Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: myotis on February 29, 2016, 03:06:15 am
-
Assuming you are limited to a 17" printer, how far can you go in terms of meaningful improvements in quality by upgrading cameras.
I realise that newer sensors usually improve on Dynamic Range, but I still wonder how much of an improvement people have found moving from say a Nikon D700, to a Nikon D800. Not pixel peeping on the computer, but looking at real prints.
When I used film, I was never happy with prints from 35mm. Roll film was OK, but I tried to use 5x4 whenever I could. With digital there doesn't same to be the same urgency to chase image quality the way there once was, as we now seem to be well past a "threshold" of acceptable quality with digital. The number of people who have dropped sensor size to use Fuji x cameras may be evidence of this threshold being reached.
I know everyone needs to make their own judgment on print quality, but its still comparative and we all still want to make the best of the tools available. I well remember all the "grain free" 20x 16s that people used to proudly display, which looked unacceptably grainy to me because I was used to seeing grain from roll film and sheet film.
So, if someone is still plodding along with a D700, making 17" prints that they are happy with, would they want to throw all those prints away once they saw how much better prints from a D800 or sony a7 were, or would it not make any meaningful difference. Have we really passed a threshold in quality, or are new sensors still giving us important improvements in quality (in terms of the landscape photographer).
I would be very interested to hear what people with first hand experience of this think, as I'm not sure many camera reviewers who comment on quality actually make prints.
Thanks,
Graham
-
I recently had an exhibition of my Tibet photographs ( https://luminous-landscape.com/forgotten-land-defiant-people-tibet/ ) where most of the prints were A3+ size printed by myself with Epson R3000, and a couple of prints 50x70 cm printed by the local art printer. A3+ sizes, about 18" on the longer side, look perfect to me with no "grain", really sharp, and even the bigger prints look terrific at least from the normal viewing distance. Output sharpening was done with NIK sharpener. Camera: 16 Megapixel Fuji X-Pro1 and X100s. I now have two Fujifilm X-T1 bodies with the same 16 MPix sensor and I am fully content with them and have no plans to upgrade to the presumably soon coming X-T2, which supposedly has 24 MPix sensor. Not worth it , at least as long as framing is done while shooting, not in post.
-
I recently had an exhibition of my Tibet photographs ( https://luminous-landscape.com/forgotten-land-defiant-people-tibet/ ) where most of the prints were A3+ size printed by myself with Epson R3000, and a couple of prints 50x70 cm printed by the local art printer. A3+ sizes, about 18" on the longer side, look perfect to me with no "grain", really sharp, and even the bigger prints look terrific at least from the normal viewing distance. Output sharpening was done with NIK sharpener. Camera: 16 Megapixel Fuji X-Pro1 and X100s. I now have two Fujifilm X-T1 bodies with the same 16 MPix sensor and I am fully content with them and have no plans to upgrade to the presumably soon coming X-T2, which supposedly has 24 MPix sensor. Not worth it , at least as long as framing is done while shooting, not in post.
Thanks for this, and thanks for the pointer to the images. Good to hear you are happy Fuji and 16mp, as I suppose that was the sort of answer I was expecting.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Assuming you are limited to a 17" printer, how far can you go in terms of meaningful improvements in quality by upgrading cameras.
So, if someone is still plodding along with a D700, making 17" prints that they are happy with, would they want to throw all those prints away once they saw how much better prints from a D800 or sony a7 were, or would it not make any meaningful difference. Have we really passed a threshold in quality, or are new sensors still giving us important improvements in quality (in terms of the landscape photographer).
I would be very interested to hear what people with first hand experience of this think, as I'm not sure many camera reviewers who comment on quality actually make prints.
Bottom Line - If you are happy with what you have, enjoy oogling newer cameras, but don't fret over not owning them! I made some really nice 11x14 inch portraits prints with a 2.1MP Nikon Coolpix 990. Megapixels, DR, color depth, noise are only issues when they are actually issues. If you shoot the types of images in the types of lighting conditions that require the elevated performance new sensors provide, then yeah, they are worth it. I do find the NEF files from newer Nikons easier to work with than those from older bodies. Can you get to essentially the same place, yes, but the newer files make it easier.
What newer cameras provide is efficiency and options. You can certainly get more out of a D810 than a D700, but if you are good at post then as long as both can capture the image and you are printing at reasonable sizes for which the D700 can supply data, you will not see a big difference.
I owned the D300 and made the commitment to wait for a full frame camera that would be something I wouldn't mind getting stuck with. That turned out to be the D810. I now have a D500 on order to replace the D7100 I sold recently as my main sports/wildlife camera. While a expect a reasonable increase in sensor performance, it is actually fps, throughput and focus capability I'm looking for in the new camera.
-
Being a formerly serious LF shooter, I can identify with your interest. May I suggest you take your best
digital effort that is not 'grainy' on your printer, and get a shop to print it larger.
I found that one of my winners, shot with a Nex-7, was very nice on 17x22, got unacceptable at 24x36.
I think with the 36mp or 42mp Sony's or Nikons and Canons, you can go really huge without difficulty.
That is a double edged sword-requires more of the photographer as you can really see the fine details, and also gives some wiggle room if cropping is needed 8)
-
... I'm not sure many camera reviewers who comment on quality actually make prints.
Not too many, but this site does:
https://luminous-landscape.com/kidding/
The result of the duel between prints from a Canon G10 and Hasselblad H2 with Phase One P45 back? Indistinguishable.
-
I do find the NEF files from newer Nikons easier to work with than those from older bodies. Can you get to essentially the same place, yes, but the newer files make it easier.
What newer cameras provide is efficiency and options. You can certainly get more out of a D810 than a D700, but if you are good at post then as long as both can capture the image and you are printing at reasonable sizes for which the D700 can supply data, you will not see a big difference.
Good points, and I can see this reflected in my Nikon 1 + 70-300cx images where the 1" sensor can give very good quality in good lighting but you still need perfect exposure and a lot of selective sharpening and noise reduction. Its still a great combination though.
And for something like bird photography, then the technology advances the D500 offers give some real benefits.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Being a formerly serious LF shooter, I can identify with your interest. May I suggest you take your best
digital effort that is not 'grainy' on your printer, and get a shop to print it larger.
I found that one of my winners, shot with a Nex-7, was very nice on 17x22, got unacceptable at 24x36.
I think with the 36mp or 42mp Sony's or Nikons and Canons, you can go really huge without difficulty.
That is a double edged sword-requires more of the photographer as you can really see the fine details, and also gives some wiggle room if cropping is needed 8)
There are some parallels with sheet film and the high mp sensors in that is all too easy to get poorer results from sheet film than roll film because of difficulties like keeping the camera properly supported in windy conditions, or giving too much tilt and getting near by treetops out of focus, or using too much movement and getting a bit of vignetting etc.
To your point about print size, I suppose you could argue that you are likely to be viewing the larger print from further away and the difference may not be as important as we think.
Thanks,
Graham
-
Not too many, but this site does:
https://luminous-landscape.com/kidding/
The result of the duel between prints from a Canon G10 and Hasselblad H2 with Phase One P45 back? Indistinguishable.
Actually, I did think of this after I had posted :-)
Cheers,
Graham
-
I've made and supplied hundreds of files for reproduction and prints for exhibition ranging in size from thumbnail size files to 200cm+(long side) prints using nothing more exotic than an old 22MP back.
When you say 22mp back to you mean medium format ?
If so, that is still fairly exotic for us mere mortals with small sensor cameras.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I currently own a D200 as well as a D700. I don't foresee buying anything else.
I used to make prints up to A3+ from both, and the D700 was certainly better for available darkness, but not noticeably so anywhere else.
I no longer print because the HP B9180 was made obscenely, obsoletely redundant and I'm not falling into that trap again - I hope. Furthermore, I get enough buzz out of putting my stuff up in my website. I already have large Hahne boxes full of lovely prints in archival sleeves doing nothing in the most delightful way imaginable. Why add more?
Truth to tell, I can't even remember when I last used the D700; the D200 gets pretty much all the use. Possibly a case of first love (relatively, digitally speaking), but that's how it pans out.
As ever, the two big questions are: why do I photograph, and for whom?
I know my personal answers to those two.
Playing status games is silly; there's also a certain pleasure in doing something better with a 'cheap' tool than badly with an expensive one.
Rob C
-
Not too many, but this site does:
https://luminous-landscape.com/kidding/
The result of the duel between prints from a Canon G10 and Hasselblad H2 with Phase One P45 back? Indistinguishable.
I took that test in Michael's studio a few years ago and failed miserably to distinguish between the cameras, as did everyone else who has tried.
Interestingly, the P45 pixel count is now matched or exceeded by cameras like the Sony A7RII. Makes you wonder why we fuss so. Enough already!
-
I currently own a D200 as well as a D700. I don't foresee buying anything else.
I used to make prints up to A3+ from both, and the D700 was certainly better for available darkness, but not noticeably so anywhere else.
Truth to tell, I can't even remember when I last used the D700; the D200 gets pretty much all the use. Possibly a case of first love (relatively, digitally speaking), but that's how it pans out.
Rob C
Although I was interested in moving upwards from d700 quality, still interesting to compare with the D200, and there does seem to be a bit of a consensus. I rather like using "old friends" and can understand your feelings towards your D200.
Graham
-
I took that test in Michael's studio a few years ago and failed miserably to distinguish between the cameras, as did everyone else who has tried.
Interestingly, the P45 pixel count is now matched or exceeded by cameras like the Sony A7RII. Makes you wonder why we fuss so. Enough already!
Interesting isn't it, but we well into pixel counts that far exceed the resolution of the prints most people make. So its more to do with colour and tonal gradation, but then that didn't seem to be a factor this test.
Graham
-
And for something like bird photography, then the technology advances the D500 offers give some real benefits.
Yes, the D500 would, in most respects, be a better choice for birds (wildlife and sports) than the D700. The DX reach advantage and focus speed should be enough to get you for birds. Putting a good FX lens on a DX body can turn it into a great lens if the lens suffers from corner softness or vingnetting. I find it bizarre that people seem to want to compare the D500 and D750 because they are somewhat comparable in price. But they are in no way comparable in functionality. The real comparisons in Nikon are D500/D7200 and D810/D750/D610.
As to pixel counts, just because you don't print them, doesn't mean they aren't usable. Down sampling to alleviate some noise, or cropping to get a closer view are just a few of the ways I use the 36MP of the D810 even when I'm not using them to print larger! I also use them to allow more printing options like shooting a vertical that later ends up printed more square or even horizontal. Or I can frame a little looser for panos or other perspective correction times. Just because you don't always need all the extra performance and functionality, doesn't mean you don't need some of it some of the time!
And to your original question in the subject, it is always possible to make a less demanding output from a high quality file, but is essentially impossible to make a very demanding output from a lesser quality file!
-
Thomas Mangelsen, a nature and landscape photographer with several galleries across the U.S., reportedly generating millions of dollars each year from sale of prints, has several large images on display (say 50"x75"), done with early generation crop-sensor Nikons that contain chroma noise the size of a saucer. And some equally large prints from film that are not only grainy, but also less sharp at that size.
The point? It is not technical perfection that sells. It is emotional impact.
The bottom line, as Rob mentioned, who do you shoot for? For you? And you are as picky as you say you are? Then by all means get the latest and greatest, the most megapixels and dynamic range you can afford. The public, however, doesn't give the slightest damn about technical perfection, as long as it is not grotesquely mishandled.
In the meantime, I've made 24"x36" from an 8 mpx crop-sensor camera, and 36"x54" from an 18 mpx crop camera...nobody noticed any technical deficiencies. Even my (reasonable) perfectionism was pleased. I doubt you'd notice a difference in a 16"x24" print.
-
Well yes. 20 MP (6D) is plenty for small prints. And if a print is meant to be viewed from a distance, 18 MP crop sensor (60D) can make an acceptable 24" x 36" print. It's not so hot close up, but I made these prints for a situation where the recipient was going to be 6 feet from the print. Normally I would hold print size down to 11 x 17 or less.
So, right now my equipment desire is the mythical photo backpack that actually fits well and carries well over a full day hike. I have narrowed it down to "a camping backpack with panel access, plus an insert compartment with foam dividers". An eight mile hike with the most recent "photo backpack" candidate convinced me to give up on purpose-made photo packs.
How's that for a boring G.A.S.? ;D
-
Yes, the D500 would, in most respects, be a better choice for birds (wildlife and sports) than the D700. The DX reach advantage and focus speed should be enough to get you for birds. Putting a good FX lens on a DX body can turn it into a great lens if the lens suffers from corner softness or vingnetting. I find it bizarre that people seem to want to compare the D500 and D750 because they are somewhat comparable in price. But they are in no way comparable in functionality. The real comparisons in Nikon are D500/D7200 and D810/D750/D610.
As to pixel counts, just because you don't print them, doesn't mean they aren't usable. Down sampling to alleviate some noise, or cropping to get a closer view are just a few of the ways I use the 36MP of the D810 even when I'm not using them to print larger! I also use them to allow more printing options like shooting a vertical that later ends up printed more square or even horizontal. Or I can frame a little looser for panos or other perspective correction times. Just because you don't always need all the extra performance and functionality, doesn't mean you don't need some of it some of the time!
And to your original question in the subject, it is always possible to make a less demanding output from a high quality file, but is essentially impossible to make a very demanding output from a lesser quality file!
Yes never understood the price comparison rather than the spec comparison and I can see the flexibility that the spare pixels brings.
I actually like square prints, so that is one of the things I have in the back of my mind when thinking about sensor resolution.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Thomas Mangelsen, a nature and landscape photographer with several galleries across the U.S., reportedly generating millions of dollars each year from sale of prints, has several large images on display (say 50"x75"), done with early generation crop-sensor Nikons that contain chroma noise the size of a saucer. And some equally large prints from film that are not only grainy, but also less sharp at that size.
The point? It is not technical perfection that sells. It is emotional impact.
The bottom line, as Rob mentioned, who do you shoot for? For you? And you are as picky as you say you are? Then by all means get the latest and greatest, the most megapixels and dynamic range you can afford. The public, however, doesn't give the slightest damn about technical perfection, long as it is not grotesquely mishandled.
In the meantime, I've made 24"x36" from an 8 mpx crop-sensor camera, and 36"x54" from an 18 mpx crop camera...nobody noticed any technical deficiencies. Even my (reasonable) perfectionism was pleased. I doubt you'd notice a difference in a 16"x24" print.
I think you slightly misunderstand the rationale behind my questions, which was premised on the idea that once you reach a threshold in technical quality there doesn't seem to be much point in chasing after more. My question on where people felt that threshold was in terms of 17" prints, or whether my premise was wrong and that each generation of sensor was still bringing meaningful improvements and we hadn't reached that threshold, which I suggested might have been the D700.
I have had some useful answers and things to think about and your comments have contributed to this.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Well yes. 20 MP (6D) is plenty for small prints. And if a print is meant to be viewed from a distance, 18 MP crop sensor (60D) can make an acceptable 24" x 36" print. It's not so hot close up, but I made these prints for a situation where the recipient was going to be 6 feet from the print. Normally I would hold print size down to 11 x 17 or less.
So, right now my equipment desire is the mythical photo backpack that actually fits well and carries well over a full day hike. I have narrowed it down to "a camping backpack with panel access, plus an insert compartment with foam dividers". An eight mile hike with the most recent "photo backpack" candidate convinced me to give up on purpose-made photo packs.
How's that for a boring G.A.S.? ;D
Interesting. You seem to be a slight variance with the other comments in suggesting fairly high MP counts.
As for backpacks, I have gone the other way and bought an f-stop bag after 45 years of modified climbing/backpacking sacks.
Cheers,
Graham
-
But there's yet another aspect - quite as important - for me: did I not already own a digital Nikon, then I would probaby have gone for a D800 version just to keep using my existing Nikkors.
One step further along that line of thought: had I no existing lenses at all, I might well have been very tempted by the Canon system if only for its 24mm T/S lens. That assumes a younger man than I am today, with career prospects still alive and well, and so nothing is ever exactly the same in these 'choice' situations.
Rob C
-
But there's yet another aspect - quite as important - for me: did I not already own a digital Nikon, then I would probaby have gone for a D800 version just to keep using my existing Nikkors.
One step further along that line of thought: had I no existing lenses at all, I might well have been very tempted by the Canon system if only for its 24mm T/S lens. That assumes a younger man than I am today, with career prospects still alive and well, and so nothing is ever exactly the same in these 'choice' situations.
Rob C
Yes there is a big difference between buying afresh and building on what you have. Even if you are convinced that a D700 or D200 would be good enough, most would go for the best of what is currently available, to improve future proofing. Assuming you have the money.
Graham
-
If you are sticking only with 17 inch wide prints, lots of cameras will work just fine. I had a D300 ever since it came out and had no issues with it at all. A friend of mine has a 24 inch wide Epson printer (can't remember the model number) and he made two prints for me from two of my better images. If you look up close at the prints you can see issues related to the sensor size BUT if you put them on a wall and look from what would be a normal viewing distance they look just fine. Too many people don't get this aspect and just want to pixel peep. almost any image will show some flaws upon close inspection but look just fine from a normal distance. Remember that we are really spoiled these days by having such a choice of printers. I imagine that many of us who shot 35mm film in the day only did darkroom work up to 8 x 10.
-
Hi,
First I would mention that Ctein (a very well know dye transfer printer and darkroom expert) said that the 16 MP he had on his 4/3 camera was good enough for A2 size prints. A2 is around 16"x23".
Now, I normally print A2 and I was quite happy printing from 12 MP APS-C. When I went from 12MP APS-C to 24 MP on 24x36 mm I did see some improvement, but not all the time. In at least one case I preferred a 16MP print to a 24MP print, but they were very close.
So, I would say that yes, 16 MP is good enough for A2, 16"x23", C-print.
A couple years ago I bought a used P45+ back for the Hasselblad V-series. That back has 39 MP. The advantage of 39 MP over 24 MP was very visible pixel peeping on screen. But, I have seen absolutely any advantage of the larger sensor in A2-size prints. Larger formats, yes I think the differences were more noticeable.
Printing 30"x40" I would guess that say 40 MP has a clear advantage over say 20 MP, if the print is viewed close.
On the other hand, I have a 30"x40" print on my wall made from a 10 MP image and it is quite OK when viewed at arm's length distance. So, you can make large prints from small image files.
Best regards
Erik
-
The CP+ show this year was a revelatin from that standpoint.
The Olympus and Fuji booth had very nice A1 prints made from 16mp cameras and most of them were looking great. Yes, they had selected a good deal of bokeh heavy shots where the rendering of the lens dominates (and those lenses are second to none in terms of look), but there were still some with detail and they were ok.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks!
:-) Erik :-)
The CP+ show this year was a revelatin from that standpoint.
The Olympus and Fuji booth had very nice A1 prints made from 16mp cameras and most of them were looking great. Yes, they had selected a good deal of bokeh heavy shots where the rendering of the lens dominates (and those lenses are second to none in terms of look), but there were still some with detail and they were ok.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If you are sticking only with 17 inch wide prints, lots of cameras will work just fine. I had a D300 ever since it came out and had no issues with it at all. A friend of mine has a 24 inch wide Epson printer (can't remember the model number) and he made two prints for me from two of my better images. If you look up close at the prints you can see issues related to the sensor size BUT if you put them on a wall and look from what would be a normal viewing distance they look just fine. Too many people don't get this aspect and just want to pixel peep. almost any image will show some flaws upon close inspection but look just fine from a normal distance. Remember that we are really spoiled these days by having such a choice of printers. I imagine that many of us who shot 35mm film in the day only did darkroom work up to 8 x 10.
Thanks, that fits in reasonably well with the D700 threshold idea I suggested.
I tended to do 8x 6 and 15 x12 prints or 7" square which is still my favourite size.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Hi,
First I would mention that Ctein (a very well know dye transfer printer and darkroom expert) said that the 16 MP he had on his 4/3 camera was good enough for A2 size prints. A2 is around 16"x23".
So, I would say that yes, 16 MP is good enough for A2, 16"x23", C-print.
Printing 30"x40" I would guess that say 40 MP has a clear advantage over say 20 MP, if the print is viewed close.
On the other hand, I have a 30"x40" print on my wall made from a 10 MP image and it is quite OK when viewed at arm's length distance. So, you can make large prints from small image files.
Best regards
Erik
As larger prints will tend to be viewed at greater distance, it looks like "around" 12mp does indeed seem to be a reasonable threshold. But as has been suggested earlier it does depend on your end point and if you know large prints are needed then then you probably start to need all the pixels you can get.
Cheers,
Graham
-
The CP+ show this year was a revelatin from that standpoint.
The Olympus and Fuji booth had very nice A1 prints made from 16mp cameras and most of them were looking great. Yes, they had selected a good deal of bokeh heavy shots where the rendering of the lens dominates (and those lenses are second to none in terms of look), but there were still some with detail and they were ok.
Cheers,
Bernard
Interesting you say "most" were looking great. I wonder if that says more about image choice and post processing than the 16mp.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Interesting you say "most" were looking great. I wonder if that says more about image choice and post processing than the 16mp.
Graham,
For landscape shots, I felt that more detail and better texture rendition would have helped, but those images still looked great from a distance of 70-80cm.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Graham,
For landscape shots, I felt that more detail and better texture rendition would have helped, but those images still looked great from a distance of 70-80cm.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
Do you think this was a limitation of the sensor, or the processing - I know its difficult to tell, but its interesting that you picked up on this.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I am greatly enjoying this discussion. Finally, a reality check and some some candid opinions. You'll never see discussion like this on a sell-sell-sell ad-driven site.
Having moved from the 12mp E30 w/ Zuiko Digital lenses to The D800E w/ Nikkors, suffice it to say the improvement in print quality is obvious.
However, I still have a number of 16x20ish sized prints on the wall from my 5mp Minolta Dimage 7i, my 5mp E-1 and my E-30. As Slobodan said - emotional impact weighs more heavily than raw print quality.
-
I am now at the point where I need to invest in classes that make me think and expose me to a variety of other photographers. I have a 17" printer and live in a small apartment with limited wall space - I don't see myself wanting to hang 50" x 70" prints. The current 20 MP camera (6D) is a pretty good camera as long as I don't have an urge to do serious cropping.
Graham, my search for the perfect photo backpack comes from the realization that the camping backpack carries so much better than the one-size photo packs. Even the new f/stop women's pack (smaller harness torso size, but still too big for me) that I got on a Kickstarter drive is not ideal for a long day. I'd like a good heavier-load day pack anyway (my micro-pack is good for about 10 pounds - water and 10 essentials and jacket and home-made "frame"/foam sit-kneel pad in the water bladder slot), I will likely get a smaller version of my multiday Osprey pack.
-
Do you think this was a limitation of the sensor, or the processing - I know its difficult to tell, but its interesting that you picked up on this.
Probably a mix of both. I did feel right 1m away, but over-sharpened when looked up too close.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I will likely get a smaller version of my multiday Osprey pack.
That's what I have been doing for many years and it works well.
I currently use a 3-4 years old Variant 37 and love it. It is both reasonnably light, pretty tough and has enough rigidity to support a heavy tripod (RRS 3 series) carried transversally on top of the bag under the lid.
I have never found a photobag usable for serious walking in terms of confort, functions and layout. The very idea that photo equipment can account for more than 40% in volume of the equipment you must carry reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of wilderness walking.
IMHO.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am greatly enjoying this discussion. Finally, a reality check and some some candid opinions. You'll never see discussion like this on a sell-sell-sell ad-driven site.
Having moved from the 12mp E30 w/ Zuiko Digital lenses to The D800E w/ Nikkors, suffice it to say the improvement in print quality is obvious.
However, I still have a number of 16x20ish sized prints on the wall from my 5mp Minolta Dimage 7i, my 5mp E-1 and my E-30. As Slobodan said - emotional impact weighs more heavily than raw print quality.
Terry,
A great direct comparison of the sort I was interested in.
Also when you say quality, is it an overall contrast, tonal and colour gradation obvious from normal viewing distances, or looking close at the detail and sharpness.
As you say emotional impact is the important thing, and once the quality reaches a threshold where it doesn't obviously prevent the photograph working, I can't say I have ever looked at a good photograph and then taken the time to critique how sharp and detailed it was.
Having said that I wonder how much sharpness and detail affect our perception of the photograph even if we aren't consciously judging it. Noise seems to degrade quality (contrast and gradation) before it becomes an obvious problem.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I will likely get a smaller version of my multiday Osprey pack.
There is the magic word: "Osprey". We (wife & I) have been using Osprey Stratos (panel loading) and Talon (top loading) daypacks in sizes from 24 to 44 liters for our trips around China/Tibet/Nepal, SAE and Middle East. Sometimes EVERYTHING stuffed inside a 24 liter pack for flights, including cameras and a messenger type shoulder bag to be used as a camera bag at the location. No checked luggage at all.
Camera specific packs are uncomfortable and clumsy. With simple gear it is easy to just wrap them to spare clothes for the transport.
-
I am now at the point where I need to invest in classes that make me think and expose me to a variety of other photographers. I have a 17" printer and live in a small apartment with limited wall space - I don't see myself wanting to hang 50" x 70" prints. The current 20 MP camera (6D) is a pretty good camera as long as I don't have an urge to do serious cropping.
Graham, my search for the perfect photo backpack comes from the realization that the camping backpack carries so much better than the one-size photo packs. Even the new f/stop women's pack (smaller harness torso size, but still too big for me) that I got on a Kickstarter drive is not ideal for a long day. I'd like a good heavier-load day pack anyway (my micro-pack is good for about 10 pounds - water and 10 essentials and jacket and home-made "frame"/foam sit-kneel pad in the water bladder slot), I will likely get a smaller version of my multiday Osprey pack.
Yes, the extra pixels certainly give that security of cropping. Camera bags are an ongoing night mare for anyone who doesn't just work from the back of the car. The best solution I found was to match the rucksack opening with a normal but squarish shoulder style camera bag so it fitted exactly into the top of the rucksack. This let you work out the top of the rucksack, but also let you use the camera bag separately.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Probably a mix of both. I did feel right 1m away, but over-sharpened when looked up too close.
Cheers,
Bernard
I know from personal experience how easy it is to oversharpen, and how horrible it looks once you realise you are doing it.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Hi,
Just to add a few points:
Some while ago I have been involved in a discussion about print sizes and essentially suggested 16 MP was enough for A2 size prints as I personally did not see benefits of going above 24 MP at that size and I was quite happy with 12 MP mostly.
An experienced printer indicated clearly that there was a visible advantage of 36 MP over 16 MP in A2 size prints, at least on glossy prints. I have not done that much of comparisons. I think that was very good input.
The other point is that we need small enough pixels to match the resolution of the lens for proper rendition. If the lens outresolves the sensor there will always be artefacts that may be visible or not.
The attached image is an actual pixel crop showing the difference between 6.8micron MFD sensor and a 4.5 micron 24x36 sensor using the same lens from the same camera position. The 4.5 micron image was downsized to match the larger pixel image. Note how much better rendition is 4.5 micron image on the left than on the 6.8 micron image on the right, although both images represent same resolution, 39 MP 0n 37x49mm.
So, for proper rendition you would like a high resolution sensor, matching the lens. That is one reason that megapixels (almost) always are good. Another one is that having excess resolution allows for cropping.
Added:
I also added a comparison of the two images without downscaling the 4.5 micron image. Both those screen dumps need to be viewed at actual pixels in the browser as downscaling in the browser adds it's own artefacts.
Best regards
Erik
-
So, for proper rendition you would like a high resolution sensor, matching the lens. That is one reason that megapixels (almost) always are good. Another one is that having excess resolution allows for cropping.
While I can certainly see the difference, and the craftsman in me would rather be producing the one with the better rendition, and I can see things like Moire in the lower resolution image, I still wonder whether with a bit of post processing to better match the two images, the differences would go unnoticed.
Of course, I am not in any way arguing against striving to get the best quality you can, but these images are a bit like the ones in camera reviews where you are made to feel your current sensor is inadequate and you must upgrade. I know that isn't what you were doing, and these were to illustrate a specific point relevant to this discussion but of equal interest is how similar the quality is.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Hi,
There is no way of removing aliasing in post. Color aliasing can be reduced by local desaturation, that is what "moiré-reduction" does.
These are things that anyone familiar with signal processing understands clearly but always stirs controversy when photographers are involved, don't know why.
Best regards
Erik
While I can certainly see the difference, and the craftsman in me would rather be producing the one with the better rendition, and I can see things like Moire in the lower resolution image, I still wonder whether with a bit of post processing to better match the two images, the differences would go unnoticed.
Of course, I am not in any way arguing against striving to get the best quality you can, but these images are a bit like the ones in camera reviews where you are made to feel your current sensor is inadequate and you must upgrade. I know that isn't what you were doing, and these were to illustrate a specific point relevant to this discussion but of equal interest is how similar the quality is.
Cheers,
Graham
-
It depends on what you shoot, and how you present your images.
Large printed panoramic shots of detailed (but not chaotic) scenes which you can walk up close, then resolution can make a visible difference.
One of the better examples I think is Jimmy Nelson's environmental portraits in this series: http://www.beforethey.com/ where you have a group of people in a landscape printed huge. You're invited to step up close and look at individual person's faces. I've seen the huge prints live, and indeed the 4x5" film is a bit limited, 8x10" had made a difference. But had it made the images better? No. Just higher technical quality.
It's like recording music, how important is it that the sound quality is good? Does the music become better? Grunge rock doesn't gain from good sound quality as much as symphonic music, so it's genre dependent also in this case. But bad music never becomes good by a noise-less recording, and there's also the law of diminishing returns.
However high resolution gives you some advantages in workflow. What if moire never occurs in any condition, that would be comfortable. For that to happen with my gear I need more resolution or an AA-filter on my sensor. It also gives the opportunity to crop heavily if the situation requires.
-
Leica's first digital M, the M8 with only 10 mp and no AA filter will print gorgeous images at 20" so if you're only printing to 17" even it could be considered overkill.
-
My take back when digital was just starting was that 6MP was the crossover point between film and digital. While Kodak maintained that the best films had about 2400ppi of data (8.6MP on 35mm film), I figured you could end up doing more with the digital pixels. Of course, I had associates maintain that film would always be king and digital really just be for immediacy. Kind of like my science professor making us learn a slide rule because calculators were just a fad!
Bottom line as to how many pixels you need are base on 3 general factors 1) What type of photography you do, 2) how much skill and effort you put into post processing, 3) output medium and enlargement ratio. For the vast majority of people 16-20MP is probably more than enough. Pretty sure that's why both the D500 and D5 are basically in that range.
I've made perfectly fine 11x14 inch prints from 2.1MP, 6MP, 12MP, 24MP and 36MP cameras. Sure the 2.1MP were somewhat lacking in detail, but since they were outdoor head and should shots with out of focus backgrounds, it really wasn't a problem. I wasn't looking to resolve the pores on my model's skin!
-
Hi,
There is no way of removing aliasing in post. Color aliasing can be reduced by local desaturation, that is what "moiré-reduction" does.
These are things that anyone familiar with signal processing understands clearly but always stirs controversy when photographers are involved, don't know why.
Best regards
Erik
I suppose I meant make less noticeable, the immediate difference between these images is contrast, so if you could lift the contrast in the right hand one so it looked more similar, would the differences still be noticeable at normal to a bit closer than normal viewing distances.
Cheers,
Graham
-
It depends on what you shoot, and how you present your images.
Large printed panoramic shots of detailed (but not chaotic) scenes which you can walk up close, then resolution can make a visible difference.
However high resolution gives you some advantages in workflow. What if moire never occurs in any condition, that would be comfortable. For that to happen with my gear I need more resolution or an AA-filter on my sensor. It also gives the opportunity to crop heavily if the situation requires.
I did specify 17" prints, but I agree with all the points you make.
Cheers,
Graham
-
My take back when digital was just starting was that 6MP was the crossover point between film and digital. While Kodak maintained that the best films had about 2400ppi of data (8.6MP on 35mm film), I figured you could end up doing more with the digital pixels. Of course, I had associates maintain that film would always be king and digital really just be for immediacy. Kind of like my science professor making us learn a slide rule because calculators were just a fad!
Bottom line as to how many pixels you need are base on 3 general factors 1) What type of photography you do, 2) how much skill and effort you put into post processing, 3) output medium and enlargement ratio. For the vast majority of people 16-20MP is probably more than enough. Pretty sure that's why both the D500 and D5 are basically in that range.
I've made perfectly fine 11x14 inch prints from 2.1MP, 6MP, 12MP, 24MP and 36MP cameras. Sure the 2.1MP were somewhat lacking in detail, but since they were outdoor head and should shots with out of focus backgrounds, it really wasn't a problem. I wasn't looking to resolve the pores on my model's skin!
My Nikon D70 (6mp) vs Kodachrome 25, both with 55mm micro-nikkor, tend to agree more with Kodak. Or that was the conclusion I came to at the time.
But yes, a lot depends on the subject and with the right subject and a "good" print pure resolution becomes less important, but I take on baord the comment that several have made on the security/flexibility that more pixels give.
Cheers,
Graham
-
My Nikon D70 (6mp) vs Kodachrome 25, both with 55mm micro-nikkor, tend to agree more with Kodak. Or that was the conclusion I came to at the time.
I compared my first 4.7 MPix Canon EOS-1D to Provia 135 (which we used for our editorial work at the time) using the same lens, and to my surprise the detail was about equal. I sincerely believed film would be better, but it was not (slightly more DR, maybe). Much cleaner skies with digital. I stopped worrying and was happy to get rid of film, with all the WB problems, slow speeds (pushed 400 Ektachrome looked like sh**), you name it. It has been heaven for the last 5 years already, and getting better all the time.
-
I compared my first 4.7 MPix Canon EOS-1D to Provia 135 (which we used for our editorial work at the time) using the same lens, and to my surprise the detail was about equal.
These were close ups of flower detail, and I was confident that the Kodachrome 25 had the edge, BUT looking back on it, I'm not sure how much post processing I did with the D70 files, and I was looking at the K25s with a loupe.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I wouldn't be too quick to praise early(ish) digital at the expense of 135 Kodachrome.
I almost never used the ultimate, slow one, preferring ASA 64 because I was dealing with live models on windy beaches, and needed a film with the widest latitude I could get, that still travelled well, could deal with lengthy time between exposure and processing, not to mention out-of-control (hot!) temperature situations.
What I did notice, almost as soon as I bought a scanner of my own, was that the detail that I could extract from my 35mm trannies was far better than ever seemed to appear on the printed pages of whatever product for which the things has been shot! I also discovered, to my surprise, that I could make b/white conversions from those same Kodachromes that were quite lovely - in my eyes - and I had a very long history of professional black and white photography, from 4x5 downwards.
In the end, I have come to the conclusion that digital photography is more about how well one can use Photoshop than anything else; the possibilities are vast, and it's then up to us to think about where we want that 'negative' to go. That's the big one!
Rob C
-
I remember at the time being told that 5 mp was equivalent to color negative film and 8 mp was equivalent to chrome. Everything beyond that was new territory. That seems pretty accurate in my experience. I am happy with every quality advancement since then.
-
I wouldn't be too quick to praise early(ish) digital at the expense of 135 Kodachrome.
I almost never used the ultimate, slow one, preferring ASA 64 because I was dealing with live models on windy beaches, and needed a film with the widest latitude I could get, that still travelled well, could deal with lengthy time between exposure and processing, not to mention out-of-control (hot!) temperature situations.
Kodachrome 25 was Da Bomb! I had a Nikon LS-1000 Coolscan for a time and that was just a chore. God, we have it so good today. I love pissing an moaning about noise at ISO 6400!
-
I wouldn't be too quick to praise early(ish) digital at the expense of 135 Kodachrome.
In the end, I have come to the conclusion that digital photography is more about how well one can use Photoshop than anything else; the possibilities are vast, and it's then up to us to think about where we want that 'negative' to go. That's the big one!
Rob C
I don't think anyone is, Petrus is saying there wasn't much difference with provia, and I am saying there was a noticeable difference with K25, and you are now saying this also applied to K64.
I agree with you that a tremendous amount of what dictates final quality is PP skills. I get a bit distressed that no matter how hard I try, running my final image through Topaz Clarity will still always improve it. But I am still very much a beginner with digital PP skills.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I remember at the time being told that 5 mp was equivalent to color negative film and 8 mp was equivalent to chrome. Everything beyond that was new territory. That seems pretty accurate in my experience. I am happy with every quality advancement since then.
That would also agree with what has been said here, Petrus though 5mp fairly similar to provia and I thought 6mp wasn't as good as K25.
I'm actually astounded at the quality we get now a days. I'm a bit of a fan of Nikon 1s, in spite their rubbish reputation, and I suspect its partly because I can remember what I used to get from 35mm film.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Leica's first digital M, the M8 with only 10 mp and no AA filter will print gorgeous images at 20" so if you're only printing to 17" even it could be considered overkill.
I can remember the poor reviews of the 5mp Leica Digilux, and I think it may well have been LL, who were persuaded by Leica to make prints, and although the images looked poor on the computer, it produced stunning prints.
At least that's how I remember the story.
Cheers,
Graham
-
That would also agree with what has been said here, Petrus though 5mp fairly similar to provia and I thought 6mp wasn't as good as K25.
I compared the EOS-1D to Provia because that is what we used mostly, also Astia. Velvia was just too slow for news type stuff and Kodachrome* even slower and the processing was in Switzerland… Certainly those would have compared well to even 8-10 MPix digital. In winter we had to resort to using Ektachrome 200 which looked awful or even 400, which was worse. Sometimes we shot negative which was smoother and faster, but scans had to made from prints, and hand made 30x40 prints for full spreads (outside lab) were not cheap!
*) I also liked the KodaChrome 64 Pro, shot hundreds of rolls of that on my travels to SAE, Nepal and Tibet in mid-eighties. Now the same number of pictures, with better quality, would fit on one SD card.
-
I compared the EOS-1D to Provia because that is what we used mostly, also Astia. Velvia was just too slow for news type stuff and Kodachrome* even slower and the processing was in Switzerland… Certainly those would have compared well to even 8-10 MPix digital. In winter we had to resort to using Ektachrome 200 which looked awful or even 400, which was worse. Sometimes we shot negative which was smoother and faster, but scans had to made from prints, and hand made 30x40 prints for full spreads (outside lab) were not cheap!
*) I also liked the KodaChrome 64 Pro, shot hundreds of rolls of that on my travels to SAE, Nepal and Tibet in mid-eighties. Now the same number of pictures, with better quality, would fit on one SD card.
You realise we are now talking about ISOs that most digital cameras don't even go down to now a days. I used to shoot wildlife on Kodachrome 64. How times have changed.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I have some expired ISO25 film that has to be shot at 12. Let's just say you would need a tripod even ON the Sun. :P
-
Hi,
My point with the posting was that small pixels may be beneficial even if 16-24 MP are quite enough for a large print.
I printed some crops, by and large corresponding to A2-size. In those prints I would say that the aliasing is clearly visible within the window when viewed at something like 70-80 cm in good light. But, it may not be very obvious if you were not looking for it.
The other point I looked at is the "Centralstationen" sign. Looking at say 40 cm it is quite obvious that it is readable on the 4.5 micron image and it is quite obvious that it is not readable in the 6.8 micron image. Checking with a loupe confirms this.
Would be interesting to see how two systems would work, one with a correct OLP-filter and one without OLP-filter.
My take is really that something like 16-24 MP is enough for excellent A2-size prints and it may be that a smaller sensor like APS-C or even 4/3 may a good choice for those print sizes.
But, a small pixel sensor will not look that great at actual pixels, as micro-contrast will be lower on the smaller pixels.
Best regards
Erik
I suppose I meant make less noticeable, the immediate difference between these images is contrast, so if you could lift the contrast in the right hand one so it looked more similar, would the differences still be noticeable at normal to a bit closer than normal viewing distances.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I have some expired ISO25 film that has to be shot at 12. Let's just say you would need a tripod even ON the Sun. :P
I had a spell with Kodak technical pan 25, that I seem to remember exposing at 12 asa. BUT the least bit of overexposure used to destroy any grain/sharpness gain that it gave, and I ended up bracketing exposure and then choosing the thinnest neg that still retained shadow detail.
This thread seems to have turned into a trip down memory lane for me :-)
Cheers,
Graham
-
Hi,
My point with the posting was that small pixels may be beneficial even if 16-24 MP are quite enough for a large print.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for the further explanation.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Just to my eye (I have shot a lot of different cameras and own an Epson 7900, so tend to print up to 24x36, but rarely over):
Micro 43 (recent 16 mp sensor, not the 20 mp, which I haven't used) will make a 12x16" print from almost any subject, with minor limitations with really high dynamic range subjects. 16x24" works more often than not, but not on the highest detail subjects. I sometimes get an acceptable print at 20x30" or larger, especially on lower detail, more atmospheric subjects.
Fuji 16 MP goes a little larger than Micro 43 16 mp - just about one print size... 16x24" works very well on almost any subject, and I'm surprised how often I can push on to 24x36, although certainly not on anything.
Most modern 24 mp sensors will go to 24x36" fairly easily on a wide variety of subjects (this applies to 24 mp FF, as well as the newer versions of 24 mp APS-C). I'm really looking forward to the X-Pro 2, because it will be a beautifully handling camera with the Fuji look to the images, using Fujinon glass, that is 24x36" capable on more subjects.
The "pixel monsters" go well beyond where my printer will go. I've never used an A7rII, which should be better still, but 36 mp is sufficient for single-shot panoramas up to 24x50" or larger (and almost certainly for 36x54" prints or the like if I had a larger printer).
I really like the Fuji experience, and their lenses. Now that they have a camera that should do a good job up to 24x36" in almost any situation, I see no reason to concern myself with larger when I don't have the printer for it.
The OP seems to be printer limited one size smaller than I am, which would suggest that modern Micro 43, or anything higher quality than that, would work just fine... The 24 mp cameras might offer some advantages in noise or dynamic range, and lens choices of course make a huge difference.
-
Thanks for backpack tips, folks. Much of the volume of a pack goes toward raingear and / or mid-layer top, 10 essentials, socks socks socks (sweaty feet, need extras!), and to date, Nalgene water bottles, which seem trustworthy (unlikely to leak inside pack).
-
Just to my eye (I have shot a lot of different cameras and own an Epson 7900, so tend to print up to 24x36, but rarely over):
The OP seems to be printer limited one size smaller than I am, which would suggest that modern Micro 43, or anything higher quality than that, would work just fine... The 24 mp cameras might offer some advantages in noise or dynamic range, and lens choices of course make a huge difference.
Some useful direct observations in this post. Thanks.
I just picked the 17" size as one that was probably within reach of most enthusiast photographers.
However, how picky are you being?
The premise of the OP was that once you got above a threshold (which I suggested was a 12mp Nikon D700) you needed to be looking very closely to see any meaningful difference (with 17" prints). And questioned the importance of that difference, not in a judgmental way, just out of interest to get others thoughts.
But like everyone else, I am still trying to get the best quality I can, so your observations particularly your comments on DR, and those of others, are coming together as useful resource of information.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I'm not sure how to define pickiness... I have never shot low-resolution full frame, and actually have very little experience with cameras of exactly 12 mp. I have experience with cameras in the 4-10 mp range, but jumped from 10 to 16. I've looked at images from other people's 12 mp cameras, but never owned one, so my answer is likely to be unsatisfying..
That said, here's my best supposition. I have never seen a camera with less than 12 mp that I'd be comfortable with as large as 16x24, which is the largest easy size from a 17" printer. Both 16 mp from the very old (but very high end for its time) Canon 1Ds II and 16 mp from the newer Micro 43 cameras are borderline, depending on how much detail is in the scene (they work for many, but not all subjects). I'd imagine the D700, which has less resolution, but a reputation for an extraordinarily good sensor for its time, is probably in the same category. Most other 12 mp cameras (other than the new Sonys) are probably a small category below the D700 - good up to 12x18", really pushing it any bigger.
One possible rule of thumb (it works for me, with the cameras I've tried it on, but I'd want more evidence before saying I was anywhere close to sure) is that the resolution in megapixels roughly equals the short edge of the largest comfortable print? Subtract one size for a small or poor sensor (only half a size for a semi-small sensor like micro 43), and perhaps add a size for an extraordinary sensor, or one that is unusually large for its resolution? This passes the sniff test on a lot of cameras I am familiar with:
8 mp iPhone: 5x7 (subtract one size for a small sensor)
10 mp Nikon D200: 10x15 (this matches my memory)
16 mp Micro 43: 12x16/16x20 (subtract half a size)
16 mp Fuji: 16x24 (done this a lot, and it works well)
24 mp Sony sensor (any modern one): 24x36 ( the only camera with such a sensor where I would say "not quite" is the original NEX-7, and that may have partially been less than great lenses).
36 mp+: enough bigger than my printer that I've never found the limit with any confidence.
EDIT: On further reflection, I realized that the one group of cameras this understates the performance of is very early DSLRs - A Nikon D1 or Canon D30 were capable of more than 3x5 (although 3 MP compacts really weren't). Similarly, a 6 MP DSLR easily outperforms an 8 MP iPhone, and can go somewhat higher than 6x9.
There's also a point at the very high end of the range (whether this is 24 mp, 36 mp or even higher in what is presently medium format territory is debatable) where viewing distance means that print size becomes effectively unlimited. Sure, you could use more resolution if you stuck your nose up to the print, but how close are you going to get to a 40x60" print, much less a 100x150" print? A practical limit is that the best (highest resolution and best color quality) printers are rare above 44" widths, and simply do not exist above 60". The grand format printers that are the only way to print many feet wide are made for signage, and just don't have the image quality of the Epsons and Canons that dominate the 17-44" market. They also don't print on the baryta and art rag papers that the 17-44" machines do.
-
Interesting thread... As others have mentioned, I don't think there are necessarily any hard and fast rules about translating pixels to maximum print sizes, or any thresholds per se. Sure, I have some fairly large prints hanging on the wall that I likely would not have printed so large if not captured on a 36 Mp D800E (30" on the long dimension) or 60 Mp IQ160 MFDB (36-45" on the long dimension). These typically involve landscapes with very fine details. But some of my favorite prints, at 24", were from my 12 Mp D700 and probably could have been stretched up to 30" without any issues. All of these prints look great from a viewing distance that actually allows one to take in the entire image or get close enough to study the details (but not so close as to leave nose prints on the glass - who in their right mind would do that?), regardless of which camera I used. So I guess the short answer is: it depends.
Re: the 12 Mp sensor of the old D700/D3 - it was a gem. In many ways I miss my D700, which I reluctantly sold to help finance the D800E. The D700 rendered images for me that I can only describe as smooth and "buttery," whereas the D800E - a superb instrument by any measure - seems a bit finicky by comparison, almost daring me to eke out every last bit of image quality that its sensor can deliver. With that said, since taking up medium format using the digital back (talk about finicky), I don't use the Nikon very much these days, at least not for landscape or still life images. For me, there's simply no comparison. And therein, perhaps, lies the paradox...
- John (an otherwise unapologetic chaser of pixels)
-
I have one slightly cropped (panorama format) print made from a 16 MPix Fujifilm file which is a 170 cm wide canvas print. Looks great and "artistic", but certainly falls apart if looked at closely (both pixels and processing artifacts). But the truth told, it is as sharp or sharper than any Rembrant or Turner I have ever seen… ;D
-
Hi,
One way to see it is that something like 180 PPI is needed for a very good print. That 180 PPI correlates with the angular resolution of 20/20 vision at 50 cm. In practice, 180 PPI also works well for shorter viewing distances. For 25 cm distance 20/20 vision can resolve 360 PPI which happens to be the normal resolution mode of Epson printers.
One part of the reason 180 PPI works that well is that while human vision can resolve high contrast detail at one minute of arc, the contrast sensitivity of human vision is much higher at lower frequencies. So, an image that is sharp at say 90 PPI may look pretty well, although it may lack in fine detail.
So, using the 180PPI criteria we would need something like 180 * 17 -> 3600 pixels on the long edge for a 17" print and 180 x 11 -> 1980 for an 11"x17" print, that is about 7 MP, but you need to add some MP for cropping, say 8 MP would be OK.
If you have perfect vision and pixel peep at 25 cm / 12", where human vision tends to have maximum resolution you would need four times that MP, but once you get in the fifties the eyes are typically not so good to accommodate for short distances and I don't think reading glasses are optimised for 25 cm / 12".
This video by Canon's Larry Thorpe covers a lot of ground. It is oriented towards motion, not still, but it is still very informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBKDjLeNlsQ
Best regards
Erik
Interesting thread... As others have mentioned, I don't think there are necessarily any hard and fast rules about translating pixels to maximum print sizes, or any thresholds per se. Sure, I have some fairly large prints hanging on the wall that I likely would not have printed so large if not captured on a 36 Mp D800E (30" on the long dimension) or 60 Mp IQ160 MFDB (36-45" on the long dimension). These typically involve landscapes with very fine details. But some of my favorite prints, at 24", were from my 12 Mp D700 and probably could have been stretched up to 30" without any issues. All of these prints look great from a viewing distance that actually allows one to take in the entire image or get close enough to study the details (but not so close as to leave nose prints on the glass - who in their right mind would do that?), regardless of which camera I used. So I guess the short answer is: it depends.
Re: the 12 Mp sensor of the old D700/D3 - it was a gem. In many ways I miss my D700, which I reluctantly sold to help finance the D800E. The D700 rendered images for me that I can only describe as smooth and "buttery," whereas the D800E - a superb instrument by any measure - seems a bit finicky by comparison, almost daring me to eke out every last bit of image quality that its sensor can deliver. With that said, since taking up medium format using the digital back (talk about finicky), I don't use the Nikon very much these days, at least not for landscape or still life images. For me, there's simply no comparison. And therein, perhaps, lies the paradox...
- John (an otherwise unapologetic chaser of pixels)
-
I'm not sure how to define pickiness...
Thanks for the time you have put into this Dan,
Interesting that you raise the same resolution Fuji up a notch from the smaller sensor M43 sensors, I wonder whether that also pushes the FF D700 a little higher up the scale than you suggest. But your comments support final quality being more than pixels, which was also part of my OP.
It has still helped put the different resolutions into perspective.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Interesting thread... As others have mentioned, I don't think there are necessarily any hard and fast rules about translating pixels to maximum print sizes, or any thresholds per se. Sure, I have some fairly large prints hanging on the wall that I likely would not have printed so large if not captured on a 36 Mp D800E (30" on the long dimension) or 60 Mp IQ160 MFDB (36-45" on the long dimension). These typically involve landscapes with very fine details. But some of my favorite prints, at 24", were from my 12 Mp D700 and probably could have been stretched up to 30" without any issues. All of these prints look great from a viewing distance that actually allows one to take in the entire image or get close enough to study the details (but not so close as to leave nose prints on the glass - who in their right mind would do that?), regardless of which camera I used. So I guess the short answer is: it depends.
Re: the 12 Mp sensor of the old D700/D3 - it was a gem. In many ways I miss my D700, which I reluctantly sold to help finance the D800E. The D700 rendered images for me that I can only describe as smooth and "buttery," whereas the D800E - a superb instrument by any measure - seems a bit finicky by comparison, almost daring me to eke out every last bit of image quality that its sensor can deliver. With that said, since taking up medium format using the digital back (talk about finicky), I don't use the Nikon very much these days, at least not for landscape or still life images. For me, there's simply no comparison. And therein, perhaps, lies the paradox...
- John (an otherwise unapologetic chaser of pixels)
Actually you have got right to the core of my question, especially as you have used a D700. The D700 images I have seen appear to look especially nice. Given that "generally" the bigger the print, the further away you are, and that many people are probably restricted to 17" printers "quality" is probably more to do with other things than resolution.
Unless resolution also improves gradation and micro contrast. Then again you would also expect newer sensors/ processing engines to improve other things, and increased resolution just being part of the improvement.
I wasn't suggesting a hard and fast rule, it just so happened that the D700 images I was looking at triggered the question The buttery smoothness you refer to is something I associate with larger format and this exactly what I thought I was seeing with the D700. and I have heard people say similar things about the Nikon DF which is 16mp.
But reading what you have said, maybe there really is a threshold, and that once you get to around 16mp on full frame you need to jump to medium format for a more rounded improvement in quality. But I am just thinking out loud now.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I have one slightly cropped (panorama format) print made from a 16 MPix Fujifilm file which is a 170 cm wide canvas print. Looks great and "artistic", but certainly falls apart if looked at closely (both pixels and processing artifacts). But the truth told, it is as sharp or sharper than any Rembrant or Turner I have ever seen… ;D
Strange, I thought they both used Phase one cameras :-)
Cheers,
Graham
-
I am dissatisfied with every print I've ever made...until the point I hang it on the wall. This is usually because I am not looking at the image, but comparing small sections to the original file. Once hung on the wall, I am looking at the image itself and I am usually quite pleased...though I am always judging some way to have made it better.
-
I am dissatisfied with every print I've ever made...until the point I hang it on the wall. This is usually because I am not looking at the image, but comparing small sections to the original file. Once hung on the wall, I am looking at the image itself and I am usually quite pleased...though I am always judging some way to have made it better.
I think you are not alone in this.
On a similar vein, I find that when I carefully test different raw processors, different sensors, different lenses etc and clearly see enormous differences that convince me that A is so much better than B, I will go back in a few months time and struggle to tell the difference, not always of course, but enough of the time for me to be aware of it.
Cheers,
Graham
-
But reading what you have said, maybe there really is a threshold, and that once you get to around 16mp on full frame you need to jump to medium format for a more rounded improvement in quality. But I am just thinking out loud now.
Cheers,
Graham
Thinking (barely) out loud myself: perhaps there's not so much a threshold as a point of diminishing returns? After all, how many pixels of ever-shrinking dimensions can one stuff into a given sized sensor and still expect to see some noticeable improvement in a print hanging on the wall? The lenses most of us can afford or are willing to spend money on can't keep up, and those that can will be diffraction limited at increasingly wider apertures.
As for jumping to medium format, there's a difference in what can be accomplished with 60 Mp on a 24x36 mm vs. 40x54 mm sensor. The size of the sensor has an impact not only on resolution but also tonality, depth of field, etc. I appreciated this back when I was shooting film on both formats and it remains true today. Importantly, the overall magnification from sensor to a given size print (we're still talking about prints here, right?) is less than for an image captured on a smaller sensor, which among other factors means that any lens aberrations are magnified that much less. And then there's that "MF look" that many, including myself, swear by. Getting back to the D700, I just like the look of the images it gave me. The best way for me to describe it succinctly is that it didn't feel "digital." But I'll be the first to admit that when we start talking about a "look," we may as well be talking religion...
My two ¢.
John
-
As for jumping to medium format, there's a difference in what can be accomplished with 60 Mp on a 24x36 mm vs. 40x54 mm sensor. The size of the sensor has an impact not only on resolution but also tonality, depth of field, etc.
John
But its the tonality and micro-contrast etc where the "quality" really lies. My experience also lies back with film and the reason I liked 5x4 wasn't the sharpness (which was still important), but the smoothness of tone. Images of things like trees in the mist worked on 5x4 but were just a mess in smaller formats.
But I am sure its a combination of things that give that quality. But I have been really taken by the D700 images I have been looking at, so maybe we both have similar religious ideas when it comes to quality.
Really of course I would like medium format, but that isn't ever going to happen. But I am very tempted to pick up a secondhand d700 :-)
Cheers,
Graham
-
Hi,
I have been shooting medium format for 2.5 years. I do enjoy shooting it but I am pretty sure that the claimed benefits of MFD are just a myth.
If you compare a 24x36 camera with say 36-50 MP using a very good lens it will perform better than a 39-50 MP CCD based MF camera. If you compared 36-50 MP CMOS to 50 MP CMOS on MFD, I think the MFD will have a small benefit. The main reason for that benefit is modern CMOS having a large fill factor and gapless micro lenses.
But, 90% or so of the benefits of MFD may be just folklore, and modern CMOS doesn't play well with symmetric wide angles.
If you use programs like C1 or Phocus, they may benefit backs from Team Phase One or Hasselblad.
Best regards
Erik
But its the tonality and micro-contrast etc where the "quality" really lies. My experience also lies back with film and the reason I liked 5x4 wasn't the sharpness (which was still important), but the smoothness of tone. Images of things like trees in the mist worked on 5x4 but were just a mess in smaller formats.
But I am sure its a combination of things that give that quality. But I have been really taken by the D700 images I have been looking at, so maybe we both have similar religious ideas when it comes to quality.
Really of course I would like medium format, but that isn't ever going to happen. But I am very tempted to pick up a secondhand d700 :-)
Cheers,
Graham
-
But its the tonality and micro-contrast etc where the "quality" really lies. My experience also lies back with film and the reason I liked 5x4 wasn't the sharpness (which was still important), but the smoothness of tone. Images of things like trees in the mist worked on 5x4 but were just a mess in smaller formats.
But I am sure its a combination of things that give that quality. But I have been really taken by the D700 images I have been looking at, so maybe we both have similar religious ideas when it comes to quality.
Really of course I would like medium format, but that isn't ever going to happen. But I am very tempted to pick up a secondhand d700 :-)
Cheers,
Graham
That's one camera I don't think I would ever sell. And as I write, I realise I'd not sell the D200 either.
But then, I thought like that about my two 500 Series, too. Now I can't have 'em back, it's too late. But, even if I had them, film and processing are not currently possible for me, so it would be an empty sort of 'having', one more promising if I ever move back to Britain at some stage, though.
Adding insult to injury, I looked again at an old Michael Kenna video yesterday... I could even envisage giving landscape another whirl again if I had a square. Always loved the format, from my Rollei onwards.
Rob
-
Hi,
I just get hold of another 6x7 projector, quite happy about it. So, I guess I'll shoot some Provia 100 on 67 pretty soon again, or just put a roll of Provia in one of my Hasselblad backs.
Best regards
Erik
That's one camera I don't think I would ever sell. And as I write, I realise I'd not sell the D200 either.
But then, I thought like that about my two 500 Series, too. Now I can't have 'em back, it's too late. But, even if I had them, film and processing are not currently possible for me, so it would be an empty sort of 'having', one more promising if I ever move back to Britain at some stage, though.
Adding insult to injury, I looked again at an old Michael Kenna video yesterday... I could even envisage giving landscape another whirl again if I had a square. Always loved the format, from my Rollei onwards.
Rob
-
Hi,
I have been shooting medium format for 2.5 years. I do enjoy shooting it but I am pretty sure that the claimed benefits of MFD are just a myth.
Best regards
Erik
I have no expertise in this to comment, but I do feel that the images I have seen from MFD still have a smoothness that smaller sensors have. But then I have also seen that smoothness from smaller sensors as well, so not sure what to think.
You obviously still use MFD, so it presumably it gives you something you still think is desirable.
Cheers,
Graham
-
That's one camera I don't think I would ever sell. And as I write, I realise I'd not sell the D200 either.
But then, I thought like that about my two 500 Series, too. Now I can't have 'em back, it's too late. But, even if I had them, film and processing are not currently possible for me, so it would be an empty sort of 'having', one more promising if I ever move back to Britain at some stage, though.
Adding insult to injury, I looked again at an old Michael Kenna video yesterday... I could even envisage giving landscape another whirl again if I had a square. Always loved the format, from my Rollei onwards.
Rob
Hasselblad 500c/m was my favourite camera of all the ones I have owned and used, small, high quality, enjoyed the waist level finder and loved small square prints.
I know lots of people hate square prints, but I like the way they hold the eye within the print rather than letting the long edge of a rectangular print leading you out of the print. If I could afford it, an old 500 plus a digital back (low resolution would be fine) would be my perfect set up, as I prepare for retirement.
There seems to be a lot of love for the D700 :-)
Cheers,
Graham
-
Hi,
Regarding image quality I strongly feel that today's 24x36mm CMOS is a bit above 39 MP CCD from 2006. Today we have both 50 MP and 100 MP CMOS using Sony sensors. Those sensors obviously have a bit of advantage over smaller sensors.
I really enjoy shooting with the P45+ on the Hasselblad 555/ELD, but it is a shooting experience and not a processing and printing experience.
For the last two years I have been shooting P45+ in parallel with my Sony cameras. What I have found that all prints making it to the wall were shot on Sony, except one.
Shooting with the P45+ gives some limitations. For instance, I have only primes for the 'Blad' 40/60/100/120/180 while I normally use zooms for the Sony A7rII, from 12 mm to 400 mm.
So with the 'Blad' I pick a lens and choose composition while with the Sony I pick a composition and match the focal length. It is a different way of shooting. But, it is the Sony images that make it to the wall.
The thing is that there is not a lot of difference between the Sony gear and the Hasselblad gear. But the Hasselblad gear is much more expensive and a lot less flexible.
I would be very hard pressed to find any objective advantages of the Hasselblad system. OK, there is an advantage. If you set up a tripod and shoot with a Hasselblad on top, it is very probable that someone is interested in the gear you are using. For me it is not really fun. I would be hard pressed to come up with an explanation for using a previous millennium kit.
So, I would say that I like using MFD gear, except for the results.
Best regards
Erik
I have no expertise in this to comment, but I do feel that the images I have seen from MFD still have a smoothness that smaller sensors have. But then I have also seen that smoothness from smaller sensors as well, so not sure what to think.
You obviously still use MFD, so it presumably it gives you something you still think is desirable.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Hi,
Regarding image quality I strongly feel that today's 24x36mm CMOS is a bit above 39 MP CCD from 2006. Today we have both 50 MP and 100 MP CMOS using Sony sensors. Those sensors obviously have a bit of advantage over smaller sensors.
So, I would say that I like using MFD gear, except for the results.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks a very useful insight. I probably prefer primes to zooms and like the "ritual" of composing in my head and then setting a tripod up where I think it should go. But I also enjoy the freedom of handheld with zooms and it brings a different kind of image.
Cheers,
Graham
-
The thing is that there is not a lot of difference between the Sony gear and the Hasselblad gear. But the Hasselblad gear is much more expensive and a lot less flexible.
I think there's a bigger difference that can be worked with in terms of crafting an image when stepping up to the full sized MF sensors. Using the IQ160 on the old Hassy V is definitely less flexible but considering where I am at this point in my life and my photographic interests, it suits me well. And in my own limited and amateurish (literally) experience, the images are in another world. YMMV, of course.
Per Rob C.'s comments - I still have my original Hassy 500C and SWC kit, which have been with me for over 40 years. My kids will inherit them - I will never sell them! I've since updated the bodies and lenses and use the older gear mainly as backups (meaning: I exercise the shutters when I can remember). For me, photography is as much (or more) visceral as technical. With the D700, it was as if there was nothing between me and the image when I pressed the shutter. With the D800E, I find myself fussing over technical stuff and with the Hassy the fussing gives me more satisfaction. As I mentioned previously, it's like religion. ;)
John
-
I've always found that the experience of some degree of dissatisfaction with the technical results of certain photos I've taken under certain conditions, usually less than ideal conditions, has been a driving force and a motivation for me to upgrade my equipment, both camera body and sometimes lenses.
Such dissatisfaction usually relates to unwanted noise and a lack of sharpness. An increase in pixel quality results in reduced noise. An increase in pixel quantity results in increased resolution, all else being equal. However, both are inter-related in the sense that a noise-free image can be sharpened more in post processing, and an image which is already acceptably sharp, but rather noisy, may not require further sharpening which usually has the effect of increasing noise.
I can understand that someone who is very pleased with his D700 or even D7000, and also pleased with the results on a 17" print, might see no reason to upgrade to a 36mp camera which he thinks is more appropriate for 24" x 36" prints or larger, which he has no intention of printing.
However, there is another more practical aspect of upgrading to a higher-megapixel camera, which is often overlooked. If the increase in pixel count is very significant, as it is when comparing the D700 (or D7000) with the D810, then there are amazing flow-on benefits relating to the enhanced quality and increased, effective range of focal lengths of one's existing lenses, in relation to that personal standard of acceptable quality on a 17" print.
All of one's prime lenses effectively become short-range zoom lenses with a fixed maximum aperture. In relation to the 12mp standard of the D700, the D810 with 50/F1.4 lens attached will effectively become a 50-86.5/F1.4 zoom. In other words, the crop factor of 1.73x, for a 12mp image, is greater than the crop factor of the DX format, which 1.5x. The Nikkor 80-400 zoom on the D810 (in relation to that 12mp standard) effectively becomes an 80-692mm zoom.
Of course, one might raise the legitimate point that a 12mp crop from the centre of a 36mp full-frame sensor will not be a sharp as the uncropped image from a full-frame 12mp camera with use of appropriate lens. That's true, just as it's true that a 36mp image down-sampled to 12mp will be sharper than the same image taken with the same lens on a 12mp camera.
However, if such increases in sharpness are considered to be of little consequence on a 17" print, because they would require inspecting the print from a very close distance, then such reductions in sharpness should also be of little consequence.
-
Hi,
The problem I have with primes is that they give me an advantage in choosing vantage point. I generally choose vantage point and than decide on lens.
But, I also feel that working with primes on the Hasselblad was seldom a problem.
I have a V-series Hasselblad and 40/60/100/120/180 mm lenses and a P45+. Obviously modern backs are better. That said the P45+ can deliver stunning image quality. The Hasselblad lenses are very sharp in the centre, but not so sharp in the corners. The 100/3.5 and 180/4 are both very sharp across the field. The few comparisons I made between the A7rII and Hassy recently I have found that the A7rII images were a little bit sharper
With the Hasselblad it often happens that I stitch, as I don't have the option to zoom out, so I often stitch instead of switching to a wider lens.
I normally print A2 and both Hasselblad and Sony can deliver great image quality at that size. The corner weakness of the 40/60 and 120 lenses doesn't show up i A2-size.
The great advantage of the Sony is that I can cover 16 - 400 mm with just three lenses 16-35, 24-70 and 70-400, but I also carry a 90 mm macro.
For some reason I found that few of my Hasselblad images made it to the wall, but quite a few of my favourite shots were taken with the P45+.
Things have changed in my life, so now days I often fly to destinations, that is one reason I want smaller and lighter gear.
Here is one image with the P45+:
(https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/i-hWXbrn6/0/X2/20140612-CF045214-X2.jpg)
And here is one with my Sony A99:
(https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/i-35h2X56/1/X2/20140612-_DSC4611-X2.jpg)
P45+ (two images stitched vertically):
(https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/i-pgbZsKr/2/X3/20140613-CF045241-X3.jpg)
A99:
(https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/i-ScF3V3K/0/X2/20140603-_DSC4026-X2.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
Thanks a very useful insight. I probably prefer primes to zooms and like the "ritual" of composing in my head and then setting a tripod up where I think it should go. But I also enjoy the freedom of handheld with zooms and it brings a different kind of image.
Cheers,
Graham
-
However, there is another more practical aspect of upgrading to a higher-megapixel camera, which is often overlooked. If the increase in pixel count is very significant, as it is when comparing the D700 (or D7000) with the D810, then there are amazing flow-on benefits relating to the enhanced quality and increased, effective range of focal lengths of one's existing lenses, in relation to that personal standard of acceptable quality on a 17" print.
All of one's prime lenses effectively become short-range zoom lenses with a fixed maximum aperture. In relation to the 12mp standard of the D700, the D810 with 50/F1.4 lens attached will effectively become a 50-86.5/F1.4 zoom. In other words, the crop factor of 1.73x, for a 12mp image, is greater than the crop factor of the DX format, which 1.5x. The Nikkor 80-400 zoom on the D810 (in relation to that 12mp standard) effectively becomes an 80-692mm zoom.
Good point. Moving up to the 36 Mp D800E allows me to shoot on the equivalent DX crop sensor but at slightly higher resolution (and quality) than I did on my old D300S, which I used to pair with the D700 when shooting sports (something I no longer do). Both have been replaced with the D800E although in some circumstances it's nice to have different lenses mounted on two bodies, ready to go. I miss the D700, the D300S not so much (the image quality in challenging light paled in comparison to its bigger brother).
John
-
A99:
(https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/i-ScF3V3K/0/X2/20140603-_DSC4026-X2.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
That last image is superb, Erik. Perhaps the best of all the images you've shown on this site. ;)
Stitching software is so good nowadays, I often also take multiple shots with camera held vertical, instead of changing to a wider-angle lens.
However, the bottom line is, whatever lenses you are carrying, and whether or not you are carrying two cameras with attached zooms to avoid the necessity of changing lenses, the higher the pixel-count and the higher the pixel quality of the camera, the greater the enhanced options regarding effective lens focal lengths, with regard any moderate image quality standard that might apply to a 17" print.
-
Hi Ray,
Thanks for the comment about my picture. It was shot on one of Hans Kruse's workshop. Hans is great in finding magic places in the magic light.
With regard to resolution, I agree it is a good thing. I would say it is almost always beneficial.
The one exception I can think of is a camera that is aimed at very high ISO-s. In that case it makes a lot of sense to keep those pixels big.
There is actually another case where larger pixels may be beneficial and that is when digital sensors are used with symmetric wide-angles intended for film, like many of the Leica M-lenses. Modern sensors don't play well with those lenses.
Best regards
Erik
That last image is superb, Erik. Perhaps the best of all the images you've shown on this site. ;)
Stitching software is so good nowadays, I often also take multiple shots with camera held vertical, instead of changing to a wider-angle lens.
However, the bottom line is, whatever lenses you are carrying, and whether or not you are carrying two cameras with attached zooms to avoid the necessity of changing lenses, the higher the pixel-count and the higher the pixel quality of the camera, the greater the enhanced options regarding effective lens focal lengths, with regard any moderate image quality standard that might apply to a 17" print.
-
I have been shooting medium format for 2.5 years. I do enjoy shooting it but I am pretty sure that the claimed benefits of MFD are just a myth.
I think the MF benefits that came in film days just don't translate to digital. If I remember the general lay of the numbers, MF lenses had less resolving capability (say LP/mm) than 35mm but the much larger image area allowed more total data to be captured such that the lower enlargement ratio combined with more data gave better images. In addition tonal gradations were much smoother on film with larger areas.
I guess what I would say overall is film was a continuous surface while digital pixels are discrete. The overall sensor size does not matter from the standpoint of how an individual pixel is captured, it is the pixel size itself. I do remember a Nikon D(?) versus Hassy comparison where the Hassy just blew the DSLR away. I suspect it was just total pixels. And of course, the sensor technology has improved tremendously.
-
I do remember a Nikon D(?) versus Hassy comparison where the Hassy just blew the DSLR away. I suspect it was just total pixels. And of course, the sensor technology has improved tremendously.
That must have been a decade ago already. Certainly not Nikon D8something…
Film was the same no matter what size it was: more of it was always better. Now things are not so simple anymore. Best sensors per square mm are not those used in MF backs, in general. Sharpest lenses are made for smaller formats. Those two facts are great equalizers.
-
That must have been a decade ago already. Certainly not Nikon D8something…
Film was the same no matter what size it was: more of it was always better. Now things are not so simple anymore. Best sensors per square mm are not those used in MF backs, in general. Sharpest lenses are made for smaller formats. Those two facts are great equalizers.
I'm thinking it was D3 time frame. It was on the Fred Miranda site I believe. Noticed a D800 VS Hassy H4D40 more recently.
And yes, more film was better. Now it is MP versus Pixel Size and various other factors that one must account for that all interact in some fascinating ways.
-
I think post and paper quality / printers are important factors that can propel or restrict your work.
If you had asked me a few years ago I would have laughed at myself. Now, I have access to a full lab with three Epson 9900's, a few 7900's and one 4900 (which I hate).
It's not just print size but the quality of the inks, the quality and type of paper that really can affect sharpness, etc etc. add in your post skills and you see how this becomes important.
Also, it all depends on your output. Are you a commercial photographer who needs to make accurate work for clients or are you a fine art photographer, like myself, where my H5D is nice but hangs on the same walls as people doing Polaroid emulsion lifts.
So many complicating factors. Bottom line: make your work and enjoy it. I just came off a massive 4 month buying / testing / returning / testing / buying phase and it was brutal. I finally found what I like.
With that said, I love making 40x60 prints.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
However, there is another more practical aspect of upgrading to a higher-megapixel camera, which is often overlooked. If the increase in pixel count is very significant, as it is when comparing the D700 (or D7000) with the D810, then there are amazing flow-on benefits relating to the enhanced quality and increased, effective range of focal lengths of one's existing lenses, in relation to that personal standard of acceptable quality on a 17" print.
Especially important for wildlife, both for distant subjects when you can't get the reach and close ups where you may need to pull back on how close you really want to be to get a bit more depth of field and then use only a portion of the image for the final print.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Hi,
The great advantage of the Sony is that I can cover 16 - 400 mm with just three lenses 16-35, 24-70 and 70-400, but I also carry a 90 mm macro.
Best regards
Erik
Very nice images. The sony does indeed look very good and no arguing about the size/weight advantage.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Noticed a D800 VS Hassy H4D40 more recently.
There is a comparison here with 800e
https://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/
Cheers,
Graham
-
So many complicating factors. Bottom line: make your work and enjoy it. I just came off a massive 4 month buying / testing / returning / testing / buying phase and it was brutal. I finally found what I like.
Nobody ever said it was going to be easy :-)
I'm glad you have at least found what you like. People talk about a mis-spent youth, but nearly all my youth was spent in the dark room testing film/developers/paper etc. Not convinced now about the value of all this testing, but a great way of learning your craft.
I'm now looking forward to moving house and finding room for a decent printer of my own so I get that side of my photography sorted out. As you suggest I don't think you can really sort out the other parts of photography until you have sorted out the printing side.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I think Erik Kaffehr gave the relevant answer:
"So, using the 180PPI criteria we would need something like 180 * 17 -> 3600 pixels on the long edge for a 17" print and 180 x 11 -> 1980 for an 11"x17" print, that is about 7 MP, but you need to add some MP for cropping, say 8 MP would be OK. "
this is about all you can see on a 17 inch print - the content is up to you...
-
I think Erik Kaffehr gave the relevant answer:
"So, using the 180PPI criteria we would need something like 180 * 17 -> 3600 pixels on the long edge for a 17" print and 180 x 11 -> 1980 for an 11"x17" print, that is about 7 MP, but you need to add some MP for cropping, say 8 MP would be OK. "
this is about all you can see on a 17 inch print - the content is up to you...
LMAO. While I generally agree, don't tell others who think you need 720ppi at least for an Epson Stylus Photographic printer, even though Epson has said the driver dithering algorithm can't use more than 360ppi and gives good results at 180ppi.
-
Hi,
Yes I am ware of that. The 180 PPO figure relates to 20/20 vision at 50 cm (20"). Good accommodation assumed, optimum resolution of vision would resolve maximum at 25 cm and 360 PPI would be needed.
That resolution corresponds to one minute of arc. The contrast sensivity of human vision maxes at 6-8 cycles per degree, so our vision is most sensitive to coarser detail. So we may need 360 PPI to detect the fine detail in a resolution test chart at 25 cm viewing distance but 180 PPI (or even 90 PPI) to see all the detail in the bark of a tree.
On the other hand, there is something called vernier acuity, meaning that human vision is very sensitive to broken lines.
To that comes aliasing effects.
My impression is that 180 PPI is the resolution where observers have difficulties telling prints apart.
Best regards
Erik
LMAO. While I generally agree, don't tell others who think you need 720ppi at least for an Epson Stylus Photographic printer, even though Epson has said the driver dithering algorithm can't use more than 360ppi and gives good results at 180ppi.
-
Hi,
My impression is that 180 PPI is the resolution where observers have difficulties telling prints apart.
Best regards
Erik
This is a great rule of thumb to have available for resolution, but in terms of print quality, can we then use another rule of thumb that there after quality will increase as sensor size increases (assuming sensors from similar generations, as I am aware of your Sony/Hasselblad comparison).
Cheers,
Graham
-
Hi,
One way to see it would be to opt for a pixel size that avoids aliasing at your most used aperture. For f/8 I would guess something like 3.5 microns.
Smaller formats would be optimised for larger apertures. If you shoot f/5.6 on 4/3 you may need 2 microns to avoid aliasing.
That would be something like 70 MP on 24x36 and 54 MP on 4/3.
The best lenses, like Otus are optimal at f/4 (at least near axis), using f/4 the optimal resolution would be something like 140 MP on 24x36mm.
But, those image would be quite soft when viewed at actual pixels on screen.
Best regards
Erik
This is a great rule of thumb to have available for resolution, but in terms of print quality, can we then use another rule of thumb that there after quality will increase as sensor size increases (assuming sensors from similar generations, as I am aware of your Sony/Hasselblad comparison).
Cheers,
Graham
-
Hi,
That would be something like 70 MP on 24x36 and 54 MP on 4/3.
Best regards
Erik
Well that is much bigger than I expected! (and really interesting)
But this still seems to be centred on resolution, don't larger photo sites bring benefits in colour and tonal quality.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Hi,
Not really…
What affects colour is mostly the effort going into colour profiles and the CFA (Colour Filter Array).
Image noise is affecting both colour rendition and tonality, but image noise is depending on the number of photons captured. It doesn't really matter if they are captured by small pixels. Half size pixels can capture half the photons but you have twice the number pixels so the number of photons is the same.
This doesn't work really for read noise, so at very high ISO ratings larger pixels will be better. Another factor is that you want to keep the wiring to photodiode surface low.
That really means that there is an optimum pixel size for a given width of wiring and that optimal size is going down.
Phase One has "sensor +" that is hardware binning on some of it's sensors. That illustrates the issue pretty well. The effect of hardware binning shows as a bump in the DR curve in "screen" mode. It is also visible in the tonal range curve.
Switching to print mode the bump is pretty weak in the DR curve, but not all visible in tonal range curve.
DR is essentially defined by readout noise (it's definition is Full Well Capacity / read noise) while tonal range is dominated by full well capacity.
Screen mode is same as actual pixels on screen. Print mode is normalised to a small print size. The print size doesn't really matter, it would affect the numbers but not the ratios.
So, the essence is that you can reduce pixel size within reasonable limits without negative effects on image quality. What reasonable limits are varies with technology.
My guess is that what we have now, like 36-50 MP on 24x36 and 24MP on APS-C may be optimum today. But, to make best use of the best lenses we could have quite a bit more.
Best regards
Erik
But this still seems to be centred on resolution, don't larger photo sites bring benefits in colour and tonal quality.
Cheers,
Graham
-
So, the essence is that you can reduce pixel size within reasonable limits without negative effects on image quality. What reasonable limits are varies with technology.
My guess is that what we have now, like 36-50 MP on 24x36 and 24MP on APS-C may be optimum today. But, to make best use of the best lenses we could have quite a bit more.
Best regards
Erik
I can't pretend to fully understand all of this, but I grasp the principal. I need to do a bit more homework on this it seems.
Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Cheers,
Graham
-
In the original question by Graham, the example of upgrading from a 12mp D700 to a 36mp D800 was used. Just out of curiosity, I checked the DXOMark website to compare these two cameras, selecting the later D810 model in preference to the D800.
What surprised me is that at base ISO, at the pixel level (screen mode), the much smaller D810 pixel is at least as good as the larger D700 pixel in all the parameters addressed by DXO, such as SNR, Tonal Range and Color Sensitivity. However, the Dynamic Range of the smaller pixel (which is really SNR in the shadows) is hugely better by almost 2 stops.
What this means is, if the subject is still and one can use a tripod, or if the lighting is bright enough to use the low base ISO of 64 with the D810 hand-held, a 12mp crop from the D810 sensor should have better noise characteristics than the full-frame shot from the D700, despite the larger pixels of the D700.
Unfortunately, this advantage of the D810 at the pixel level is not maintained at all higher ISOs. From ISO 200 to 6400 the D700 pixel has better SNR at 18% (skin tones), and marginally better tonal range and color sensitivity. However, the DR of the D700 pixel is marginally better only at ISO 800 and 1600.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D810-versus-Nikon-D700___963_441
-
In the original question by Graham, the example of upgrading from a 12mp D700 to a 36mp D800 was used. Just out of curiosity, I checked the DXOMark website to compare these two cameras, selecting the later D810 model in preference to the D800.
What this means is, if the subject is still and one can use a tripod, or if the lighting is bright enough to use the low base ISO of 64 with the D810 hand-held, a 12mp crop from the D810 sensor should have better noise characteristics than the full-frame shot from the D700, despite the larger pixels of the D700.
I have compared my D600 with APS crop against a D7000 for bird photography with a 300mm lens. The cropped D600 file was noticeably better than the D7000. Given the better buffer of the D600, there seemed little point in using the D7000. This was with a range of ISOs up to 1600.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I have compared my D600 with APS crop against a D7000 for bird photography with a 300mm lens. The cropped D600 file was noticeably better than the D7000. Given the better buffer of the D600, there seemed little point in using the D7000. This was with a range of ISOs up to 1600.
Cheers,
Graham
Hi Graham,
Better in what respect? If the D600 has a faster frame rate, larger buffer, more accurate auto-focussing etc, then those features alone would result in a greater percentage of better shots.
Whilst there's no doubt that the larger D600 pixel has a general noise advantage over the D7000 pixel, at most ISOs, (DR at base ISO being the exception - according to DXOMark), those noise advantages are reduced when the 16mp D7000 files are down-sampled to the 10.6mp file size of the D600 used in APS crop mode. When comparing image technical quality one should always compare equal size files.
I would guess that the slight advantage of the lower noise in the cropped D600 image, would be largely offset by the advantage of the higher resolution of the uncropped D7000 image. At least the D7000 provides those options. If noise is not a problem, one can take advantage of the higher resolution of the D7000 file. If noise is a problem, then one can reduce the D7000 file-size to the 10.6 mp of the cropped D600 image, which also results in a noise reduction, bringing the noise of the down-sampled D7000 image close to that of the cropped D600 image, I imagine. ;)
-
Hi Graham,
Better in what respect? If the D600 has a faster frame rate, larger buffer, more accurate auto-focussing etc, then those features alone would result in a greater percentage of better shots.
I mean better in image quality: sharpness and contrast, these were just tests so frame rate, larger buffer etc AF etc weren't being considered in the tests, but they were the the reason for doing the tests. I only tried it because its a question raised fairly regularly in bird photography forums/blogs, and I just confirmed what others were saying.
I simply compared printed images or I exports as same size Jpegs to compare on screen, I have assumed that (maybe wrongly) that LR/C1/PS would resample for the appropriate print/file size. At least well enough to allow a comparison. Is that wrong.
Cheers,
Graham
-
The D7000 has very similar pixel size to the D800, and compared to a D600 it should have a stronger AA filter (giving a bit less sharpness overall). The buffer is atrociously small, especially if you shoot lossless RAW (that's like 7 shots before you have to wait, and even the faster SD cards don't help much but give you a few seconds less of waiting). On top of that, there are two years of sensor tech advancements between the two cameras. I'm not surprised you found differences in IQ.
-
The D7000 has very similar pixel size to the D800, and compared to a D600 it should have a stronger AA filter (giving a bit less sharpness overall). The buffer is atrociously small, especially if you shoot lossless RAW (that's like 7 shots before you have to wait, and even the faster SD cards don't help much but give you a few seconds less of waiting). On top of that, there are two years of sensor tech advancements between the two cameras. I'm not surprised you found differences in IQ.
Well, it didn't come as too much of a surprise as it mirrored other people's experiences, but before that, I had simply assumed that the pixel advantage of the D7000, compared to the cropped D600, would outweigh the buffer, etc advantages of the D600.
Cheers,
Graham
-
This is a timely subject for me. I've lately been printing extensively for a photo wall in my home. Lots of 12 x 18" prints, all black and white, of places we've been and people we've met. They are from a former Panasonic GX7 and my current cameras -- Ricoh GR, Fuji X-Pro1, and Leica M-Monochrom.
I realize my m4/3 is old technology, but the prints look obviously inferior to me. Still pretty good, but they seem to have less depth. And this print size seems about their reasonable limit.
Of prints from the other three, I see very little difference. Certainly nothing jumps out as a qualitative difference. I know this is not a rigorous test, but I don't care about that.
I did do a same scene comparison between the Fuji and Leica, and, again, neither print jumps out as superior, even with the Fuji color conversion. I am partial to the rendering of lighter grays, so I did a somewhat high key test. The cameras produce equally lovely and delicate upper tones. Maybe a test of the lower tones would be different.
If anything can be said about this entirely unscientific test, it's that I'm amazed at the black and white rendering of the GR.
You can argue with my methodology or challenge my skills, but this is how I shoot and view prints, so it's what I care about and am able to produce. As a result of this, I'm considering selling my MM and lenses. There's a lot of money tied up in them and at my print size, I'm not sure they make sense.
To specifically answer the OP's question, had I done this printing before purchasing the MM, I would not have bought it. Well maybe I would because I like rangefinders, but not with print quality in mind.
John
-
This is a timely subject for me. I've lately been printing extensively for a photo wall in my home. Lots of 12 x 18" prints, all black and white, of places we've been and people we've met. They are from a former Panasonic GX7 and my current cameras -- Ricoh GR, Fuji X-Pro1, and Leica M-Monochrom.
I realize my m4/3 is old technology, but the prints look obviously inferior to me. Still pretty good, but they seem to have less depth. And this print size seems about their reasonable limit.
Of prints from the other three, I see very little difference. Certainly nothing jumps out as a qualitative difference. I know this is not a rigorous test, but I don't care about that.
To specifically answer the OP's question, had I done this printing before purchasing the MM, I would not have bought it. Well maybe I would because I like rangefinders, but not with print quality in mind.
John
You comments are very much to the point of my post in that "quality" once you get beyond a minimum acceptable resolution is about lots of different things, many of which are difficult to define.
But I think there is a problem getting to grips with how you get that quality, I have a GX7, and compared to my Nikons (including my Nikon V1) and my Fuji, I just "don't like" the image quality, with prints having a two-dimensional feel to them compared to a more 3d look of my other cameras. Some cameras like the Nikon D700 I mentioned have a reputation for giving especially nice image quality, and Fuji and your Ricoh share that reputation, so not surprised they did well.
I have also found that using Capture 1, compared to lightroom, seems to give a more 3d look. But I am still at the stage of trying to work out how much of these differences are real and how much are down to my lack of skill.
I was particularly interested in your comments on the GX7 as it came out with very good reviews, but I have never been very happy with the image quality.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Graham, skill vs inherent quality is certainly an issue. Maybe someone with greater skill could coax more out of the MM. If so, they could probably do the same from the Fuji and GR. Where would it stop?
I think it's kind of a mute point, anyway, because our own skill is all we have. Assuming we're doing it all ourselves.
What I've really learned from my printing initiative is that content trumps pretty much everything else. And given the incredible capabilities today's lenses and sensors, the quality of the light is probably right behind.
Of course, we're talking about this print size.
John
-
Graham, skill vs inherent quality is certainly an issue. Maybe someone with greater skill could coax more out of the MM. If so, they could probably do the same from the Fuji and GR. Where would it stop?
I think it's kind of a mute point, anyway, because our own skill is all we have. Assuming we're doing it all ourselves.
What I've really learned from my printing initiative is that content trumps pretty much everything else. And given the incredible capabilities today's lenses and sensors, the quality of the light is probably right behind.
Of course, we're talking about this print size.
John
Yep, I fear I am going to be dead before I reach the level of skill I feel I need :-(
Post processing skills seem to have a tremendous bearing on how impressed I am with a photograph. For example, having decided that Capture 1 is much better than Lightroom, most of the photographs I am impressed by, are processed in Lightroom ! But, as you say its also about light, in fact I suspect light (and visualisation of how that light will work in the print) is more important than content, followed by printing skills, followed by content, followed by camera gear.
Or maybe they are all equally important, I think I take better photographs with camera gear I feel "happy/comfortable" with, even though i have it last in my list.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Tools are just a mean to realize your vision. It doesn't matter how good the tools are, it matters how well you can use them to reach your goal.
-
To determine which camera performed best, I tried the following test:
1. Hasselblad H5D, various lenses, Tripod, filters, bag.
2. Sony A7R2, Loxia 21mm, various other lenses, filters.
In a direct comparison between shots taken with the two camera systems, these were my findings
The Sony performed far better than the Hasselblad.
At first, this was a surprise. But then I realised that due to issues of weight, I hadn't taken the Hasselblad with me. 8)
Lesson learnt. Every camera has its limitations. YMMV.
-
Tools are just a mean to realize your vision. It doesn't matter how good the tools are, it matters how well you can use them to reach your goal.
This is one of these truisms that I don't thinks is really true. The tools still need to be "good enough" to give you the capability of achieving your vision, and its easier to do this with tools you are familiar with.
Cheers,
Graham
-
To determine which camera performed best, I tried the following test:
1. Hasselblad H5D, various lenses, Tripod, filters, bag.
2. Sony A7R2, Loxia 21mm, various other lenses, filters.
In a direct comparison between shots taken with the two camera systems, these were my findings
The Sony performed far better than the Hasselblad.
At first, this was a surprise. But then I realised that due to issues of weight, I hadn't taken the Hasselblad with me. 8)
Lesson learnt. Every camera has its limitations. YMMV.
Very good :-)
I now carry a Nikon V1 with the excellent 70-300 cx lens nearly everywhere I go. it weighs less than 1kg, and sits in the palm of my hand. In good light it gives very good results, in poor light - not so good :-(
But for years, when doing ecological field work, I couldn't carry any camera gear, and missed out on many good wildlife photographs, now I have the nikon, with the equivalent of an 810mm lens, with me all the time.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I've given up lugging heavy stuff everywhere. Quality has come to smaller cameras. An A7RII, my current weapon of choice, coupled with appropriate lenses, is very good and I can enjoy going places without compromise of image quality.
Photography is fun again!
-
Photography is fun again!
I can't disagree with that, its one of the great things about digital, you can take it very seriously one minute and then just have a bit of fun in ways that you couldn't in the days of film. I like the ease of doing some video. Very very different, from my days of using 16mm and 35mm cine, wet processing and editing tables.
And as you say, quality is amazingly good, even with fairly lowly kit.
Cheers,
Graham
-
This is one of these truisms that I don't thinks is really true. The tools still need to be "good enough" to give you the capability of achieving your vision, and its easier to do this with tools you are familiar with.
Not always the best tool is the best tool. I don't need a 100MP camera to take pictures of my cats, my phone is good enough. And because I use it more often than some other (yet better) cameras I have, I'm also comfortable with it. Sure, no one wants to go around with a 0.9MP camera that takes smudgy pictures and chugs AA batteries for breakfast, but if that's all you have why not try anyway and have fun with it?
Just because you don't have the best tools you think you need doesn't make you any less of a photographer.
-
Not always the best tool is the best tool. I don't need a 100MP camera to take pictures of my cats, my phone is good enough. And because I use it more often than some other (yet better) cameras I have, I'm also comfortable with it. Sure, no one wants to go around with a 0.9MP camera that takes smudgy pictures and chugs AA batteries for breakfast, but if that's all you have why not try anyway and have fun with it?
Just because you don't have the best tools you think you need doesn't make you any less of a photographer.
I'm a bit confused now, as I had assumed your original statement was in response to me saying "I think I take better photographs with camera gear I feel "happy/comfortable" with" which is why I disagree with the idea that tools "don't matter".
Now that you are talking about 100mp cameras and not having the best tools not making you any less of a photographer, which are unrelated to my post, I realise my response was in error.
I agree with what you have said here.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Where is it written that photographers base their decisions on either want or need?
-
...
I now carry a Nikon V1 with the excellent 70-300 cx lens nearly everywhere I go. it weighs less than 1kg, and sits in the palm of my hand. In good light it gives very good results, in poor light - not so good :-(
But for years, when doing ecological field work, I couldn't carry any camera gear, and missed out on many good wildlife photographs, now I have the nikon, with the equivalent of an 810mm lens, with me all the time.
Cheers,Graham
I agree, i had the V1 but now the J5: and its sensor is even way better + 20MP... ( sony)
the 1.8 18.5 mm lens is also very good and cheap... AF more sharp than MF...
-
Where is it written that photographers base their decisions on either want or need?
There are many reasons behind any decision, but I would think a fair number are based on wants or needs.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I agree, i had the V1 but now the J5: and its sensor is even way better + 20MP... ( sony)
the 1.8 18.5 mm lens is also very good and cheap... AF more sharp than MF...
If only I could live without a viewfinder, I look forward to a V4.
Within their limitations, these cameras are remarkably good.
Cheers,
Graham
-
At 300dpi , if you want to make the (false) 1:1 pixel to dot ratio equation , 39mp or higher. I reality, possibly you'll be happy with anything from 16mp up, but starting with greater image resolution is better.
The 15 x 22.5 inch prints from my Canon 5DS that I've been making using the Canon imagePRGRAF PRO-1000 using high quality gloss stock are very satisfying to my eyes, to my client's eyes, and to the people I give prints to.
-
At 300dpi , if you want to make the (false) 1:1 pixel to dot ratio equation , 39mp or higher. I reality, possibly you'll be happy with anything from 16mp up, but starting with greater image resolution is better.
The 15 x 22.5 inch prints from my Canon 5DS that I've been making using the Canon imagePRGRAF PRO-1000 using high quality gloss stock are very satisfying to my eyes, to my client's eyes, and to the people I give prints to.
Do you really notice that much of a meaningful difference between 16mp and 36mp, I assume you mean 36mp.
The original premise was that once you got above a threshold which I rather arbitrarily suggested was 12mp, mainly because of the large number of superb images I have seen from Nikon D700s, that thereafter the 'quality" came from post processing skills and the quality of the content/lighting etc. And this thread has bashed away at this idea from several directions.
Larger prints are "usually" viewed from further away, so maybe this means they need the same resolution as smaller prints closer up. I'm not suggesting this has a definitive answer, just bouncing it around for discussion, a discussion that I have found very interesting and helpful.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Hi,
What I have seen is that there is little substantial difference between my 24 MP DSLR and my 39 MP MFDB at the print size I usually make.
That said, much depends on the subject and the observer. Doing correct comparisons is very difficult. You can shoot test targets and that is a valid comparison, but once you shoot real life it is not very easy to make proper comparisons.
Personally, I wouldn't say that I could say which of my images were shot with which camera.
I would say that there is a lot of merit saying that 12 MP is quite enough for 16" x 23" as I am generally very happy with 12 MP 16"x23" prints. That rhymes pretty well with 180 PPI being needed for excellent prints and also with limits of human vision at 0.5m or 20".
Image quality is not the most important quality of a print. Differences in subject, illumination, composition, cropping, perspective and DoF are far more important than say 12 or 42 or MP.
Best regards
Erik
Best regards
Erik
Do you really notice that much of a meaningful difference between 16mp and 36mp, I assume you mean 36mp.
The original premise was that once you got above a threshold which I rather arbitrarily suggested was 12mp, mainly because of the large number of superb images I have seen from Nikon D700s, that thereafter the 'quality" came from post processing skills and the quality of the content/lighting etc. And this thread has bashed away at this idea from several directions.
Larger prints are "usually" viewed from further away, so maybe this means they need the same resolution as smaller prints closer up. I'm not suggesting this has a definitive answer, just bouncing it around for discussion, a discussion that I have found very interesting and helpful.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Hi,
What I have seen is that there is little substantial difference between my 24 MP DSLR and my 39 MP MFDB at the print size I usually make.
That said, much depends on the subject and the observer. Doing correct comparisons is very difficult. You can shoot test targets and that is a valid comparison, but once you shoot real life it is not very easy to make proper comparisons.
Personally, I wouldn't say that I could say which of my images were shot with which camera.
I would say that there is a lot of merit saying that 12 MP is quite enough for 16" x 23" as I am generally very happy with 12 MP 16"x23" prints. That rhymes pretty well with 180 PPI being needed for excellent prints and also with limits of human vision at 0.5m or 20".
Image quality is not the most important quality of a print. Differences in subject, illumination, composition, cropping, perspective and DoF are far more important than say 12 or 42 or MP.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, the final quality of a print it depends on lots of things, and the perfect conditions used for testing don't relate that well to real life. As well as the things you mention, post processing also seems to be a crucial component.
But there does seem to be a reasonable consensus coming out of this thread.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Image quality is not the most important quality of a print.
Indeed :)
Cheers,
The other Graham
-
Indeed :)
Cheers,
The other Graham
Which of course was part of the premise of my original post, that once you get to certain level of acceptable image quality, you should be focussing on other things.
The original Graham :-)
-
Image quality is not the most important quality of a print. Differences in subject, illumination, composition, cropping, perspective and DoF are far more important than say 12 or 42 or MP.
Hi Erik,
Let's be more precise here. There are 3 main aspects of the 'quality' of a print; image quality, paper quality, and ink quality.
Image quality involves many factors, including eye-catching illumination of the subject, clean shadows which the eye would have seen in the real scene, interesting, pleasing or eye-catching composition, interesting color combinations, and realistic detail visible from a relatively close distance, depending on the size of the print.
If the image quality is deficient in any one of those factors, then disappointment can result, depending again on the style and nature of the image. Certain types of images simply don't require eye-catching resolution, such as a misty scene of distant hills. Some images don't benefit from clean and detailed shadows when the detail in the shadows is distracting or irrelevant. Sometimes dark, or even black shadows are preferable.
From my own personal experience and testing, I have found that at least a 50% increase in pixel count is required to get a worthwhile or noticeable increase in resolution, using the same lenses with the same format.
-
Do you really notice that much of a meaningful difference between 16mp and 36mp, I assume you mean 36mp.
For what I do, yes I do. and in my equation I did mean 39mp. Do the math.
The original premise was that once you got above a threshold which I rather arbitrarily suggested was 12mp, mainly because of the large number of superb images I have seen from Nikon D700s, that thereafter the 'quality" came from post processing skills and the quality of the content/lighting etc. And this thread has bashed away at this idea from several directions.
Larger prints are "usually" viewed from further away, so maybe this means they need the same resolution as smaller prints closer up. I'm not suggesting this has a definitive answer, just bouncing it around for discussion, a discussion that I have found very interesting and helpful.
Cheers,
Graham
I would much rather start with more detail in the data. Also with a camera like the D810, the Sony A7RII, and the Canon 5DS, starting with more camera resolution leaves me with cropping option I just don't have with 12mp. Today I wouldn't recommend anyone buy a camera with less than 22~25mp whether it it is a "full frame" APS-H, or APS-C size sensor i the camera.
-
Hi Ray,
No argument about your points.
On the other hand, I feel that once the image quality is good enough it is more about printing craft.
Let's give an example:
I was shooting with my 24 MP full frame standing on the top of (very) small ridge, that position gave me an acceptable composition. I was shoot some trees in full autumn shroud and it was a bit dark. It was also windy, so I wanted to be able to use a bit shorter shutter time. First I made some shots with the 24 MP full frame I had a Sony Alpha 900. With that camera I used a Sony Alpha 70-300/4.5-5.6 lens. The Alpha 900 lacks live view, so I felt a need to stop down a bit for accurate focus. I raised ISO a tiny bit, but the A900 is not that good at high ISO.
Next, I felt that I could use the Sony SLT 55 I also had. I bought that camera mostly for it having live view. It had 16 MP on APS-C. The sensor on the SLT 55 is a bit newer so I could use a bit higher ISO. Also, the crop frame allowed me to use the Sony 24-70/2.8 which is very good on the APS-C crop. So, LV, better sensor and better lens gave a significant advantage for the 16 MP sensor.
So, I made an A2 print from both. Not a lot of difference between the prints. Visible pixel peeping with the naked eye? Nay, not really. Looking with a loupe? Yes I think so.
As predicted, the 16 MP image had less motion blur, so it made it to the wall.
Another example:
When I got into medium format I had 39 MP on 49x37 mm. I have made a few comparison prints, still at A2, and I don't think I could observe any difference in image quality between 24 MP APS-C and the 39 MP MFD with the naked eyed. Using a loupe it was very obvious.
A final example:
I was bitching about LR producing some zipper artefacts on one of my A7rII images. One of the printing experts here at LuLa, Mark D Segal, checked out my files and agreed on my findings, but noted that he doubted it was visible in print. He made a large print from a small crop, corresonding to 29.5" x 44.2". He could not see the zipper artefacts with the naked eye, but has observed them with a 10X loupe.
Impressed by Mark's comments I made an even larger print corresponding to 38" x 48". Looking at short distance with out glasses I could see the jagginess (I am short sighted) but I could not see them with corrective glasses at short distance. Looking at 50 cm with correcting glasses I could not observe them.
So, human eyesight is a factor.
At 50 cm (20") viewing distance 20/20 vision corresponds to 180 PPI and I think that 50 cm is quite a close viewing distance for a large print. Many folks have better eyesight than 20/20, of course.
But, I would say that if you have 180 PPI and process decently well you will end up with a good print.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
Let's be more precise here. There are 3 main aspects of the 'quality' of a print; image quality, paper quality, and ink quality.
Image quality involves many factors, including eye-catching illumination of the subject, clean shadows which the eye would have seen in the real scene, interesting, pleasing or eye-catching composition, interesting color combinations, and realistic detail visible from a relatively close distance, depending on the size of the print.
If the image quality is deficient in any one of those factors, then disappointment can result, depending again on the style and nature of the image. Certain types of images simply don't require eye-catching resolution, such as a misty scene of distant hills. Some images don't benefit from clean and detailed shadows when the detail in the shadows is distracting or irrelevant. Sometimes dark, or even black shadows are preferable.
From my own personal experience and testing, I have found that at least a 50% increase in pixel count is required to get a worthwhile or noticeable increase in resolution, using the same lenses with the same format.
-
hello Ray and Erik,
i agree that for a perfectly detailed 17 inch print you need a true 180dpi image.
But some images only need 1 or 2MP and may be brought to 180dpi without any sacrifice.
It all depends on the type of photo and what you want to communicate; some photographs look worse when being a perfect 180dpi ...
I do mainly architecture and then you want usually the best detail possible ... but some more emotional looking fashion or press photographs would do better without this quality..
for instance the latest world press winning photograph by Warren Richardson...
http://www.worldpressphoto.org/news/2016-02-18/world-press-photo-year-2015-goes-warren-richardson
PS it strikes me that the photo does not have a true black in it
-
So, LV, better sensor and better lens gave a significant advantage for the 16 MP sensor.
Hi Erik,
The point should be made here that resolution is always a combination of lens quality, sensor quality and sensor pixel-count.
People often upgrade their lenses to a sharper or more recent model. Upgrading one's camera to another model of the same brand, because it has a higher pixel count, has the effect of upgrading all one's lenses that can be used with that brand of camera, and at a bargain price. That's the attraction.
If your print size doesn't require more than 12 or 16mp, that's no reason not to upgrade to a higher pixel-count model, unless of course one doesn't give a stuff about lens quality and is in the habit of always using the cheapest zoom.
As I'm sure you know, or would accept as true, a 36mp D810 image down-sampled to the file size of a 12mp D700 shot of the same scene, will tend to give the impression that the D810 image has been shot with a better quality lens than was used with the D700, even though in practice the same lens was used with both cameras.
DXOMark provide some illuminating results comparing the same model of lens with different cameras.
One of my most frequently-used lenses which I've also used with the D700, the D800E and more recently with the D810, is the Nikkor 14-24/F2.8.
Out of curiosity, I checked the DXOMark lens ratings for the two cameras, the D700 and the D810, when used with this lens.
The differences are significant. The overall lens score for the 14-24 when used with D700 is just 21. For the D810, with the same lens, it's 30.
Regarding sharpness, the score for the D700 is 10 P-Mpix. For the D810 it's 23 P-Mpix. These are significant differences. I know which camera I prefer. ;)
-
Hi,
A good point…
On the other hand, photojournalism often doesn't strive for perfect image quality. It is more about the story to tell. Lack of image quality often gives some credibility.
The thread here is about fine art printing, I guess.
Best regards
Erik
hello Ray and Erik,
i agree that for a perfectly detailed 17 inch print you need a true 180dpi image.
But some images only need 1 or 2MP and may be brought to 180dpi without any sacrifice.
It all depends on the type of photo and what you want to communicate; some photographs look worse when being a perfect 180dpi ...
I do mainly architecture and then you want usually the best detail possible ... but some more emotional looking fashion or press photographs would do better without this quality..
for instance the latest world press winning photograph by Warren Richardson...
http://www.worldpressphoto.org/news/2016-02-18/world-press-photo-year-2015-goes-warren-richardson
PS it strikes me that the photo does not have a true black in it
-
Hi Ray,
My point of view is that something like 12-16MP allows for very good A2-size prints. That is about what the compact Fuji APS-C and 4/3 cameras deliver. So I think those systems are reasonable if you want to travel light, because lenses can also be small.
Personally, I think that sensors should match lenses. It is the law, Nyquist's law...
To be a bit analytic, it can be said that the perceived sharpness of an image relates to it's MTF at low to medium frequencies (*). That MTF is a product MTF of the lens, the MTF of the sensor, the MTF of the OLP-filter and the MTF of the sharpening.
A higher resolution sensor allows for less OLP-fitering, it has also higher inherent MTF. So, a higher resolution sensor will need less sharpening and will have less tendency to artefacts.
Personally, I only see benefits of high resolution. More specifically, I see very little benefits in providing less resolution than state of the art. The two exceptions I see is motion, where the final image is limited to something like 2 or 8 MP, and very high ISO-s where large pixels have a small advantage.
Large, high resolution sensors yield very large raw files that need a lot of CPU-power. That is clearly a disadvantage. Personally, I can live with large raw files.
Best regards
Erik
(*) Pixel peeping is a different thing, as at actual pixels we actually look at the highest frequency detail, exactly at Nyquist.
Hi Erik,
The point should be made here that resolution is always a combination of lens quality, sensor quality and sensor pixel-count.
People often upgrade their lenses to a sharper or more recent model. Upgrading one's camera to another model of the same brand, because it has a higher pixel count, has the effect of upgrading all one's lenses that can be used with that brand of camera, and at a bargain price. That's the attraction.
If your print size doesn't require more than 12 or 16mp, that's no reason not to upgrade to a higher pixel-count model, unless of course one doesn't give a stuff about lens quality and is in the habit of always using the cheapest zoom.
As I'm sure you know, or would accept as true, a 36mp D810 image down-sampled to the file size of a 12mp D700 shot of the same scene, will tend to give the impression that the D810 image has been shot with a better quality lens than was used with the D700, even though in practice the same lens was used with both cameras.
DXOMark provide some illuminating results comparing the same model of lens with different cameras.
One of my most frequently-used lenses which I've also used with the D700, the D800E and more recently with the D810, is the Nikkor 14-24/F2.8.
Out of curiosity, I checked the DXOMark lens ratings for the two cameras, the D700 and the D810, when used with this lens.
The differences are significant. The overall lens score for the 14-24 when used with D700 is just 21. For the D810, with the same lens, it's 30.
Regarding sharpness, the score for the D700 is 10 P-Mpix. For the D810 it's 23 P-Mpix. These are significant differences. I know which camera I prefer. ;)
-
My point of view is that something like 12-16MP allows for very good A2-size prints. That is about what the compact Fuji APS-C and 4/3 cameras deliver. So I think those systems are reasonable if you want to travel light, because lenses can also be small.
Not only traveling light, but having smaller less aggressive and intimidating cameras often gives more photo opportunities also. Getting the shots in the first place is more important than getting maximum quality at any cost. That is why I use Fujifilm X-trans gear, not Nikon D800e as a travel camera (not to mention D4…).
This does not, of course, apply to landscape photography, as long you are physically able to lug the gear to the chosen location.
-
I've never really understood why so many folk equate landscape prints with LARGE prints. I've always had a preference for smaller, intimate prints.
Whenever I see large landscape prints I can't help but think of Hilda Ogden's notorious wallpaper.
Hilda Ogden's notorious wallpaper (http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/coronationstreet/images/9/92/No13_mural.JPG/revision/latest?cb=20080624175639)
Part of the attraction of photography is its realistic portrayal of the subject matter, although in a 2-dimensional form most of the time. Size is part of the realism.
Remember the story about Picasso's response to someone who criticised his painting style for not being realistic, as a photo is? Picasso asked his critic if he could show him an example of a realistic photo, so the man pulled out a photo of his wife from his wallet.
After studying the photo for a while, Picasso said, "Surely your wife is not this small." ;D
Likewise with landscapes. In reality they are usually huge. Small prints can't do them justice.
-
I've never really understood why so many folk equate landscape prints with LARGE prints...
It's an American Australian thing... homes are bigger.
EDITED for a factual correction and infographic:
-
I've never really understood why so many folk equate landscape prints with LARGE prints. I've always had a preference for smaller, intimate prints.
And as Susan Kismaric, curator of photography at the Museum of Modern Art, wryly observed, "Large color photographs decorate (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/arts/design/13geft.html?position=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1390496568-rsTfioVKHmzVrnSQTdeKcg); small black-and-white photographs don't decorate."
“Of course, you know the adage, if you can’t make it good, make it big (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/arts/design/03GEFT.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0). If you can’t make it big, make it red. So we do like big red photographs.”
-
Hi,
One of the aspects of landscape photographs is that the viewer can feel immersed into an image, have the feeling of being there. That needs size.
Also, I would suggest that a few photographers earn their money selling artwork to be used as decorations. That kind of work generally requires some size, at least in my humble opinion.
Personally, I am a bit reluctant to show work at small sizes.
Best regards
Erik
Part of the attraction of photography is its realistic portrayal of the subject matter, although in a 2-dimensional form most of the time. Size is part of the realism.
Remember the story about Picasso's response to someone who criticised his painting style for not being realistic, as a photo is? Picasso asked his critic if he could show him an example of a realistic photo, so the man pulled out a photo of his wife from his wallet.
After studying the photo for a while, Picasso said, "Surely your wife is not this small." ;D
Likewise with landscapes. In reality they are usually huge. Small prints can't do them justice.
-
Or in the words of the immortal Manny Cohen never mind the quality, feel the width.
Now you've got it!
I see A3+ as the largest worthwhile size for anyone not actually floating an exhibition in some major gallery. Add masks and frames and you're already getting pretty big.
I also see large prints as having a place in public spaces such as hospitals. There were some gigantic ones - maybe about six feet tall and very wide, 'gracing' the walls of the hospital where my wife lay ill. I used to pace the corridors between eleven and midnight, looking at them as I passed, and searching for details I might recognize (local scenes) just to take my mind off the ending day and the coming night I'd spend dozing on a chair beside the bed. Those prints looked okay at ten feet, get close and you saw little, stacked cubes... grain is cuter.
I also saw some largish b/white prints in a few ad agency offices - they looked sort of right there. At home? Not for me; I think it would be quite vulgar hosting monsters.
Rob C
-
Or in the words of the immortal Manny Cohen never mind the quality, feel the width.
If you're feeling uncharitable :-)
An intimate landscape of a 4' x 6' section of icy Merced river surface just downstream from Vernal Falls looks fine 11" x 14"; but - even without a need to decorate acres of wall space - 1 km x 2 km of glaciated rock and timberline forest and lake does look better bigger, simply because we are able to see more.
-
I would much rather start with more detail in the data. Also with a camera like the D810, the Sony A7RII, and the Canon 5DS, starting with more camera resolution leaves me with cropping option I just don't have with 12mp. Today I wouldn't recommend anyone buy a camera with less than 22~25mp whether it it is a "full frame" APS-H, or APS-C size sensor i the camera.
That's fair enough, the safety net of having more resolution is a good argument.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I'm not a landscape pic taker, in the commonly understood sense, and huge prints in general have little appeal to me. I don't object to them in museums or galleries, provided they're given enough space, but IMO even in those contexts there's often an undercurrent of egotism flowing. That is, a compensatory mechanism for an underlying lack of self-confidence. As is usually the case with outsized displays, gestures, rhetoric, etc. Sometimes the framing and subject matter do warrant, or at least can handle, a very large presentation. But I take a dim view of photos that only work at large scales.
All that said, I'm with Erik when it comes to camera capabilities. Bring on the res! I can discard what I don't need.
-Dave-
-
I'm not a landscape pic taker, in the commonly understood sense, and huge prints in general have little appeal to me. I don't object to them in museums or galleries, provided they're given enough space, but IMO even in those contexts there's often an undercurrent of egotism flowing. That is, a compensatory mechanism for an underlying lack of self-confidence. As is usually the case with outsized displays, gestures, rhetoric, etc. Sometimes the framing and subject matter do warrant, or at least can handle, a very large presentation. But I take a dim view of photos that only work at large scales.
Oh! I see! So Andreas Gursky's Rhein II, which is over 6ft x12ft in size and sold for $4.3 million, was really just a compensatory mechanism for an underlying lack of self-confidence.
Perhaps Andreas Gursky, despite his fame, could not overcome a feeling of inadequacy and a lack of confidence, so he visited a psychiatrist who advised him to produce a truly massive print, which he did, in the form of Rhein II.
I wonder if that sale has still overcome Gursky's sense of a lack of confidence? :D
-
Oh! I see! So Andreas Gursky's Rhein II, which is over 6ft x12ft in size and sold for $4.3 million, was really just a compensatory mechanism for an underlying lack of self-confidence.
Perhaps Andreas Gursky, despite his fame, could not overcome a feeling of inadequacy and a lack of confidence, so he visited a psychiatrist who advised him to produce a truly massive print, which he did, in the form of Rhein II.
I wonder if that sale has still overcome Gursky's sense of a lack of confidence? :D
I wonder what it has done for the self-confidemce of the buyer; perhaps he's the one now going to see the shrink. But then, the wonderful world of investment has always struck me as more akin to alchemy than art or even science.
Rob C
-
Oh! I see! So Andreas Gursky's Rhein II, which is over 6ft x12ft in size and sold for $4.3 million, was really just a compensatory mechanism for an underlying lack of self-confidence.
Sorry, not impressed by size, sales figures or fame. But maybe ask yourself why Gursky seeks out all three…
-Dave-
-
Sorry, not impressed by size, sales figures or fame. But maybe ask yourself why Gursky seeks out all three…
Ego and vanity? ;)
-
I am a fan of the "camera van" - a van without windows, pinhole "lens" to be installed on ginormous bellows (black plastic sheeting) sticking out the back door. Put your positive paper or freshly dipped glass at the other end of the van (assistant) and take the lens cap off and count to whatever (photographer standing at front of bellows). http://petapixel.com/2012/04/03/wet-plate-photography-with-a-giant-format-van-camera/
-
I am a fan of the "camera van" - a van without windows, pinhole "lens" to be installed on ginormous bellows (black plastic sheeting) sticking out the back door. Put your positive paper or freshly dipped glass at the other end of the van (assistant) and take the lens cap off and count to whatever (photographer standing at front of bellows). http://petapixel.com/2012/04/03/wet-plate-photography-with-a-giant-format-van-camera/
It reminds me of golf, Nancy.
The most difficult way of doing something apparently pointless that, if it has to be done, could be done in a far easier way and better.
;-)
Rob C
-
It's the American thing... homes are bigger.
These days we have monster trucks, monster homes and monster food portions in restaurants ( a trip to Florida will provide plenty of evidence of the latter ), so I suppose monster prints fit the trend as well.
-
...so I suppose monster prints fit the trend as well.
Absolutely. I pull a 40X60 off my Epson 9800 and go "WOW!"
If I can't do that, what's it all for?
-
These days we have monster trucks, monster homes and monster food portions in restaurants ( a trip to Florida will provide plenty of evidence of the latter ), so I suppose monster prints fit the trend as well.
Maybe this is just an American perspective. The distant history of life in America was that of the native Indian tribes who lived in modest huts or wigwams, even the chieftains apparently.
Elsewhere, in Europe, India and China, the monster homes were much bigger and grander than the homes of most billionaires today. They were true palaces employing hundred of servants, guards, gardeners and maintenance people on a permanent basis.
Regarding monster trucks, they are probably not as monstrous as a caravan of 20,000, or 10,000 or even 1,000 camels. It was customary to connect strings of 40 camels with a rope that passed through the nose-ring of each camel and attached to the saddle of the camel in front. Often 3 or 4 strings of 40 camels would travel abreast. If the road wasn't wide enough the caravans would travel in one long line, like the biggest most monstrous snake ever. ;D
Monster food portions in restaurants tend to be more of an American phenomenon, hence the obesity epidemic. However, some of the ancient Romans, the wealthy ones, probably beat the Americans in this respect. Some of them actually vomited so they could continue eating, although the term 'vomitorium' has been mistranslated. It's really just an exit where crowds can 'spew forth' from a show. ;)
In general, large prints tend to be more appropriate for certain subjects, such as grand and magnificent landscapes. A 5ft x 6ft print of a macro shot of a spider, on one's living room wall, might be subject to criticism. It might appear a bit monstrous. ;D
-
Personally, I like A3 prints because I live in a small flat, and 11 x 17" is a good size for the space I have (and 13 x 19 is the maximum my printer can handle). If I had more wall space, particularly where I could stand back a bit, I might like larger sizes of prints. Dull practicalities.... ::)
-
Hi,
I have also limited wall space, but I may live in a larger flat and I have an A2-printer, so I am happy with A2 (16"x23") which is my print size. I also have a few 70x100 cm prints, going beyond that is not very practical for me
I am mostly shooting landscape or at least things in nature like trees, rocks or stones and some flowers and generally find that printing large is nice because a large print shows all fine details.
Best regards
Erik
Personally, I like A3 prints because I live in a small flat, and 11 x 17" is a good size for the space I have (and 13 x 19 is the maximum my printer can handle). If I had more wall space, particularly where I could stand back a bit, I might like larger sizes of prints. Dull practicalities.... ::)
-
I don't get the envy or jealousy of Gursky...
Me neither.
Just to be clear, my comment was an inside joke between me and Ray (and those who get it), as he was apparently obsessed with a "ridiculous, blatant ego and vanity" surrounding fashion industry (or humans in general) in other two threads (or was it about photographers who capture it and get it published? - you never know with Ray).
-
My job description has been variously...painter, illustrator and photographer, my wife's would be art therapist and yet there's not a single painting, illustration or photograph - regardless of size - to be seen on the walls of our house.
Strange but true.
Hope you don't have a little row of china ducks à la 50s!
;-)
Rob
-
As I've said before in this forum, for me photography is about doing it. The artifacts, notably prints but also the processed JPEGs on my iPad, aren't that important. Same thing goes for making music. Playing is the thing. Having played: okay, now what's next? This is of course not how it works with most of my photographer friends & acquaintances, and would be career-ruining for any pro. ;)
-Dave-
Ashildr: We’ll be cut down like corn. By this time tomorrow, every single one of us will be dead.
The Doctor: Yeah. You could go.
Ashildr: There’s nowhere for me except here. This is my place. The sky, the hills, the sea, the people. Is there nowhere like that for you?
The Doctor: Oh, I like a nice view as much as anyone.
Ashildr: But?
The Doctor: Can’t wait for the next one.
Ashildr: I pity you.
The Doctor: I will mourn for you. I know which one I prefer.
-
Interesting... just at the moment I have various of my prints scattered around the house on tables and so on, all printed on A4. That's unusual, but they are cheering me up a little (my cat has been very ill and disappeared some days ago :'( )
Some days I only want to print a3+. I'd like to go a little bigger, if only to get a decent white border with a similar print size. But those prints are in albums or boxes, except one is pinned to a door. Some things don't feel right in a larger size. Ken Cooper mentioned in one of his articles that in the UK, galleries sell mostly a3+. Then at work, there are photos hanging in most corridors... they are all block mounted without mats/borders and the effect is that they look much smaller than they are... I was surprised to measure one, 48x72cm.
So, it's whatever you want to do, and it's probably not rational. It's clear that for me, 24Mpx is more than enough.
-
But be honest. How many photographers, artists, film makers wouldn't love to see their work covering a building in times square, Leicester Square, Red Square or Sunset blvd.?
IMO
BC
Let's form an orderly queue!
But it could be done - at least on street hoardings - with a 135 camera. There used to be a wonderful one such, reportedly, from Adrian Flowers for Martell, though in the general article he only mentions Sinar:
"EA: You were so well known for your advertising campaigns. Will you give a little background on creating the “story” going on in this Martell cognac ad (shown in the portfolio above)?
AF: That is one that I love thinking about, because it’s so amusing. The story is of an art collector and a famous artist who is having a close relationship with the model he’s painting. When the collector, his wife and daughter come by to see the progress of the painting, the artist tells the girl to keep hidden behind the screen, but the model won’t do what she is told. The collector’s daughter was interested in the artist, but if they knew the model he was making love to all day was behind the screen, they would have the shits. I thoroughly enjoy the subtlety, the complexity, and dry humor; it’s not somebody roaring with laughter."
http://www.loeildelaphotographie.com/2014/07/03/article/25284/adrian-flowers-talks-to-elizabeth-avedon/
for the full interview.
It used to drive me nuts trying to get to red traffic lights just so I could see more details of what in hell was going on.
Another interesting series - don't know who dunnit -was for White Horse, and somebody accidently (?) left a 'blad film magazine on a shelf in the shot. Found that a very in-joke! I thought.
So yeah, love that sort of exposure, but that's not inside a house.
Rob C
-
"And Sir John Gielgud, with Ian McKellen and Shakespeare standing behind him. And there was someone else"
Clive James would have apoplexy if he read that... my countryman was very concerned about his fame :) He even identified himself as the over-confident young man that Germaine Greer mentions refusing in The Female Eunuch ;D Mind you, I wouldn't have identified him either, he is much younger and even more pompous than the image I have of him from his late night program on the Beeb...
-
The thread started well with a number of good replies, and then derailed to the usual nonsense. Many of the recent posts are highly biased and prejudicial.
I suspect that people do not print large because they can't for a number of reasons, but they would if those impediments (fill in yours here) could be removed. I also think that people swear by smaller cameras because they are getting older and can't carry larger ones, but they do not confess the real reason. :)
-
So all you guys that print small, do you still watch TV on your 13" sets?
I typically start my prints at 16x24 and go up to 4'x6 I sell into the high end housing market and lodges. Many of these houses have large rooms and small prints would just be swallowed up. Having more resolution allows more details in these prints. I will always take more than less as you never know what size of print is required from a given image.
-
... Big being an American thing. I live in LA, Dallas and London and it's all perspective. I've seen huge flats and homes in London with huge art, tiny in Dallas, smaller than tiny in LA....
Ok, I stand corrected... it's an Australian thing ;)
-
adias:
You may suspect as you wish, and in some senses of the thing you are perfectly right - there are always reasons why people do as they do. But, size is certainly not always a matter of finance. Size is also a matter of personal fancy, space available, money thought worth spending, and don't forget that for many, photography is not the all-demanding obsession that it is for some others.
Regarding camera weight: you're right again, insofar as I am concerned on a personal level. I am old, did in youthful days carry a couple of 500 Series Hasselblads, three lenses, backs and a yellow Kodak freezer bag full of film. I did that because I was getting paid for what I was photographing. On other jobs it was exactly the same except it was perhaps four Nikons and at least seven lenses and the film bag. In both cases, throw in a useful tripod. I never employed an assistant. I was healthy and fairly strong if thinnish. Today I am still thinnish (look! no beer gut!) but far from strong. And as importantly, whatever I do with a camera now is entirely for my own satisfaction and occasional amusement. I have given up printing for reasons HP should be ashamed of, and whatever looks fine on my website is alI I require from files.
And no, I would not print larger unless I suddenly discovered a busy commercial market for my prints.
As for the thread 'deteriorating', as you put it, don't forget that this is a social resource, not a strict educational institution; there's room for both aspects - as it has long shown - and also bear in mind that what can usefully be said on some topics is often said quite quickly, leading to a dead thread...
Rob C
-
So all you guys that print small, do you still watch TV on your 13" sets?
I typically start my prints at 16x24 and go up to 4'x6 I sell into the high end housing market and lodges. Many of these houses have large rooms and small prints would just be swallowed up. Having more resolution allows more details in these prints. I will always take more than less as you never know what size of print is required from a given image.
chez:
Tv-watching has nothing to do with printing: that's a totally false analogy to attempt to sell.
As I said to adias, there are all sorts of reasons why people chose their options as they do - each valid enough to that person. However, that doesn't make for a universal truth, and the first thing that reduces it to the absurd is when the reasons for the decisions are ignored and some all-inclusive format touted as an absolute.
I, personally, don't think all photography looks that wonderful printed large (what's large?) and have long understood that scale is very important respective to image. Location, location, location also holds a powerful hand in that decision, exactly as it does for many a business.
However, as you appear to be making prints commercially, you have other priorites that I can understand perfectly well, which may not be applicable to the hobbyist. I'm sure a big one sells for more bucks in a gallery than does a smaller one of the same image. But does that make the larger intrinsically superior to the other?
Rob
-
chez:
Tv-watching has nothing to do with printing: that's a totally false analogy to attempt to sell.
As I said to adias, there are all sorts of reasons why people chose their options as they do - each valid enough to that person. However, that doesn't make for a universal truth, and the first thing that reduces it to the absurd is when the reasons for the decisions are ignored and some all-inclusive format touted as an absolute.
I, personally, don't think all photography looks that wonderful printed large (what's large?) and have long understood that scale is very important respective to image. Location, location, location also holds a powerful hand in that decision, exactly as it does for many a business.
However, as you appear to be making prints commercially, you have other priorites that I can understand perfectly well, which may not be applicable to the hobbyist. I'm sure a big one sells for more bucks in a gallery than does a smaller one of the same image. But does that make the larger intrinsically superior to the other?
Rob
Looking at a large print is very much like watching a big screen TV...it sucks you right into the image. A small print with lots of detail just does not show the same as the same image printed big so you can easily see the detail. The big screen TV / large print analogy is right on...same result viewing either one.
-
At clients requests I've supplied large files and prints - up to 84" long side - but from a personal point of view far prefer smaller, more intimate prints.
Each to their own.
Obviously wall space is a limiting factor. I have 3 large prints, one in my living room and 2 in my den, all lit up using Solux lighting and also have other prints throughout the house. The large prints get the most attention from guests, they look at them from a standoff to take in the entire scene and they will also come in close to look at the details. Prints at smaller sizes just don't get the same reactions.
-
The thing is, we all have difficulty imagining what it's like to be someone else. The folks who go for big prints figure that if the small print folks just had access to the "right" resources—printer capability or wall space—they'd be big print folks too. The small print folks imagine that the big print folks have been simply tricked by ego or suckered by marketeering and if shown the light would get over it. Really, when it comes down to it, you're all like me. Except that, unlike me, you've been deceived or are in denial. This is myopic BS. In the Doctor Who dialog I posted earlier, both the Doctor & Ashildr—who, as we later discover, are in many ways strikingly similar individuals—make valid & true points and yet do not agree on fundamental things.
-Dave-
-
adias:
You may suspect as you wish, and in some senses of the thing you are perfectly right - there are always reasons why people do as they do. But, size is certainly not always a matter of finance. Size is also a matter of personal fancy, space available, money thought worth spending, and don't forget that for many, photography is not the all-demanding obsession that it is for some others.
Regarding camera weight: you're right again, insofar as I am concerned on a personal level. I am old, did in youthful days carry a couple of 500 Series Hasselblads, three lenses, backs and a yellow Kodak freezer bag full of film. I did that because I was getting paid for what I was photographing. On other jobs it was exactly the same except it was perhaps four Nikons and at least seven lenses and the film bag. In both cases, throw in a useful tripod. I never employed an assistant. I was healthy and fairly strong if thinnish. Today I am still thinnish (look! no beer gut!) but far from strong. And as importantly, whatever I do with a camera now is entirely for my own satisfaction and occasional amusement. I have given up printing for reasons HP should be ashamed of, and whatever looks fine on my website is alI I require from files.
And no, I would not print larger unless I suddenly discovered a busy commercial market for my prints.
As for the thread 'deteriorating', as you put it, don't forget that this is a social resource, not a strict educational institution; there's room for both aspects - as it has long shown - and also bear in mind that what can usefully be said on some topics is often said quite quickly, leading to a dead thread...
Rob C
I never mentioned 'finances' on printing large people's choices. You did.
I am disappointed that you took my post - an innocuous one - to justify your choices and reasons. Those are yours and they only matter to you.
The point of my earlier post was that the thread started with technically reasoned replies and moved on to personal choices which have nothing to do with the topic.
-
Nothing at all to do with wall space here, purely personal preference.
I'd no more display my own work on my walls than I would my genitals.
So what...you take photos and hide them from everyone? Why is it that you feel no desire to display your own work?
-
So what...you take photos and hide them from everyone? Why is it that you feel no desire to display your own work?
Here's a perfect example of what I just posted above. How can your attitude towards your photo work possibly be different to mine? There must be something wrong with you (because, of course, I am the norm).
-Dave-
-
I never mentioned 'finances' on printing large people's choices. You did.
I am disappointed that you took my post - an innocuous one - to justify your choices and reasons. Those are yours and they only matter to you.
The point of my earlier post was that the thread started with technically reasoned replies and moved on to personal choices which have nothing to do with the topic.
"I suspect that people do not print large because they can't for a number of reasons, but they would if those impediments (fill in yours here) could be removed."
So why not visibly preclude the ones you reserve the right to disown? And aren't you doing exactly the same sort of thing you knock others for doing: going degrees off topic?
I see the opportunity for being suckered into another daft circle looming large: sod it.
Rob C
-
Looking at a large print is very much like watching a big screen TV...it sucks you right into the image. A small print with lots of detail just does not show the same as the same image printed big so you can easily see the detail. The big screen TV / large print analogy is right on...same result viewing either one.
Do you examine your girlfriend with a magnifying glass?
Rob C
-
Do you examine your girlfriend with a magnifying glass?
Only if she sends me a passport-photo sized selfie ;)
-
So all you guys that print small, do you still watch TV on your 13" sets?
No; and we view today's larger TVs from far further away then we view a 10"x8" of 14"x11" print or a smaller TV. In fact, we almost always view TV's from a distance greater than the screen width. The desire to watch TV while sitting down is one big differentiation from how we usually view photographic prints, disposing us to greater viewing distances and thus the desire for bigger images.
But one thing in common is the typical ratio of image size to viewing distance: as with TVs, most people view prints, most of the time, from a bit further away than the long dimension, for a so-called "normal" viewing angle. And for either TV or prints, viewing in that "normal" way limits resolution needs to about 4000 pixels in the long dimension, regardless of the size at which the image is displayed: about "4K" in the digital video world; about 12MP in the jargon of digital still cameras. (Aside: I prefer the "linear" resolution measures use with video!)
But of course "most" is not "all"; many of us occasionally indulge in abnormally close viewing, a.k.a. "print sniffing" – especially when a photographer or friend has gone to the effort of producing, hanging, and carefully lighting a huge print.
-
Here's a perfect example of what I just posted above. How can your attitude towards your photo work possibly be different to mine? There must be something wrong with you (because, of course, I am the norm).
-Dave-
Perfect example of someone jumping to conclusions. I'm just asking the question as to why someone would not want to show off their art? Is there really something wrong with that?
-
Do you examine your girlfriend with a magnifying glass?
Rob C
Yep...sometimes. So Rob, do you have a big screen TV...bigger than say 20" and if so why? Do you have external speakers as well...if so why?
Seems you love to ask the stupid questions...maybe answer some yourself.
-
No; and we view today's larger TVs from far further away then we view a 10"x8" of 14"x11" print or a smaller TV. In fact, we almost always view TV's from a distance greater than the screen width. The desire to watch TV while sitting down is one big differentiation from how we usually view photographic prints, disposing us to greater viewing distances and thus the desire for bigger images.
But one thing in common is the typical ratio of image size to viewing distance: as with TVs, most people view prints, most of the time, from a bit further away than the long dimension, for a so-called "normal" viewing angle. And for either TV or prints, viewing in that "normal" way limits resolution needs to about 4000 pixels in the long dimension, regardless of the size at which the image is displayed: about "4K" in the digital video world; about 12MP in the jargon of digital still cameras. (Aside: I prefer the "linear" resolution measures use with video!)
But of course "most" is not "all"; many of us occasionally indulge in abnormally close viewing, a.k.a. "print sniffing" – especially when a photographer or friend has gone to the effort of producing, hanging, and carefully lighting a huge print.
Thanks for your attacking comments...glad to better know you... Personally you can keep this garbage to yourself.
As far as looking at large prints up close...I see it all the time at galleries where people look from far away to take in the whole scene and then come up close to see the details in the prints. I see it with paintings as well...people come in close to observe the brush strokes.
It really depends on the type of photo that is displayed. Many landscapes have great fine detail that just cannot be seen from your described optimal viewing distance and are observed closely. An image of a building or portrait which contains little to no fine detail might not be viewed close as there is nothing there to be seen...but an image of a rainforest loaded with detail would benefit from looking closely at the details.
-
Mr chez,
I've spent my working life, day in, day out, making images. The last thing I want to do when at rest is to have to look at those images.
So you look at someone else's art? I love looking at my own images...brings back memories, smells, sounds etc... Looking at my images reveals to me more than the pretty picture...it reveals a memory. That for me is MUCH more cherished than having some other static art without any memory hanging on a wall.
Pity you feel that way of your years of hard work.
-
... I'd no more display my own work on my walls than I would my genitals.
How about someone else's (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=101927.msg890876#msg890876)? Imagine that printed 5-6 feet tall in a, say, dining room ;)
-
Thanks for your attacking comments...glad to better know you... Personally you can keep this garbage to yourself.
As far as looking at large prints up close...I see it all the time at galleries where people look from far away to take in the whole scene and then come up close to see the details in the prints. I see it with paintings as well...people come in close to observe the brush strokes.
It really depends on the type of photo that is displayed. Many landscapes have great fine detail that just cannot be seen from your described optimal viewing distance and are observed closely. An image of a building or portrait which contains little to no fine detail might not be viewed close as there is nothing there to be seen...but an image of a rainforest loaded with detail would benefit from looking closely at the details.
What attack? You seem to have completely missed the point of my last sentence: I was agreeing with you that some prints, some times can invite, get and even deserve closer-than-normal scrutiny, so that my previous comments about normal viewing would not be misinterpreted as a claim that "12MP is all that anyone ever needs". Note that I said that I myself do a bit of "print sniffing"!
-
Well, I will not be putting my "for work" photographs on the wall in my home...... :o There's something seriously wrong with the body part if I am photographing the surgical specimen (for conferences).
-
Well, I will not be putting my "for work" photographs on the wall in my home...... :o There's something seriously wrong with the body part if I am photographing the surgical specimen (for conferences).
In that case, Nancy, you won't be buying any Joel-Peter Witkin any day soon?
(Neither will I!)
Rob C
-
It feels good to have my pictures hanging in other people's homes, even if it's just friends. The biggest I printed was a 70x30cm (28x11") from a 16MP image.
There's plenty of detail even for close viewing, so I assume I could print that file up to 80" on the long end and still be good looking at normal distance for such a huge picture.
-
Assuming you are limited to a 17" printer, how far can you go in terms of meaningful improvements in quality by upgrading cameras.
I realise that newer sensors usually improve on Dynamic Range, but I still wonder how much of an improvement people have found moving from say a Nikon D700, to a Nikon D800. Not pixel peeping on the computer, but looking at real prints.
When I used film, I was never happy with prints from 35mm. Roll film was OK, but I tried to use 5x4 whenever I could. With digital there doesn't same to be the same urgency to chase image quality the way there once was, as we now seem to be well past a "threshold" of acceptable quality with digital. The number of people who have dropped sensor size to use Fuji x cameras may be evidence of this threshold being reached.
I know everyone needs to make their own judgment on print quality, but its still comparative and we all still want to make the best of the tools available. I well remember all the "grain free" 20x 16s that people used to proudly display, which looked unacceptably grainy to me because I was used to seeing grain from roll film and sheet film.
So, if someone is still plodding along with a D700, making 17" prints that they are happy with, would they want to throw all those prints away once they saw how much better prints from a D800 or sony a7 were, or would it not make any meaningful difference. Have we really passed a threshold in quality, or are new sensors still giving us important improvements in quality (in terms of the landscape photographer).
I would be very interested to hear what people with first hand experience of this think, as I'm not sure many camera reviewers who comment on quality actually make prints.
Thanks,
Graham
It's a conundrum of sorts, really: "When is enough, enough?"
And because individual needs vary, I suppose individual responses will vary.
Me? I think I took better images 3 years ago, simply because I had the time to take pictures all day/all night, as well as the environment in which to do so (even though I had a Canon 7D + an outdated macro lens).
Now, while I may have the Nikon D810, and the finest macro/prime lenses in their class, the images I'm taking are not as good as what I used to take. However, this is not because the equipment I am using, it is simply because my lifestyle has changed, and my time is now limited, not to mention my location is no longer optimal.
When I had lower-level equipment, I was living on a 50-acre spread in the middle of gorgeous Florida wilderness, and I had wildlife opportunities all around me, from the moment I woke up to the moment I went to sleep. I was able to take better pictures simply because I had full access to innumerable opportunities + all day long to capitalize on them.
Now, living in a suburb of L.A., I may have "better equipment," but because I work 240 hours a month, and have to drive at least 1-hr just to get to a natural setting, the amount of time I have to actually utilize this "superior equipment" is minimal.
Therefore, IMO, because most modern equipment is able to deliver fine images, the greatest "quality" to concentrate on for your results at this point is your time + opportunity, being where you need to be, not on your equipment.
That said, I am glad I have the upgraded equipment that I now have.
I can take crops from what I have and produce better images than what I could with a full-frame shot with my prior equipment.
And, when I get a comparable shot full-frame, the difference is definitely noticeable.
My opportunities, however, are simply few and far between.
I believe at this point, most of the available high-end options are all anyone ever needs to secure quality images, provided they have the time, and position themselves in the place, required to capture image worthy of printing.
Mention was made of Thomas Mangelsen, and his situation (pardon the pun) "bears" testimony to the above: Mangelsen didn't capture the images he did, and acquire his deserved fame, because of the "quality camera" he had ??? No, Mangelsen produced the images he did ... because he was there ... in a blind, all-day, all-night ... for days/weeks/months/years out in the wild ... and so was in the position to capture images that captured people's fancy.
You can have the best, most modern equipment in the world, but if you're sitting at home admiring your purchase decisions, you will never captured the same images, or produce the same quality prints, as the man who may have a lesser camera than you … and perhaps not the printer either ... but who is "out there," where it matters, capturing the images that people want to buy.
Jack
-
Indeed, John, and that can be applied to all types of photography.
Rob C
-
… I had the time to take pictures all day/all night…
I imagine you might have somethings to say on that different topic about the recent LuLa article - Improve Your Photography by Staying Longer (https://luminous-landscape.com/improve-your-photography-by-staying-longer/)
-
Indeed, John, and that can be applied to all types of photography.
Rob C
Absolutely.
-
I imagine you might have somethings to say on that different topic about the recent LuLa article - Improve Your Photography by Staying Longer (https://luminous-landscape.com/improve-your-photography-by-staying-longer/)
What a wonderful article.
"Staying longer" doesn't just give you more opportunity, it gives you more knowledge of your terrain.
Part of the benefit of being "on-site" all the time (be it nature photography, or any kind of photography) is a complete knowledge of when events typically happen.
When I lived in the Florida wilderness, for over six years, I knew when each species was likely to be found, where I needed to be to find it, etc.
My own property had everything I wanted to photograph: frogs would visit at night, toads too, moths, all forms of nocturnal arthropods, etc.
In the morning, birds were everywhere, lizards/snakes came out to sun themselves, all forms of butterflies were floating in the flower garden, etc.
Merely walking out onto my front porch, and down the steps, was all it took to create opportunities for myself.
I could also just look out the window and see if the light was right.
I could walk out and take a hike, instantly, anytime I wanted to.
The deck was stacked in my favor.
Now, I pretty much have to wait for the weekend.
When the weekend comes, it takes me 1 to 2 hours to get to anywhere meaningful, and then my duration of time out there is minimized.
Where as, before, in Florida, the deck was stacked in my favor, now, by only by only affording myself a minimal of time out in the field.
The deck is now stacked against me.
Barring serendipity, the person who is out there the longest, and who has the most intimate understanding of the land and ecosystem, will get the best shots.
It is more than just the likelihood of "being there at the right time," it is also the acquired knowledge of the land that goes with it.
Just as an example, suppose I read "an article online," and drove to Arizona in the hopes of capturing some wonderful flora & fauna shots, over a mere weekend: my chances of success are nowhere near what a native Arizona photographer can accomplish, by seeing the landscape all day/every day, making multiple efforts over the course of many days/weeks/months. I essentially have zero knowledge of the land, and a very fleeting window of opportunity. By contrast, the native Arizonan has a lifetime of knowledge of the land + a lifetime of opportunities to take advantage of any "magic moments," as they occur.
Therefore, with the high-quality of today's modern equipment, (and, again, pardon the pun) the "focus" of any photographer who has actually purchased recently-updated equipment, regardless of his photographic discipline, would be better spent gaining knowledge of his subjects/terrain + spending as much time as possible in a position to capture those "magic moments" than he would worrying about whether or not he has the latest iteration or version of whatever camera.
This November, I will have the opportunity to go to Thailand to visit my fiancée's family. More than just "being in Thailand," it will be the contribution of knowledgeable Thailand natives that will contribute to my ability to get good nature photographs while in that region (+ the amount of time I put into it) than will whether or not I buy a new camera/printer.
Similarly, I have several Facebook friends who live in nearby Malaysia.
While I am in Thailand, I am going to take a brief flight over to Malaysia to meet these friends (whose photography I have admired for years), and they will escort me to several wild areas of their country where we will all take nature shots.
Obviously, being "in Malaysia" will assist me in taking Malaysian nature photography, but more than this, the local knowledge of the Malaysian photographers (+ my time spent out there) will be 100x more pivotal to the results I hope to take than will "what camera" (or printer) I happen to have at the time.
Time spent = knowledge gained = being in the right place at the right time.
Which (assuming any modern instrument) is more valuable than quibbling over equipment.
Jack
-
Good comments! Thank you!
Best regards
Erik
What a wonderful article.
"Staying longer" doesn't just give you more opportunity, it gives you more knowledge of your terrain.
Part of the benefit of being "on-site" all the time (be it nature photography, or any kind of photography) is a complete knowledge of when events typically happen.
When I lived in the Florida wilderness, for over six years, I knew when each species was likely to be found, where I needed to be to find it, etc.
My own property had everything I wanted to photograph: frogs would visit at night, toads too, moths, all forms of nocturnal arthropods, etc.
In the morning, birds were everywhere, lizards/snakes came out to sun themselves, all forms of butterflies were floating in the flower garden, etc.
Merely walking out onto my front porch, and down the steps, was all it took to create opportunities for myself.
I could also just look out the window and see if the light was right.
I could walk out and take a hike, instantly, anytime I wanted to.
The deck was stacked in my favor.
Now, I pretty much have to wait for the weekend.
When the weekend comes, it takes me 1 to 2 hours to get to anywhere meaningful, and then my duration of time out there is minimized.
Where as, before, in Florida, the deck was stacked in my favor, now, by only by only affording myself a minimal of time out in the field.
The deck is now stacked against me.
Barring serendipity, the person who is out there the longest, and who has the most intimate understanding of the land and ecosystem, will get the best shots.
It is more than just the likelihood of "being there at the right time," it is also the acquired knowledge of the land that goes with it.
Just as an example, suppose I read "an article online," and drove to Arizona in the hopes of capturing some wonderful flora & fauna shots, over a mere weekend: my chances of success are nowhere near what a native Arizona photographer can accomplish, by seeing the landscape all day/every day, making multiple efforts over the course of many days/weeks/months. I essentially have zero knowledge of the land, and a very fleeting window of opportunity. By contrast, the native Arizonan has a lifetime of knowledge of the land + a lifetime of opportunities to take advantage of any "magic moments," as they occur.
Therefore, with the high-quality of today's modern equipment, (and, again, pardon the pun) the "focus" of any photographer who has actually purchased recently-updated equipment, regardless of his photographic discipline, would be better spent gaining knowledge of his subjects/terrain + spending as much time as possible in a position to capture those "magic moments" than he would worrying about whether or not he has the latest iteration or version of whatever camera.
This November, I will have the opportunity to go to Thailand to visit my fiancée's family. More than just "being in Thailand," it will be the contribution of knowledgeable Thailand natives that will contribute to my ability to get good nature photographs while in that region (+ the amount of time I put into it) than will whether or not I buy a new camera/printer.
Similarly, I have several Facebook friends who live in nearby Malaysia.
While I am in Thailand, I am going to take a brief flight over to Malaysia to meet these friends (whose photography I have admired for years), and they will escort me to several wild areas of their country where we will all take nature shots.
Obviously, being "in Malaysia" will assist me in taking Malaysian nature photography, but more than this, the local knowledge of the Malaysian photographers (+ my time spent out there) will be 100x more pivotal to the results I hope to take than will "what camera" (or printer) I happen to have at the time.
Time spent = knowledge gained = being in the right place at the right time.
Which (assuming any modern instrument) is more valuable than quibbling over equipment.
Jack
-
+1000, Jack. Your previous place sounds wonderful - I hope to retire to something like this, a small house in the Ozarks. I too have the weekend syndrome because I live in the middle of the city, though I really ought to try to get out early morning (dawn, before work) on summer weekdays to the city park 3 blocks from my house for insects. I have thought about photographing "hospital critters" for fun - the bunnies out by the employee parking lot, the male house finch singing away on top of the hospital transformer (their feet have grade AAA electrical insulation!), the mourning doves nesting in the garage, on ledges, house sparrows diving for the crumbs left by people eating in the street, etc.
-
I have been hiking in all sorts of weather, in crummy light, just to explore new trails and (mostly) to get fit and keep sane after a week in the office. Plus, there's always something new to learn about the ecosystem or even "under" the ecosystem (I am learning a little geology for beginners, having noted that there is some variety in sedimentary rocks around where I live, and even a few fossils). The local nature preserve offers a lot of adult education classes on observational ecology - wildflowers, mushrooms, soil types, etc. I haven't quite made up my mind to have a whack at mathematical ecology.
-
I fully agree on the time and opportunities.
I have been living in this place for six years now. I took more and more pictures since I moved because I had more and more opportunities. Now I not only have a decent garden, but I have plenty of fields, mountains and beautiful valleys just around my home. With all the experience I have I know exactly when and where to go for the right light to happen, and I know where all the various crops grow. This week has been full of blooming apricot trees that have beautiful pinkish flowers. There are plum trees as well with white flowers, and some early peach trees with bright pink ones. Getting access is a bit harder because many are fenced off, but if you can get the right combination of sunset light and very long tree lines, there's a great photo opportunity for ya. Throw in a model or two and you got a winner. I can get to such a place right now by foot, I'd just have to walk 300m or so!
I know many photographers that have never experienced this land, their own land, because they think they know it all. I used to think the same, and this was my excuse to never go out around where I lived just to see what was happening. I thought I knew it all just by being there, but I never truly observed what happened around me, so I never knew the amazing sunset colors after a heavy storm was dissipating, or the beautiful golden light projected on mountains at dawn.
Now I'm in the process of starting a manufacturing company, and I'm sure this will chew up all my free time. Though I'll try to not let this get too much in the way and actually use the extra money to open up better opportunities.
@Nancy: Since I started hiking a few years ago I never stopped. Even when the light is bad and the weather is even worse, I still find it incredibly useful. As you said, there's always something new to learn or experience. Besides, when the weather is not that good, very few people hike in the same place I do, so that's a plus if you don't want to clone out brightly colored shirts!
-
Now I'm in the process of starting a manufacturing company, and I'm sure this will chew up all my free time. Though I'll try to not let this get too much in the way and actually use the extra money to open up better opportunities.
If you are referring to photographic opportunities: ain't nuttin' like optimism!
FWIW: concentrate on the business - leave photography for 'holidays' and/or retirement! It can wait. Real life, on which everything else depends, can not.
;-)
Rob
-
Good comments! Thank you!
Best regards
Erik
+1000, Jack. Your previous place sounds wonderful - I hope to retire to something like this, a small house in the Ozarks. I too have the weekend syndrome because I live in the middle of the city, though I really ought to try to get out early morning (dawn, before work) on summer weekdays to the city park 3 blocks from my house for insects. I have thought about photographing "hospital critters" for fun - the bunnies out by the employee parking lot, the male house finch singing away on top of the hospital transformer (their feet have grade AAA electrical insulation!), the mourning doves nesting in the garage, on ledges, house sparrows diving for the crumbs left by people eating in the street, etc.
I have been hiking in all sorts of weather, in crummy light, just to explore new trails and (mostly) to get fit and keep sane after a week in the office. Plus, there's always something new to learn about the ecosystem or even "under" the ecosystem (I am learning a little geology for beginners, having noted that there is some variety in sedimentary rocks around where I live, and even a few fossils). The local nature preserve offers a lot of adult education classes on observational ecology - wildflowers, mushrooms, soil types, etc. I haven't quite made up my mind to have a whack at mathematical ecology.
Glad it resonated, thank you.
Yes on the comment of "always something to learn" about the ecosystem. That is something that must be acquired over time.
If being at "the right place at the right time" = equals success ... then knowing the land, and when to expect the best results, gives you greater likelihood of being timely and thereby achieving what you want.
Jack
PS: I too love geology. The rocks, mountains, etc. of CA are great for this. Just wish I had more time these days :(
-
Now I'm in the process of starting a manufacturing company, and I'm sure this will chew up all my free time. Though I'll try to not let this get too much in the way and actually use the extra money to open up better opportunities.
I empathize with your entire post, but this part most of all at this point: :(
Should be drafting reports right now, rather than "talking photography," in fact, lol
@Nancy: Since I started hiking a few years ago I never stopped. Even when the light is bad and the weather is even worse, I still find it incredibly useful. As you said, there's always something new to learn or experience. Besides, when the weather is not that good, very few people hike in the same place I do, so that's a plus if you don't want to clone out brightly colored shirts!
I am not Nancy, but always try to go where "humans" tend not to go, for this and other reasons.
While in Florida, not only did I have 50 acres of wilderness as a backyard, but a 10-min drive put me in the 5-million-acre Jena WMA swamp, coastal preserve, etc., where there were alligators, snakes, and a whole host of other delightful opportunities.
Just do not have the time, or proximity, to such resources here in LA ... but hope to change that in 2 years.
In the meantime, will be spending my $$ on monthly trips, and (if possible) knowledgeable guides, to improve my images, no longer on equipment.
Jack
-
FWIW: concentrate on the business - leave photography for 'holidays' and/or retirement! It can wait. Real life, on which everything else depends, can not.
That's the idea! I'm always trying to fit in opportunities, though the weather hasn't helped much the past couple months so I had more time to work. I'll definitely keep most of that for holidays. I have plenty of travels already planned thanks to many long time friends all over the globe, I just need the money to afford them. Besides, retirement for me is way too far into the future (if it ever happens!) and I quite like my new field of work. I can always find something else if I get bored, I've done quite a lot from business applications programming to sales, from graphic design to plastic composites.
While in Florida, not only did I have 50 acres of wilderness as a backyard, but a 10-min drive put me in the 5-million-acre Jena WMA swamp, coastal preserve, etc., where there were alligators, snakes, and a whole host of other delightful opportunities.
My still living grandma (she's a tank, going strong at 94 after beating breast tumors two times) lives in the countryside in northern Italy (Alassio, if you want to check out the place). As a family we own a big chunk of land on a hill on top of the city, and that's the place I want to invest in. My aunt and two of my cousins with families live there as well (all adjacent houses), plus there are more buildings that can be converted to homes and I have many plans for that.
While I got paid for my photography at times, the last of which this past week, I don't really see myself doing it full time. I'm not even sure I want to do it as a job, even though I might do something about it one day. Right now I want to make money to make my life better and keep photography as something that gives me a way to express my ideas, as well as a tool to help with depression. But I'm still young and there's plenty of time for me to do all the things I want to.
I really hope you can have the changes you need in two years!