P1 trichromatic

[cgarnerhome]

I guess I don’t see the camera manufactures milking anybody.  I for one, love all the progress Phase One is making even if the trichromatic is arguably a minor change for most of us.  At the end of the day, it’s my choice as to whether I want to lay out the money for the next upgrade.  I like having choices.  I can always so no or try to

[Wayne Fox]

Granted P1 will have to milk the more colour accurate photographers first, then further milk those who realise their 100MP backs are too low in resolution.

How are they "milking" anyone?  They engineer an improvement, offer it in a back, cut the price of the current back. They're not making anyone buy it. It's not like they design their backs so they die and force you to upgrade each year. No different than most electronic companies ... they sell something, incrementally improve it over time and introduce new models with those improvements.  Some people want the improvements, others are fine using the one that's 3 years old.

What are they supposed to do?  Because it's not enough of a upgrade in some peoples mind are they supposed to just put it on the shelf and forget about it?

As far as MP, no 100mp isn't enough. It only prints at 129dpi on a 90" print.  So I stitch with a 100mp frequently.  But even 150mp isn't enough.  What I want is a 400mp sensor that uses pixel binning to give me a 100mp file.  then we might have accurate color and cleaner detail.  or a 100mp sensor where each sensel records the color and no more bayer demosaicing artifacts.

[NancyP]

I admit that I am curious - who uses a 90" print and expects that the print be viewed from 18" away?. I get that increased resolution looks better, but past a certain point, people at conventional viewing distances can't see the improved resolution.

[cgarnerhome]

Nancy

I believe your question has been discussed numerous times in different posts so I don't want to repeat it all here.  There are many other benefits to XF100 file size other than just resolution.  For me, in addition to more resolution, it's primarily the increased dynamic range and the work-ability of the files.

[bbrantley]

I admit that I am curious - who uses a 90" print and expects that the print be viewed from 18" away?. I get that increased resolution looks better, but past a certain point, people at conventional viewing distances can't see the improved resolution.

I certainly do.  I shoot mostly landscape-abstracts, generally printed wide and big.  Part of the attraction of these images, for me at least, is the ability to see a big concept at a normal distance and then lots of detail at another.

To pull off the effect, I find > 200ppi necessary, or something like 150m to 200m high quality pixels.  If multishot resolution still delivers the same improvement at 100MP sensor densities as it does on the older CCD backs, I think a single frame from a 100MP MS setup would also work, excepting aspect ratio.
 
So I'm with Wayne.

When we move to electronic display one day, densities will easily exceed 500ppi, and that will offer a whole new experience.

[tim wolcott]

Your right everyone needs a camera for different reasons.  I have the IQ3 100 and love it.  It really helped being able to push it 3 stops especially when shooting trees and things that move with little wind.  The 3 stops make a ton of difference and was a game changer.  The trip back does have great color.  If you can afford the new one then get it.  But if you can't get the older backs, they are great and the tonal transitions and dynamic range are amazing.  And they are cheaper a lot cheaper than the new ones and you can still use those amazing blue ring lenses.  All the backs are great but you have to be able to afford what ever you can get.  Tim

[vjbelle]

So right about dynamic range.  That is one of the strongest benefits for the 3100.  I have yet to have to shoot multiple exposures to gain the dynamic range that I need.  As far as printing is concerned I normally print to 48 inches on the long side and always upsize prior to sending the file to the printer unless I'm using Qimage.  For my eyes and my uses that is the limit for a single shot 3100 file and most of the time my 48 inch images are 2 shot pano's.  I see post after post about printing to some outrageous size at 150ppi or less and that they think the image looks great.  My visual benchmarks are very different and more demanding than that.

Victor

[Wayne Fox]

I admit that I am curious - who uses a 90" print and expects that the print be viewed from 18" away?. I get that increased resolution looks better, but past a certain point, people at conventional viewing distances can't see the improved resolution.

What’s a conventional viewing distance?

Someone buys a 90” print to put in the 5 or 6 foot wide hall in their office.  People will see it up close.  Salt Lake airport has prints on display and when you are on the moving walkway it puts you as close as 24” from the print.  There are some that look quite bad.  So should I use a lower resolution camera and just not sell to people who can’t restrict it from being viewed up close? Of course if its too low of resolution and looks bad up close (I print hundreds of images a year at my camera store which fall into this category), doesn’t that reflect on me as the artist as the quality of my work?

And who’s to say because a print is 90” that the only thing interesting to look at is the entire print?  What if there are portions that draw you in and you want to get closer to see that section better?

I watch people walk through my gallery.  For years the “conventional” wisdom is only photographers look at the work up close.  absolutely not true, several of my pieces are often viewed, then examined more closely, usually followed up by them stepping back to take in the entire image again.  Very common.

Obviously if the image up close is poor, there is nothing to enjoy.

[tim wolcott]

From the time we were designing the pigment printing process of Evercolor and the when we designed pigment inkjet the viewing distance was always 2 feet.  Thats how all processes were compared to each other.  WE all prints to look great from the distance you can see the whole print at its closest point.  But yes a lot of people will more as close as 2 feet to the prints to see close up detail.

Whats funny before Evercolor and then inkjet, Iris and then Lightjet is there was no good processes except for Silver, platinum.  But they were never really as sharp as what we are looking at today.

"Apparent Resolution" is what we called it in the old days 1991-2000.

[Jim Kasson]

Whats funny before Evercolor and then inkjet, Iris and then Lightjet is there was no good processes except for Silver, platinum.  But they were never really as sharp as what we are looking at today.

By my lights, we don't have any print media as sharp as a good silver (say, Azo) contact print as were commonly made from 8x10 negs. I have several, as well as one Michael Smith 8x20 contact print.

As those weren't as sharp as first gen 8x10 'chromes. I still have some of those.

Jim

[NancyP]

Sorry for bringing up the topic. I visit this subforum to look at other people's images in the personal works and professional works threads. 99.9% of digital medium format is for pros, anyway, although I suppose a few amateurs go for the under-10K set-ups. I admit to a bit of eyeballing the Pentax 645Z and a few lenses - those can be rented for less than an arm and a leg.

[Graham Welland]

Nancy,

I would counter that 90% of MF shooters are well heeled amateurs who want the best and can afford it. True pros, on the whole, use far less esoteric equipment unless it's rented. The pro's using the best equipment boat sailed long ago IMHO.

With respect to the Trichromatic, it's very interesting to me but to be honest I'm on a 2-3 version cycle upgrade model with Phase One. I love my IQ3100 but I'll wait for a while until they come out with their new technology integrated into EVERY back they sell. Why wouldn't they do that eventually? Being the first early adopters is a very expensive experience with Phase One as eventually that tech ripples down.

[Steve Hendrix]

What’s a conventional viewing distance?

Someone buys a 90” print to put in the 5 or 6 foot wide hall in their office.  People will see it up close.  Salt Lake airport has prints on display and when you are on the moving walkway it puts you as close as 24” from the print.  There are some that look quite bad.  So should I use a lower resolution camera and just not sell to people who can’t restrict it from being viewed up close? Of course if its too low of resolution and looks bad up close (I print hundreds of images a year at my camera store which fall into this category), doesn’t that reflect on me as the artist as the quality of my work?

And who’s to say because a print is 90” that the only thing interesting to look at is the entire print?  What if there are portions that draw you in and you want to get closer to see that section better?

I watch people walk through my gallery.  For years the “conventional” wisdom is only photographers look at the work up close.  absolutely not true, several of my pieces are often viewed, then examined more closely, usually followed up by them stepping back to take in the entire image again.  Very common.

Obviously if the image up close is poor, there is nothing to enjoy.

LIKE

[narikin]

Can someone please move this topic onto a new thread - or can contributors keep it on topic?

this is about the new Phase Trichromatic back, not about printing sizes/ viewing distances.

thanks