Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
davidada

30 x 40 inch M8 Prints

Recommended Posts

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.

 

It is an amazing file, but now I'm more curious to see a picture of your cat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Jack failed to tell us is that it's a shot of a black cat ... LOL : -)

 

LOLOLOLOL! Hi Marc! Actually the cat is as she looks in real life -- it's my burgundy Jeep that appears to be the problem!

 

 

(Kidding! The Jeep is black

)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Hi Guy!

 

For sure -- had I stopped down to f4, this would have been more impressive -- but really not too bad as it is.

 

Sorry to hear of your scanner>OS woes... If you were still PC I could help you, but I am Mac OS illiterate.

 

Cheers, Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

I'm back and running, just removed the twain plug- in from PS and at least i am running PS again otherwise it was a big problem. Anyway back on topic , I'm dying to see a large print from these files, I have to say my DMR maybe leading a lonely life. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a picture from this morning of the photographer William Christenberry and artist Yankel Ginzberg at the studio, both after looking at my 30x40 M8 prints.

Bill is a famous user of everything from brownies to 8x10 view cameras and his new book published by aperture was voted one of the four most important books of the year by Time. I asked him what he thought of the prints and his quote was " I thought I was looking at prints from an 8x10 neg" his next question was can I get one of these camera's now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David

 

Thank you for posting again, there are aspects to this thread that I have found inspirational.

 

I have a question regarding the up-sizing of files for large print output that I don't think has been covered. Whilst you usually, no doubt, have to work with the file size that a client supplies, I was wondering if you would prefer files to be Photoshop finished after being up-sized to maximum print file size? If you have observed differences [in large prints] between the two up-sizing work-paths I would be grateful for your comments.

 

Your sincerely..............Chris

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

 

Jack--great cat shot

 

And I couldn't agree more with your "holy crap" moment.

 

I've had a ton of those since shooting the M8... like the moment I saw the jet liner details actually leading a tiny vapour stream in a 28mm shot. Or a smile on someone's face in an underexposed dark alley by Toronto streetlights... or the raw details of some leaves with the 50 1.4...

 

I immediately thought wow. My DMR doesn't do this. My 1ds2 doesn't do this. Nothing I've ever scanned (and I have a 35 mm dedicated Nikon scanner, but please note the qualification "I've scanned") looks remotely like this.

 

Then I got around to comparing, mentally, higher res. medium format digital and film scans I've had made...

 

But then I caught myself in the comparison thinking, well, Leica knocked this right out of the park, really and truly.

 

If they can fix the other things, well, as Guy says, the DMR may be getting very lonely and only used for shots over 80mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also thanks from me. Very nice texture subject in my opinion. And anybody willing to take an M8 image to 30 x 40 is to be listened to.

 

Are you in the picture of the print examiners? I'm guessing the triumphant smile is yours.

 

--HC

 

 

the 'maximal' printsize depends of course on the amount of information contained in the picture. i have 80x50 (inches) D2x prints which are wonderful but you easily notice loss of detail, if you photograph a group of people and print at, say, 30x20 inches. obviously, the same applies to the m8. low information pictures can be upsized a lot, high information pictures less. max print size of m8 files is more or less identical to max print size of D200 files, but depends for all cameras decisively on the amount of information contained in the file.

all this is an application of shannon's information (entropy) theory.

peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

I've printed one of Jono's files to 24x35. unfortunately while setting up a dedicated B&W printer i deselected the correct icc profile.

 

the good news is i printed a 16x20 in wonderful color on my HP DJ 130nr

 

the bad news is i printed a poor color 24x35. and of course ran out of LM ink.

 

net though, the IQ at 24x35 is scary good.

 

I did use alien blowup and found it much better than my last try at fractals.

 

fwiw i printed the 16x20 based on opening the file to that size directly from raw using acr.

 

the look is so film-like and not at all "digital"

 

i don't want to get into a canon/ nikon/..... debate but the only digital files i've found to have similar qualities are the Kodak SLR/c (no aa filter) and a couple medium format files i played with (no aa filter). and the leica files are cleaner in the shadows than the kodak unless using the longer mode.

 

i'm hoping leica doesn't overdo it with "the fix" whatever it may be.

 

kindly

 

bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will jump in her with a little info in that the Epson's work best with fewer clogs in a higher humidity environment of 50% or so. In drier conditions, the chances for clogging go way up, at least witht the 9600's.

 

Thanks for this info. So this could be why I'm going through so much bloody ink with my R2400 - have to clean it almost every time I use it, which perhaps isn't often enough. Humidity yesterday was 15% - in spring! Still, rather a nice environment for keeping lenses in tip top condition.

 

A very good thread this. Regards, Rick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have found that a combination of Alien skin blow up and Exposure allows me to craft the look I want much better than fractals.

There are several handcrafted touches that I do depending on the file and output size, so I prefer to get the file in its raw state - I do use C1 to slightly upsize in that I select 360 as the output dpi - then alien skin- then exposure- then a few other tweaks. Then I output at either 1440 or 2880 depending on the size.

Hope this helps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, or??

 

does anyone know the best original file for the designjet 130? i generally use 300 but have been using 360 on my epson targeted work for a while.

 

bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The common wisdom is to use a divisible of the output resolution do that fractional interpolation is not required ie. 360 is a factor of 1/4 for 1440. 180 is an 1/8th , I am not sure what the design jet print res is , but when you find out try this and see if it makes a difference. We are really splitting hairs here the difference in the Epson between 300 and 360 is tiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for this info. So this could be why I'm going through so much bloody ink with my R2400 - have to clean it almost every time I use it, which perhaps isn't often enough. Humidity yesterday was 15% - in spring! Still, rather a nice environment for keeping lenses in tip top condition.

 

A very good thread this. Regards, Rick.

 

Well, 15% humidity is pretty dry. I don't know about the R2400, but the larger Current versions of the Epsons such as the 9800 use a pressurized ink system, unlike my 9600. I would think this would have helped solve some of the older Epsons propensity for clogging. I have also found that with every single Epson printer I have used for the past 10 years, they all perform much better with fewer clogs when they are used routinely and clog terribly when not used often. I have not used the newer series(ala 9800) so I don't know if this has also been fixed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, I have found that a combination of Alien skin blow up and Exposure allows me to craft the look I want much better than fractals.

 

Hi Dave

 

What are you tweaking in Aperture you cannot do in PS or Blowup ?

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