if they can reach it at all in near future or any time.... rite now, even 6x6 looks richer basically and with more depth that characterises a good slide film.

 

you know Victor - you make me tired with your thoughts !!!

 

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am gobsmacked at the level of rudeness and ignorance shown by some posters here. I guess that's the price of free speech

Phil--

I think it has more to do with upbringing. Free speech doesn't mean a person is allowed to be childish.

 

--HC

Share this post


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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...