M9 18 mp prints A2 format

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No laugh, LCT ... there were sub-10MP MFDB many years ago, such as the 6MP Leaf Valeo 6.

[lct]

No laugh, LCT ... there were sub-10MP MFDB many years ago, such as the 6MP Leaf Valeo 6.

With same resolution as 6x6 film i bet

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jeff S]

Sometimes I wish real life conversations happened the same way as on forums.

 

Scene...unwanted guests staying the weekend. Host asks a question, leaves the room, and doesn't return. Guests happily continue conversation amongst themselves, for days, leading to even better questions and observations. Optional for host to see guests off.

 

Jeff

[vdb]

Sometimes I wish real life conversations happened the same way as on forums.

 

Scene...unwanted guests staying the weekend. Host asks a question, leaves the room, and doesn't return. Guests happily continue conversation amongst themselves, for days, leading to even better questions and observations. Optional for host to see guests off.

 

Jeff

 

Made me laugh:)

[stunsworth]

Optional for host to see guests off

 

At least guests usually leave when you ask them to, not always the case here <grin>.

[Guest malland]

I've had M8 files printed over 1 m wide It is perfectly sharp and well resolved at any reasonable viewing distance, say from 40 cm upwards. And even close up - I can read the number plates on cars that are quite a distance away.

This sort of thread stating that only a picture up to x-by-y size can be printed with camera z is typical internet twaddle by people interested in hardware that are uninterested or incapable of appreciating photographs. Before digital people used to say that the largest enlargement that would make from a 35mm negative was 8x10 or 11x14 inches. But a few years ago I saw an exhibition by Moriyama Daido at the Sydney Biennale in the Gallery of NSW where he had 60 prints made on an Epson wide printer that were 100x150cm (40x60 inches) shot on high-speed film with Ricoh GR1 and GR21 cameras. It's really useless to ask what the maximum print size is possible from any particular camera, whether digital or analog because people's aesthetic perceptions are so different.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project

Edited August 17, 2009 by malland

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes- just the point I tried to make, Mitch (and in several post prior to that one.)

[jonoslack]

It isn't just the camera / the mp / the resolution / the contrast, although all of these things will have an effect

It's the subject as well - some subjects really require high resolution, others simply don't. Some pictures invite you to come close and look at the detail, others simply don't.

 

I have some fine A2+ prints from the humble 6mp Olympus E1 (and I'm sure that others have similar).

 

When you've finished thinking about the subject, there is the viewer! where the picture will be displayed . . . .

 

Trying to lay down absolute limits for print size and mp count or camera is really really arcane and beside the point, there are so many variables which will change with every picture in every situation.

[stunsworth]

Before digital people used to say that the largest enlargement that would make from a 36mm negative was 8x10 or 11x14 inches.

 

I saw the Salgado 'Workers' exhibition a few years ago. Large prints made from Tri-X negatives - hardly the most high resolution of films, they looked superb. Maybe that was because they were taken by a photographer with outstanding technique, and printed by a top class printer, but they showed the potential of the film.

 

I've just dug out some M8 A2 prints I made when I got my Epson 3800, they look perfectly fine to these eyes at least.

[Shootist]

I saw the Salgado 'Workers' exhibition a few years ago. Large prints made from Tri-X negatives - hardly the most high resolution of films, they looked superb. Maybe that was because they were taken by a photographer with outstanding technique, and printed by a top class printer, but they showed the potential of the film.

 

I've just dug out some M8 A2 prints I made when I got my Epson 3800, they look perfectly fine to these eyes at least.

 

Then again you don't know if they were first scanned into a computer and up-rezzed to make the bigger prints.

[ChrisC]

.......Epson inkjet desktop printers typically have a resolution of 2880 × 1440 dpi. However, this refers to the total number of ink droplets printed, and is thus not the printer resolution: as discussed, these droplets are printed in a grid pattern, and it is this grid that actually defines the printer resolution – so, the huge 2880 dpi ‘resolution’ is just marketing hype!........

 

We thus need to find out the resolution of this aforementioned grid of grouped ink droplets. It makes sense that it would be close to the 300 dpi ‘standard’, to match the resolution of the human eye. Also, it has to be divisible into 1440 dpi. That gives us a choice of 240, 288 and 360 ppi. Tests show that 288 ppi consistently gives the best results, regardless of printer settings. So, the native resolution of Epson printers is 288 ppi............

 

At 180 ppi resolution, an M8 image can thus be printed at about A2 (16.5 x 23.5 inches),........

 

For viewing at greater than reading distance (i.e. for prints larger than A2), the resolution requirements are less stringent, as viewers will be further away: fine-art prints for wall display are usually viewed from a distance of at least 2–3 feet. A resolution as low as 120 ppi can still produce arresting images. This means that most people would be impressed by an M8 image as large as 20 x 30 inches, as long as they were viewing it from a few feet away.......

 

Rich - An excellent, generous, concise post; well done.

 

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

[Jeff S]

Then again you don't know if they were first scanned into a computer and up-rezzed to make the bigger prints.

 

Possibly true, but FWIW, I used to regularly print from Tri-X negs, often cropping significantly (since I'm not Salgado), and the resultant 8x10 print looked, print quality-wise, uncropped to my photographer friends. I don't know what the equivalent enlargement would have been, but I bet I could have gone much larger still and retained a very high quality. But, not everyone likes 35mm grain, so large format enthusiasts would likely dismiss.

 

Jeff

[stunsworth]

Then again you don't know if they were first scanned into a computer and up-rezzed to make the bigger prints.

 

I'm pretty sure they were silver prints - though the memory could be playing tricks, it was 2003 or so - the grain was very well defined close up.

[Guest malland]

Then again you don't know if they were first scanned into a computer and up-rezzed to make the bigger prints.

Not sure what point you're making here. The Moriyama 100x150cm prints I referrred to were scanned and printed on the Eposn 9800 — I don't know the paper used — but Moriyama was enthusiastic about the rich, deep blacks. Some years before that I saw a Marc Riboud exhibition in Paris that included a few large silver prints enlarged to the same size: these were nowhere as good as the Moriyama digital prints because of the light dispersion involved in making prints this size using an enlarger. My feeling is that the current Epson wide-format printers make better huge prints than one can get from an enlarger.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Bangkok Hysteria©: Book Project

[markowich]

apparently some m8 owners are in constant need of reassuring themselves that they own the best camera on this planet capable of wall-size prints, showing wonderful resolution which even the best eizos cannot show to us poor pixel peepers in 100% mode...no apparent difference between 24mpx and 10mpx as long as you put leica lenses on the m8....

this thread really redefines physics and should be pointed out to the nobel prize committee.

peter

 

 

 

I've just dug out some M8 A2 prints I made when I got my Epson 3800, they look perfectly fine to these eyes at least.

[markowich]

i forgot to add that this thread is a wonderful confirmation of the fact that many leica m users (amply represented here) belong to a slightly evolved group of lomo artists.

peter

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Peter, that might be exaggerated, Im just saying that my old M8 makes perfectly satisfying prints so far. I have no doubt that 18megapix or 24megapix will make even more satisfying prints. (but I am not sure if I am able to entirely tell the difference)

 

.

[markowich]

Peter, that might be exaggerated, Im just saying that my old M8 makes perfectly satisfying prints so far. I have no doubt that 18megapix or 24megapix will make even more satisfying prints. (but I am not sure if I am able to entirely tell the difference)

 

.

 

bo,

if you bother to make the direct comparism (which takes some work) you will be able to tell the difference easily. i have done it, many times. again, as i have said before, many lomo prints have a lot of artistic value. but that has nothing to do with what is considered 'print quality' (resolution, dynamic range - shadow to highligh transition etc, microcontrast.).

peter

[nugat]

Is impressionist painting "print quality"?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Peter,

 

That seem entirely reasonable to me, and as I said, I have no doubt a larger file will print better on large images. clearly micro-contrast will be positively affected by the more pixels to define details.

 

I was just saying, I did not really feel a need to be re-assured about my camera and lifestyle choices, I know it is a limited technology. I always called prints from my 4x5 "reality factor prints" because of the incredible amount of fine details available even in a huge print, I don't expect the M8 to remotely compte with that, and I surely hope that the new 20+ megapixel cameras blow the M8 away in printing. But I know a couple of guys whith BIG FF 20+ cameras and old nikon / canon glass which honestly do not resolve to the chip, only a few of their lenses actually resolve these chips, the average 5 year old tameron zoom do probably not. So if one plan to shoot 20+ megapix with a nikon and a tameron zoom, that would both be a waste and also Im not so sure if the prints would be gratifying at close inspection. Surely both a high megapix M9 (if such a thing happens) and any nikon/canon/sony/hassleblad etc with premium lenses should create some fantastic images.. As you said, if they don't we would have redefined some basic laws of physics.

 

.