First time poster -- though have perused the site for years.
Last year I acquired the following gear for general photography:
Nikon D750
Zeiss Milvus 50mm
Zeiss Milvus 85mm
Of course, after having had this gear for a short time, I am now dead set on a project, which if all goes well, will end up producing images that could potentially require large prints. I'm now wondering if I should have gone the Medium or Large Format route.
My fundamental question -- how large should I be able print images without losing any quality - assuming people will be viewing the prints in a gallery, with their noses mere inches away from the prints?
I've done a little research -- and from what I can tell -- I'm going to be limited to something like 22" x 33", or thereabouts? I realize this question is a bit vague -- but I'm only looking for a vague, ball-park answer. From looking at other related questions - it seems the most important ingredients to this question are sensor size, lenses, and how the final prints will be viewed -- so for me, those details would be: full frame sensor, zeiss prime lenses -- and perhaps most important, the viewers of the prints might get very close, in a gallery environment.
When one moves to medium/large format -- are the potential print sizes measured in feet instead of inches? Are "mural" (say, 6 x 9 FEET) sized images simply out of the question for images captured by a FF sensor? Do people even exhibit photographs that large? It seems like the (albeit few) famous photographers I've researched recently all use medium/large formats for their large gallery prints.
Another related question -- if a FF sensor is equivalent to the size of 35mm film -- how the heck do they manage to blow it up so large (in a theater) for a movie that was shot with 35mm film?? I'm guessing it has to do with how our brains perceive motion pictures versus a still image?
Thanks!
First time poster -- though have perused the site for years.
Last year I acquired the following gear for general photography:
Nikon D750
Zeiss Milvus 50mm
Zeiss Milvus 85mm
Of course, after having had this gear for a short time, I am now dead set on a project, which if all goes well, will end up producing images that could potentially require large prints. I'm now wondering if I should have gone the Medium or Large Format route.
My fundamental question -- how large should I be able print images without losing any quality - assuming people will be viewing the prints in a gallery, with their noses mere inches away from the prints?
When one moves to medium/large format -- are the potential print sizes measured in feet instead of inches?
Are "mural" (say, 6 x 9 FEET) sized images simply out of the question for images captured by a FF sensor?
Another related question -- if a FF sensor is equivalent to the size of 35mm film -- how the heck do they manage to blow it up so large (in a theater) for a movie that was shot with 35mm film?? I'm guessing it has to do with how our brains perceive motion pictures versus a still image?
MFD covers a wide range, from 37.5 MP Leica S, over 50 MP 1.3X crop up to full frame at 100 MP.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik --
What is "MFD"?
Thanks,
Brandt
Hi Brandt,
Medium Format Digital. Everything larger that full frame.
I may have misunderstood your posting, sorry in that case!
Best regards
Erik
SLT 99 | 24 MP | 22"x33" |
P45+ (older MFD) | 39MP | 30"x40" |
A7rII | 42MP | 29"x44" |
IQ350 (50 MP MFD) | 50 MP | 34"x46" |
IQ3100MP (highest resolution MFD) | 100MP | 48"x64" |
Another related question -- if a FF sensor is equivalent to the size of 35mm film -- how the heck do they manage to blow it up so large (in a theater) for a movie that was shot with 35mm film?? I'm guessing it has to do with how our brains perceive motion pictures versus a still image?
135 film prints, even from pushed Tri-X, were displayed in galleries world over for half a century, and never the critics complained about excess grain. It simply was part of the medium. Now it seems people (artists, that is) are worried if the prints are not technically perfect and pixels invisible, as it has became a real possibility to produce large detailed prints with relatively compact and cheap digital cameras. I think the message should be more important than the medium, unless one is striving for an over realistic "photorealism" in the real sense of the word. Then maybe a 50-100 MPix mid format camera would serve better, or maybe 8x10", or larger, film. Otherwise any decent digital camera is good enough.True, the message is more important to get people to walk over, but if they do walk over and find it lacking they usually walk away. Film grain being visible is more acceptable than square pixels. Probably because they were a bit random and "artistic".
The best way to know is to do a test print. Print something based on that subject matter to the size you want. That's honestly the best way to decide. If it works, yo will know, if something doesn't work for you, then hopefully it will guide you towards what needs to be adjusted...
Thank you guys for posting.
I am trying to find someone who has shot Canon 5ds at 50MP and compared the quality with Hasselblad 50MP back or Phase One 50MP back.
Anyone knows of a review out there?
Thank you
Rafal
Thank you guys for posting.
I am trying to find someone who has shot Canon 5ds at 50MP and compared the quality with Hasselblad 50MP back or Phase One 50MP back.
Anyone knows of a review out there?
Thank you
Rafal
True, the message is more important to get people to walk over, but if they do walk over and find it lacking they usually walk away. Film grain being visible is more acceptable than square pixels. Probably because they were a bit random and "artistic".