Posted a small article: Why I cannot see a difference in A2 size prints?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I posted a small article called: Why I cannot see a difference in A2 size prints?
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/82-why-i-cannot-see-a-difference-in-a2-size-prints

I cannot detect a visual difference between MFD and 24 MP full frame 135 in A2 size (16.5" x23") prints. The article looks into possible explanations.

The article is a follow up/companion to this thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87650.0

Best regards
Erik

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Oh, come on, Erik! Everybody knows that a trained eye can spot the difference on an 8x10 print from across the room 

[ErikKaffehr]

Yes, with the right training ;-)

Best regards
Erik

Oh, come on, Erik! Everybody knows that a trained eye can spot the difference on an 8x10 print from across the room 

[eronald]

Yes, with the right training ;-)

Best regards
Erik

If you open the MF back, grinning at you from inside will be a kobold holding a Minox.

Edmund

[swisscheese]

Interesting!
You are also ahead of your time: May 18th 2014 and May 22nd 2014

Markus

[ErikKaffehr]

Thanks!

The time is hopefully fixed. I obviously need to fix my OS-installation on that server.

Best regards
Erik

Interesting!
You are also ahead of your time: May 18th 2014 and May 22nd 2014

Markus

[synn]

So in conclusion, the P45+ will find a new home where its capabilities are appreciated a bit more?
If so, great work.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

No, my conclusion is that 24 MP are suefficient for A2 size prints.

You may consider that posting stupid, sarcastic and ignorant responses is probably of little help to anyone. You can consider just ignoring thread or postings that don't meet your demand for artful vision.

Best regards
Erik

So in conclusion, the P45+ will find a new home where its capabilities are appreciated a bit more?
If so, great work.

[Fine_Art]

Its a good summary.

You might want to add a graph of 20/20 vision vs viewing distance for the math challenged, say out to 20 ft.

[david distefano]

Hi,

No, my conclusion is that 24 MP are suefficient for A2 size prints.

You may consider that posting stupid, sarcastic and ignorant responses is probably of little help to anyone. You can consider just ignoring thread or postings that don't meet your demand for artful vision.

Best regards
Erik

eric, you don't need to reply to "he who has to use an alter ego."  remember he is all knowledge, so anything you post will never be up to his level.

i for one read these posts for different thoughts and ideas that might be added to make my photography more enjoyable, but then, i am not all knowledgeable. so you and others continue to write for us photographers who are not perfect as it may benefit some of us.

[KevinA]

Surely the point isn't wether or not you can see the difference, but if there is a difference does it matter?
Other than photographers does anyone bother looking for a difference. Also if you don't have super mp back to compare with side by side less than 24mp is probably plenty good enough to convey what the image is about.
If we get 150mp backs are 80mp backs just going to be not good enough for large prints. Surely the number of pimples or blades of grass you can see is not a measure of wether a photograph is good or not.
I doubt a fine artist working in oils, paints anymore detail than a 6mp camera can capture, yet viewers will marvel at the detail a fuzzy horsehair brush lays down.
To add, I help out shooting horse events, show jumping, cross country. As it's a print on site setup the photography is done as small jpg, it astonishes me the detail that gets printed in a 30x20 inch print when needed, you can see the grain in the leather and hair on the horse. It's more than enough to put a smile on the face of the purchaser. No doubt a side by side 60mp 30x20 would show even more detail, but it just doesn't matter one jot.

[KevinA]

Spoilsport! :-)

Sorry :-)
Anyone ever had a client reject an image because it wasn't captured with as many pixels as they would of liked?

[ErikKaffehr]

I don't argue on the issue :-)

Shooting equestrian stuff is not easy, also, nobody will care about pixels if the captured image is great.

Most of my best pictures were shot on 12 MP APS/C. I normally print A2, and at that size 12 MP APS-C holds up well.

Best regards
Erik

Surly the point isn't wether or not you can see the difference, but if there is a difference does it matter?

[Ken R]

A2 is a pretty small size print. Id say 12-16mp is enough given equal everything else. A larger file most likely won't result in more printed detail mainly due to printer/paper limitations.

[eronald]

I'm using a tiny point and shoot (Sony RX100) at the moment, and the results are pretty amazing.

There has been technical progress since we embarked on this digital journey, and if we awake from our self-absorption and look out through the windows of the carriage, we should notice that the scenery has changed substantially.

All those software-corrected this, stabilized that, fast on-sensor AF, and other innovations have really changed what the low end can do compared to the high end.

I'm not saying that my RX100 replaces my old P45+, but in fact if I do 8x10 or 13" prints, I guess the results will be quite ok, by Erik's logic. I never managed to sell a big print, but had lots of individual customers for the small ones when I was still selling prints.

And the tourist cam opens up street shooting again, which I simply cannot do with the big-sensors and their big lenses. People get antsy.

So why should I blame the guy for noticing that the emperor has no clothes?  It's just kind of funny and some of us who have realized it before are laughing while the newest member joins the club.

Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My investigation points more into human vision being the limit, and also the fact that human vision is more sensitive to low frequency detail than high frequency detail.

I would agree that differences would be visible at larger sizes if viewed close.

Best regards
Erik

A2 is a pretty small size print. Id say 12-16mp is enough given equal everything else. A larger file most likely won't result in more printed detail mainly due to printer/paper limitations.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I also have an RX100 and I have printed A2 from that one, too. I did not make direct side to side comparisons. My impression was that I have noticed some weakness in that print, but I would hung it at an exhibition without the slightest doubt. But, I would not state it was from 1" sensor camera and invite photographers to discuss print sharpness.

Best regards
Erik

I'm using a tiny point and shoot (Sony RX100) at the moment, and the results are pretty amazing.

There has been technical progress since we embarked on this digital journey, and if we awake from our self-absorption and look out through the windows of the carriage, we should notice that the scenery has changed substantially.

All those software-corrected this, stabilized that, fast on-sensor AF, and other innovations have really changed what the low end can do compared to the high end.

I'm not saying that my RX100 replaces my old P45+, but in fact if I do 8x10 or 13" prints, I guess the results will be quite ok, by Erik's logic. I never managed to sell a big print, but had lots of individual customers for the small ones when I was still selling prints.

So why should I blame the guy for noticing that the emperor has no clothes?  It's just kind of funny and some of us who have realized it before are laughing while the newest member joins the club.

Edmund

[jerome_m]

Let me ask some silly questions.

I notice that the article limits itself with 20/20 vision. It just so happens that I have 20/14 vision. If 24 mpix are sufficient for others, does it means I am allowed to use 36 mpix? I also have access to an A1 printer. Does this means that I should use a camera with 72 mpix?

It just also happens that I bought a Sony A900 with 24 mpix in early 2009. I have printed pictures taken with it in A2 size for the past 4 years and am generally pleased with the results. I use the finest Sony, Minolta and Zeiss lenses with it, but I noticed that I have difficulties getting perfectly sharp corners with wide angle lenses on that camera, while the HC28mm has no such problems. Is there anything you can suggest about this?

I notice that your study only concerns itself with flat subjects. While I have photographed historical papers for reproduction, most of my subjects are actually tridimensional, with parts which are in focus and other parts less so. I notice that the rendering of out of focus areas is very different between the lenses I have for the A900 (which include the legendary 135mm STF, Sony/Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 and other portrait lenses) and lenses from Hasselblad / Fuji (HC lenses). How can I solve that?

Last but not least, I see the Sony RX100 mentioned earlier in the thread. While the camera indeed gives results similar to the ones I get with the A900, this only happens at the widest end on the zoom range and when using iso 80. Even then, I noticed coloured fringes appearing where I do not always want them and fine details have an unnatural appearance. How do you explain that?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Let me ask some silly questions.

I notice that the article limits itself with 20/20 vision. It just so happens that I have 30/20 vision. If 24 mpix are sufficient for others, does it means I am allowed to use 36 mpix? I also have access to an A1 printer. Does this means that I should use a camera with 72 mpix?

Hi Jerome,

It depends on whether you keep your viewing distance constant or not ...  That's why I built some user adjustable variables into my DOF output quality planning tool. 

... I noticed that I have difficulties getting perfectly sharp corners with wide angle lenses on that camera, while the HC28mm has no such problems. Is there anything you can suggest about this?

Depends on the type of sharpness fall-off, which is of course lens specific. Maybe you can use a 2-layer sharpening approach, one sharpened for the center, and one for the corners, and then use a radial mask (blurred for a gradual transition). A Raw converter like Capture One Pro has a user adjustable sharpness fall-off correction built in.

I notice that your study only concerns itself with flat subjects. While I have photographed historical papers for reproduction, most of my subjects are actually tridimensional, with parts which are in focus and other parts less so. I notice that the rendering of out of focus areas is very different between the lenses I have for the A900 (which include the legendary 135mm STF, Sony/Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 and other portrait lenses) and lenses from Hasselblad / Fuji (HC lenses). How can I solve that?

The lens characteristics are a given. The only thing you can do is blur the OOF regions even more, maybe starting with a too narrow aperture to begin with if that improves initial bokeh (quality of OOF blur). When the shot is very important it would not be too objectionable to spend some time on it with a tool like Topaz Labs Lens Effects which can also use a depth map for accurate DOF transitions into the fore- / background. Nothing beats the ability to see the actual DOF effect change in real time, even after the shot has been taken.

Cheers,
Bart

[jerome_m]

I see that you answered my silly questions very seriously. Now I find myself almost obliged to ask some more.

It depends on whether you keep your viewing distance constant or not ...  That's why I built some user adjustable variables into my DOF output quality planning tool.

Let me see: I already said that I have the Minolta/Sony 135mm STF lens. As you certainly know, this lens uses an apodisation element to shape the distribution of out of focus highlights. This has an effect on the perceived depth of field. Does your tool account for that?

Another lens I have is the 100mm f/2.0 DC lens. As you probably also know, it has a ring to adjust the amount of spherical aberration, thereby changing the apparence of the depth of field. How to I enter the value of the ring in your tool?

Portrait lenses, for example 85mm f/1.4 or faster or the HC 100mm f/2.2 have a noticeable amount of uncorrected spherical aberration. In effect, they are a bit like the DC lens, with the ring glued into the max position. This is a wanted feature by portraitists, because it gives a flattering appearance to human skin. It also increases the apparent depth of focus. How do I adjust that in your tool?

Depends on the type of sharpness fall-off, which is of course lens specific. Maybe you can use a 2-layer sharpening approach, one sharpened for the center, and one for the corners, and then use a radial mask (blurred for a gradual transition). A Raw converter like Capture One Pro has a user adjustable sharpness fall-off correction built in.

Well... at the time, I tried conversion software from DXO. It includes special routines to improve lens sharpness from supported lens/camera combinations. While these gave excellent results for distortion or lateral chromatic aberration, the far corners stayed rather fuzzy. Is Capture One Pro really better?

The lens characteristics are a given. The only thing you can do is blur the OOF regions even more, maybe starting with a too narrow aperture to begin with if that improves initial bokeh (quality of OOF blur). When the shot is very important it would not be too objectionable to spend some time on it with a tool like Topaz Labs Lens Effects which can also use a depth map for accurate DOF transitions into the fore- / background. Nothing beats the ability to see the actual DOF effect change in real time, even after the shot has been taken.

How does one enter the depth map? Some of my subjects routinely have extensive, complicated depth variations and I think that OOF regions should at least a bit correspond to these. Do you use a 3-D scanner or similar tool?