Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
davidada

30 x 40 inch M8 Prints

Recommended Posts

Guest guy_mancuso

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know that the lamdba does have a good uprezing software built into the machine and can work with lower DPI , but i really am not qualified to speak of printing. i do very little of it except for clients and i had 2 clients that ordered about 60 in total and they were really well done on the Lamda. I hire folks like David or a great lab for this type of work. Most of my stuff is prepress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"My remark about "arrogance" was with respect to David's comment "I don't know how you make your living - but I make mine by producing exhibition prints for the world's leading image makers, do you?"

 

From such a statement, it necessarily follows that one cannot be considered one of the world's leading image makers unless David prints their images (by David's definition). I am in no way suggesting that I am in this exclusive group, but this comment implies that one cannot be a part of this group unless they engage David's services as a printer."

 

I think you're misreading what he said. He's stating the extent of his experience in printing and asking about yours. Nowhere in there does it "necessarily" follow that you cannot be considered one of the world's "leading imagemakers" nor does it imply the rest of your statement here.

 

You're suspicion is legit though and I think a couple of others have pointed that out. BUT, calling it hype is a stretch. Fact is, we'd have to see one of David's prints to really pass judgement in the end. Until then, we can inquire and ask questions, but hold off on calling it "hype." I think his credentials can at least spare us that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest stnami

.. so what are we advertising here, printers, prints, printmakers cameras or egos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.. so what are we advertising here, printers, prints, printmakers cameras or egos?

 

The right to question an 'extraordinary' statement.

 

David's findings of the M8 files was quite unexpected and appears to undermine most people's experience. His information is welcome and to his credit he has completely demonstrated it with his posts to my joy. However, I am not even an intermediate standard printer and I continue to be puzzled how this little sensor can undermine all MF & LF equipment. (overstatement).

 

Give or take the odd word in Leicaman's and David's response, this is a very healthy challenge and one we should enjoy. Someone, who has more experience than most of us, is prepared to step up and tell the Emperor he has no clothes on. Leicaman will be delighted to be proved wrong, I'm sure.

 

There is no need for the 'LUF clique' to jump to defend this Master Printer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter who does the printing, it is who does the looking that counts in the end.

 

I have found a wide range of opinions concerning the film look verses the digital look ... a source of endless debate. So, the criteria of the viewer becomes of paramount importance in evaluating the merits of each medium.

 

I am always suspicious of "blanket statements" one way or the other.

 

However, if a print maker has satisified the eye of their client, that is the end of it, there is no debate.

 

This doesn't mean anyone one else need agree.

 

I shoot with an Imacon 39 meg Medium format back using Zeiss glass. I assure you the M8 files are no match for it regardless of post technique. I also shoot MF film using the same Zeiss glass, and scan with a Imacon 949. These files are different in character than those from the digital back, but are in their own right every bit the equal to anything from current state of the art digital capture ... based on my viewing criteria as well as that of my paying clients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dear people.....

 

there is nothing against david...

not from my pint of view at least....

i see who is david and that is exactly the reason why i reacted to him and his statements.....

 

but it is your choice and your knowledge to put things in perspective or not....

 

if u look for comfirmation that m8 is great camera and u need psycological support then we are not talking about facts here... u look for some authority that will provide u the psycological solutions....

 

but there are other people who do have knowledge and expeirence about photography.....

and finally i see that some other experienced people give their voices too....

so at least im not the only RUDE and NEGATIVE here :-)))))))))))))))))))))

 

please read facts... read ARGUMENTS......

if u r so emotional about m8 than just go and buy and make photos with it..... but arguments should be taken without emotions... there is experince, logic and common-sense to evaluate arguments....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nkag and Mark: Agreed. Skeptical as I am about M8/4x5 comparisons, I'll have to withhold further comment until I've been able to see the files.

 

David is using newer technology in the 9800 and his interpolation method is different as well. Being a master printmaker he has other techniques that give his images the edge that clients recognize. I look forward to seeing further comparisons as I'm just having a hard time dismissing everything my eyes have ever witnessed.

 

I for one would like to learn any way to improve large print output of DMR files... and David has been very generous with his comments. Apologies to David.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to be leicaman

 

If anything, a good dose of skepticism is healthy in the face of those who've gone Punch Drunk Leica.

 

David - thanks again for the know-how and look forward to more posts from ya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I qualified what I did for a living and who I print for it was a virtual way of giving substance to what unfortunately I cannot do and that is to show the actual prints.

No offense was taken. I have worked in this field since the dawn of digital and often suffered the slings and arrows of my photographic fellows during the set up the first fine art computer lab at Corcoran school of art in 1983.

The staff of the Photo dept would stop by my fledgling class and fall around laughing as we experimented with the begining of digital capture and scanning. I told them quite bluntly the writing was on the wall and this will be main stream photography in 10 years. Well as always I was over enthusiastic it took 20 years.

I have added a new shot I processed this morning with a crop of detail, wish you could see the real thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Hell i'm ready to place a order for a second M8 . These files are something else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad everybody is back together

 

If you've looked at as many film scans and as many native digital files as I (or David) have, then I think you can easily understand David's "good as scanned 4x5" comment -- that was essentially my initial reaction when I first saw the M8 native file. (Actually, my reaction was more like "Holy Crap! This is an awesome file -- looks like scanned 4x5!")

 

I actually recall a similar argument between the DMR file and scanned Medium Format film when the DMR was released.

 

Anyway, in reality -- and I'm sure David would agree -- scanned 4x5 is going to show more detail in a 32-inch print of the same scene. But I think the point is that image quality is not all about detail. The M8 file is so darn good, you probably won't see detail differences at normal viewing distances (32x print) and you probably will have to have identical prints side-by-side and stick your nose in them to see the detail differences. And then you still might prefer the M8 file since it is so clean and smooth and renders the coarser detail so well.

 

FWIW sidebar note on grain: The bit of grain I add to a digital file is finer than the native grain would be from the film scan -- regardless of what film and what scanner you used to generate the 4x5 file. I can also make it more even. Grain enhances the perception of detail which is why this technique works so well in larger digital prints. The fact the grain is finer and more even in the M8 print than the scanned film print will lead many to interpert it as the more finely detailed print even if it isn't.

 

Cheers and my .02 only,

 

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I'd add a large print crop of my own to validate my comments above... This is a handheld shot of my cat using the 35 Cron ASPH wide open at f2... I'll use links because the images are large.

 

Here is the full image: Cat, full M8 image

 

Here is a screen shot viewing a portion of that image at print size for a 30x44 inch print at 360PPI -- in other words you are looking at about a 10"x14" section of what would be a 30" x 44" print. (And it could even be a 60"x88" print if I printed this same file at 180PPI instead of 360...) Moreover please note that I did NOT do ANY sharpening(!) in post nor did I add grain. This is as-shot out of the M8 -- and at f2 with the 35 Cron Asph. And yes, I can make it even better, but wanted to show just how good the native M8 file is: Cat at 30x44 inches

 

Cheers, Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack

 

It does have amazing detail but I would like to know how you got a shot of my cat. At least it is the twin to mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is an excellent example of why I choose to mostly lurk on these photography message boards. So much time and bandwidth wasted dissecting the minutiae of other people's comments. Ugh. I realize that many of you enjoy all this banter, and the contributions of people like Sean Reid and Guy Mancuso among many others do make scavengering through these posts very worthwhile. It is unfortunate that so much of this goes into petty misunderstanding.

 

David Adamson never said that the M8 files are superior to drum scanned 4X5 film. He is only commenting on the prints he is making. They are 27X40" images on Museo Max, a rag "fine art" paper with a vellum-like surface. These parameters and many others affect the final print output. He is not "pixel-peeping" as Charles Cramer and perhaps some of you seem to enjoy doing. Cramer admits that in his 30X40 prints the differences were negligible. There were too many admitted compromising variables in Cramer's evaluation for it to be anything more than for entertainment purposes. Done properly, my guess is that the P45 would blow the 4X5 out of the water, but only on sheer resolution, and as we all know there's more to life than just resolution, right?

 

These days I only shoot 4X5 and DMR (with the occasional R-D1 when needed). All my 4X5 gets drum scanned. As good as these scans are, my DMR files can stand up to them at 27X40. Any larger is doubtful.

 

Please remember that there are excellent reasons other than resolution for shooting large format, such as scaling & perspective, lens and film characteristics, shooting style, among countless others. I much prefer 4X5 (for its "look") but at times I need some flexibility that large format cannot afford me, and I do not want to take too hard a hit on final print quality.

 

Comparing drum scanned film and digital capture files is pointless, as all of you experts should know by now. They are both capable of excellent quality, particularly when worked on by master printmakers. Adamson knows how to make some of the best prints. He knows how to print M8 files to 27X40 and get results comparable to those he gets from 4X5 drum scans. We should be quite pleased with his findings. And he has shared details of his methodology so we can acheive similar results ourselves. As a large format photographer (and future M8 owner, waiting patiently with my DMR and R-D1 until things iron out) I do not feel threatened by this prospect. 35mm scan quality, even drum scans, cannot perform to this level. 30X40 is the new 16X20. I think these new Leica digital pro tools absolutely rock.

 

-Carlos Loret de Mola

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Jack just imagine if you stopped down.

 

 

 

I have big troubles just installed a flat bed scanner for a project and now my twain plugin is screwed for PS and i have a book due Monday. This is not a good leica day. Mac Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Sean. It's takes a while to go over all that is being posted here and I just got to your welcome. Like most others, I'm here to learn and contribute when appropriate. Thanks again!

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...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy