Post by: rabanito on January 07, 2019, 05:21:26 am
I own three cameras. One 6x6 analog, one digital 24x16 12 Mp and one 4/3
17x13 16 Mp.
Analog aside, I usually prefer the pictures taken by the 12 Mp camera, this could be for many reasons that might have little too do with the number of pixels
Now I've seen that there are small format cameras up to 36 MP (or maybe more?) 24x36 and asked myself if such a monster - never had one in my hand - would (other things being equal) make any difference to MY photography (Landscape, taking my time, "visualization", tripod etc). My end product are prints up to A3+ (13"x19")
Any opinions, experiences, advice?
Thanks in advance :)
Post by: petermfiore on January 07, 2019, 07:40:56 am
Peter
Post by: degrub on January 07, 2019, 09:01:21 am
There were a few articles by Michael R. discussing the format size, pixels, etc. on the site. And endless debates. Jim Kasson, BJanes, and others are expert in this discussion. You might search for threads where they interjected. Jim has a website as well
https://blog.kasson.com/
In particular, take a look at the websites on his recommended list
https://blog.kasson.com/photographic-sites/
Post by: faberryman on January 07, 2019, 09:08:46 am
Unless one is pixel peeping, the consensus i have seen says 12-16 MPixels is adequate for that printing size at normal viewing range.A 13x19 image from a 12MP file, with no cropping, must be printed at roughly 225dpi, which many find inadequate, or upsized with interpolated data. Canon has a native print resolution of 300, which would require a 22MP file. Epson has a native resolution of 360 which would require a 32MP file.
Post by: HSakols on January 07, 2019, 09:48:35 am
I use both micro four thirds and a full frame Nikon, and like you I rarely print larger than 12 x 18 inches. Where the larger sensor is a real joy is in the post process where I just have smoother control over my changes. High lights and shadows are easier to control. That said, I plan on Traveling to Latvia this summer where I will just bring my Olympus 16 mp. The big sensor is for photographing piles of stilcks and rocks while it is mounted on a tripod and the ISO is set to 64.
I was at a workshop in 2005 where this guy made a 24 + inch print using his point and shoot. Comparing the print to that of high end cameras was surprising. In a pinch one could get away with it but I wouldn't plan on much post processing control working with a tiny JPEG.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 07, 2019, 11:43:54 am
A 13x19 image from a 12MP file, with no cropping, must be printed at roughly 225dpi, which many find inadequate, or upsized with interpolated data. Canon has a native print resolution of 300, which would require a 22MP file. Epson has a native resolution of 360 which would require a 32MP file.
13x19 is the new post-card size (i.e., 4x6). You can print it from an iPhone.
The "must" above is a huge hyperbole. I have printed (and sold for $1,000+) 30" x 40" prints from a P&S jpeg. I had a magazine cover and 24" x 36" prints (sold too) from an 8 Mpx camera. All done via Lightroom printing module.
Post by: faberryman on January 07, 2019, 11:54:10 am
The "must" above is a huge hyperbole.It is not hyperbole. It is math.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 07, 2019, 12:02:51 pm
Not so much in terms of printability, but in terms of used focal length, hence perspective, and DOF.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 07, 2019, 12:03:44 pm
It is not hyperbole. It is math.
We are not looking at math, but images. Math is for tire kickers*
* For my non-English-as-first-language friends: tire kicker is someone who seemingly knows everything about something in theory (e.g., cars), and demonstrates it by asking a lot of seemingly knowledgeable questions while walking around the car and kicking its tires, but never buys it (or does something else in practice).
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 07, 2019, 12:09:22 pm
Of course there is a difference!
Not so much in terms of printability, but in terms of used focal length, hence perspective, and DOF.
Nope.
Both depend on the subject distance. DOF is a bit more complicated, though.
Post by: Rob C on January 07, 2019, 12:18:02 pm
That's my reality of the matter.
Rob
Post by: faberryman on January 07, 2019, 12:25:01 pm
We are not looking at math, but images. Math is for tire kickers*The LR print module hides all the math so you don't have to worry about it. Some prefer not to have to deal with the math. The math doesn't bother me. I don't kick the tires on my printer. I print with it.
* For my non-English-as-first-language friends: tire kicker is someone who seemingly knows everything about something in theory (e.g., cars), and demonstrates it by asking a lot of seemingly knowledgeable questions while walking around the car and kicking its tires, but never buys it (or does something else in practice).
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 07, 2019, 12:33:21 pm
The LR print module hides all the math so you don't have to worry about it. Some prefer not to have to deal with the math. The math doesn't bother me. I don't kick the tires on my printer. I print with it.
Here we agree 100%. Just print it and don't worry about the math is all I say.
At the same time, saying that one "must" have a 22 or 32 Mpx camera to print 13x19 is clearly not true.
Post by: faberryman on January 07, 2019, 12:39:49 pm
At the same time, saying that one "must" have a 22 or 32 Mpx camera to print 13x19 is clearly not true.You obviously didn't read what I wrote. I specified the dpi which would make the statement true, again without resizing. But I understand your point. It is certainly possible to make a 13x19 print with a few megapixels.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 07, 2019, 12:45:28 pm
Nope.
Both depend on the subject distance. DOF is a bit more complicated, though.
About DOF: I talk about film equivalent DOF, deviated from the COC. Larger sensor, longer lens to have the same image angle: shallower DOF by given aperture. Correct?
About perspective: I’m a bit unclear in my statement, correct.
A 35mm in FF and a 35mm in APSc will create same DOF at same distance, but to get the same image ratio (not sure if it is the correct English term) you need to move your camera, hence changing the perspective.
If you want to (and you want to) keep the same image angle in order to keep the same perspective, you need to use 23mm on an APSc, this gives a change in DOF.
Yes?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 07, 2019, 12:49:21 pm
... Yes?
That is a rather old debate, so I am not inclined to rehash it.
On this very site, there are articles, starting with Michael Reichmann's ones, that explore the subject, just search for DOF. One of the first articles on the subject is this one:
https://luminous-landscape.com/dof/
Post by: Ivophoto on January 07, 2019, 12:54:53 pm
That is a rather old debate, so I am not inclined to rehash it.
On this very site, there are articles, starting with Michael Reichmann's ones, that explore the subject, just search for DOF. One of the first articles on the subject is this one:
https://luminous-landscape.com/dof/
Agree, it’s an old debate, no need to rehearse.
I was just thinking loud that the main difference in sensor format is DOF ( for prints in terms of resolution up to A3 I don’t see a difference)
And DOF is related to COC and this is depending to the distance you look at your image and the size of it. I was in that corner. No bother. Especially not for landscape photographer who wants all sharp.
Cheers.
Post by: rabanito on January 07, 2019, 01:11:58 pm
Quote from: Ivophoto link=topic=128432.msg1087852#msg1087852
Especially not for landscape photographer who wants all sharp.
[/quote
Especially not for landscape photographer who wants all sharp.
[/quote
When photographing landscapes I don't want "everything sharp" unconditionally
Some things I want sharp, some maybe less sharp. Many times I have to recur to PS to, say, separate planes by blurring a little
It depends on the motive, I guess
Post by: Ivophoto on January 07, 2019, 01:17:14 pm
[quote author=Ivophoto link=topic=128432.msg1087852#msg1087852
Especially not for landscape photographer who wants all sharp.
When photographing landscapes I don't want "everything sharp" unconditionally
Some things I want sharp, some maybe less sharp. Many times I have to recur to PS to, say, separate planes by blurring a little
It depends on the motive, I guess
Ok. You do your blurring in PP?
I make portraits on 8x10”. A good understanding of DOF and COC (circle of confusion) is key to make the most out of it.
The article referenced by Slobo is effectively a good explanation , Tx for the link, Slobo, it’s more clear than the tedious explanation in the Focal Press encyclopedia.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 07, 2019, 01:20:46 pm
When photographing landscapes I don't want "everything sharp" unconditionally
Some things I want sharp, some maybe less sharp. Many times I have to recur to PS to, say, separate planes by blurring a little...
That is true.
It is a basic fallacy that landscape photography needs "everything sharp." Different level of sharpness for different planes is what creates the depth, a 3-D effect (btw, "slightly less sharp" doesn't mean "blurred" or even "unsharp"). The same technique Rembrandt used by having a closer eye slightly sharper than the other one in portraits.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 07, 2019, 01:32:28 pm
That is true.
It is a basic fallacy that landscape photography needs "everything sharp." Different level of sharpness for different planes is what creates the depth, a 3-D effect (btw, "slightly less sharp" doesn't mean "blurred" or even "unsharp"). The same technique Rembrandt used by having a closer eye slightly sharper than the other one in portraits.
F64 club is not covering all landscape photographers?
Do you PP the unsharpness in the different plans of your scenes?
Post by: Ivophoto on January 07, 2019, 01:34:35 pm
That is true.
The same technique Rembrandt used by having a closer eye slightly sharper than the other one in portraits.
That’s where I refer to in my previous post about 8x10” portraits.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 07, 2019, 01:46:57 pm
F64 club is not covering all landscape photographers?
Do you PP the unsharpness in the different plans of your scenes?
The F64 was a movement against deliberate blurring of photographs of the preceding style. That is different. Besides, because of the apparent shallower DOF of the large format, and because of the COC range, F64 club already had that differential sharpness that rabanito and I are talking about.
And yes, occasionally, I might engage in PP unsharpening.
Post by: rabanito on January 07, 2019, 01:57:31 pm
Ok. You do your blurring in PP?
I do whatever is necessary for a (to me) satisfying picture. That's the goal.
Your compatriot Rogier van der Weyden mixed tempera and oil when painting The Descent from the Cross.
A VERY satisfying result :) :) :)
Post by: Ivophoto on January 07, 2019, 02:00:44 pm
I do whatever is necessary for a (to me) satisfying picture. That's the goal.
Your compatriot Rogier van der Weyden mixed tempera and oil when painting The Descent from the Cross.
A VERY satisfying result :) :) :)
O yes, no technical limits to get to the result!
Post by: LesPalenik on January 07, 2019, 03:04:37 pm
A 13x19 image from a 12MP file, with no cropping, must be printed at roughly 225dpi, which many find inadequate, or upsized with interpolated data. Canon has a native print resolution of 300, which would require a 22MP file. Epson has a native resolution of 360 which would require a 32MP file.
I recall some posts from 15-18 years ago when the authors claimed that they made very acceptable 30"x48" prints from 6MP Canon 20D and Nikon D70.
Post by: Telecaster on January 08, 2019, 04:45:59 pm
A: "You can't make a sharp NxN" print from an NxN pixel file."
B: "Yes I can, and I have."
B fetches one or more examples.
A looks closely at it or them with some degree or other of purse-lipped annoyance.
B smiles.
-Dave-
Post by: Two23 on January 08, 2019, 06:21:42 pm
F64 club is not covering all landscape photographers?
While I'm just a bystander here, I will as a large format shooter (4x5, 5x7) point out that when you start hitting f22 you're going to get increasing softness from diffraction. Even with 5x7 I rarely go above f22 despite some of my lenses being marked f128. ;) I prefer to use front tilt when possible instead of stopping down.
Kent in SD
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 09, 2019, 12:24:35 am
That is true.
It is a basic fallacy that landscape photography needs "everything sharp." Different level of sharpness for different planes is what creates the depth, a 3-D effect (btw, "slightly less sharp" doesn't mean "blurred" or even "unsharp"). The same technique Rembrandt used by having a closer eye slightly sharper than the other one in portraits.
Finally this!
It seems these days photographers fall into two camps. The first is super fast lenses with a razor thin plane of sharp focus. For these people the gorgeous, creamy whatever bokeh is spoken about more than the actual subject matter or actual photograph. Then the other camp is everything must be sharp. Shoot a zillion frames at the lens’s sharpest aperture and stack it. Little sensitivity in either approach.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 09, 2019, 01:00:43 am
While I'm just a bystander here, I will as a large format shooter (4x5, 5x7) point out that when you start hitting f22 you're going to get increasing softness from diffraction. Even with 5x7 I rarely go above f22 despite some of my lenses being marked f128. ;) I prefer to use front tilt when possible instead of stopping down.
Kent in SD
I don’t use large format for landscapes, but front tilt would be the tool to focus.
Don’t forget that the A. Ansel club worked on 8x10” and bigger, that is another league than 4x5”, I should look into some diagrams, but I guess your max f22 on 4x5” is f64 on 8x10”. Not sure.
I use 8x10” for portraits, front tilt and diaphragm is utterly important to get an approximately 1:1 portrait focused on the correct spots. As Slobodan said, the Rembrandt approach is the start of it.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 09, 2019, 01:32:11 am
My experience with file sizes related to print sizes typically goes like this:
A: "You can't make a sharp NxN" print from an NxN pixel file."
B: "Yes I can, and I have."
B fetches one or more examples.
A looks closely at it or them with some degree or other of purse-lipped annoyance.
B smiles.
-Dave-
When you compare prints on a wall from a normal viewing distance, it is going to be practically impossible to see.
Pixel peeping on screen will reveal difference. (I don’t pixel peep, a want to see the final print, old school)
But there is more under the hood going on than sharpness rendering. Getting a picture ‘sharp’ is digitally only a matter of calculated pixel manipulation.
Try some foliage on distance, try some pattern where the sensor pattern and RAW converter gets upset, and then you start to see the difference between a relative low pixel sensor and a high. And you start seeing the difference with a small sensor and bigger sensor.
The difference I see in my files is definition in those difficult areas.
When I switched over from my 2.4mp 2Dh to a 6mp d70, it was a visual difference in print. And when I got my first Kodak, that was out of space. (Reason could be the psychedelic moiré effects)
In analog period, I made a print and hung it on the wall and looked at it at normal distance and under the light where the print would hang, but things changed, images seldom make it to a print and are judged on screen on pixel level. And then posted on the web on 1200px wide............
Well.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 09, 2019, 03:51:13 am
And yes, occasionally, I might engage in PP unsharpening.
I have a question, do you pre (un) sharpen your images on full resolution and do you apply final (un) sharpening when you make your file for purpose? (Wall size, double magazine spread, etc)
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 09, 2019, 10:11:32 am
I have a question, do you pre (un) sharpen your images on full resolution and do you apply final (un) sharpening when you make your file for purpose? (Wall size, double magazine spread, etc)
The former.
But differential sharpness (I prefer that term to “unsharpenning” or “blurring”) starts already in camera, by selecting f/stop and point of focus. Even when shooting a huge vista, with a lot of foreground (e.g., a flower) middle ground (field) and background (mountains), I would focus on the most important thing and select an f/stop that will keep the rest reasonably sharp, but not absolutely so. Especially the distant mountains shouldn’t be sharpened to death, as it confuses the eye and mind accustomed to see them through atmospheric haze.
Post by: faberryman on January 09, 2019, 10:52:16 am
When you compare prints on a wall from a normal viewing distance, it is going to be practically impossible to see.
I don't buy the "normal viewing distance" argument. Galleries don't have velvet ropes preventing you from getting closer. Details often draw you into thee image.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 09, 2019, 11:21:09 am
The former.
But differential sharpness (I prefer that term to “unsharpenning” or “blurring”) starts already in camera, by selecting f/stop and point of focus. Even when shooting a huge vista, with a lot of foreground (e.g., a flower) middle ground (field) and background (mountains), I would focus on the most important thing and select an f/stop that will keep the rest reasonably sharp, but not absolutely so. Especially the distant mountains shouldn’t be sharpened to death, as it confuses the eye and mind accustomed to see them through atmospheric haze.
Tx for sharing this, Slobodan.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 09, 2019, 11:33:36 am
I don't buy the "normal viewing distance" argument. Galleries don't have velvet ropes preventing you from getting closer. Details often draw you into thee image.
Fair enough.
But: What kind of device would you need to fill a More O’Ferall if normal viewing distance was not an argument ?
(
I find it rather annoying, peoples standing at 10cm in front of a painting or picture and obscuring the view of the other visitors. , I prefer to look at the painting or picture from a distance that justifies the image, but I understand it’s interesting to look at the artist brushstrokes)Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 09, 2019, 11:34:02 am
I don't buy the "normal viewing distance" argument. Galleries don't have velvet ropes preventing you from getting closer. Details often draw you into thee image.
I've done a fair number of art shows. Rarely, if ever, someone comes to the print at their nose distance. It was actually me showing them small details, like a mountain goat at the bottom of Mount Rushmore, taken from the distant visitors center, with an 8Mpx camera and printed on canvas 24"x36". No one ever complained that they couldn't see a reflection of me in the goat's eye. Or the goat's eye for that matter.
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2853/9841446876_20e7d6da8e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/fZDZhy)
Mount Rushmore (https://flic.kr/p/fZDZhy) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr
Post by: Rob C on January 09, 2019, 11:41:07 am
;-)
Post by: Ivophoto on January 09, 2019, 11:46:47 am
I've done a fair number of art shows. Rarely, if ever, someone comes to the print at their nose distance. It was actually me showing them small details, like a mountain goat at the bottom of Mount Rushmore, taken from the distant visitors center, with an 8Mpx camera and printed on canvas 24"x36". No one ever complained that they couldn't see a reflection of me in the goat's eye. Or the goat's eye for that matter.
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2853/9841446876_20e7d6da8e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/fZDZhy)
Mount Rushmore (https://flic.kr/p/fZDZhy) by Slobodan Blagojevic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/slobodan_blagojevic/), on Flickr
Looking at two details on nose distance I can say it is a Billly goat.
Post by: RSL on January 09, 2019, 11:53:52 am
Post by: 32BT on January 09, 2019, 12:00:04 pm
I guess you guys haven't been told that size doesn't matter.
Apparently it wasn't relevant to them...
Post by: Ivophoto on January 09, 2019, 12:03:00 pm
I guess you guys haven't been told that size doesn't matter.
Yes, it was told by someone with a tiny frame to fill.
Post by: Telecaster on January 09, 2019, 05:36:06 pm
I don't buy the "normal viewing distance" argument. Galleries don't have velvet ropes preventing you from getting closer. Details often draw you into thee image.
When I visit art museums I enjoy getting up close to paintings when possible and studying brush & paint application techniques. But this is a very different thing to ogling the details of a photo. Hardly anyone is, for example, gonna dock van Gogh for using a palette knife or his fingers to "crudely" apply paint or for his use of thick impasto. But many folks look at photographs differently, and there can be an IMO excessive fixation on fine detail that gets in the way of appreciating photos as whole things.
At my (imaginary) gallery show I would prevent you from getting "too close." :D
-Dave-
Post by: Ray on January 09, 2019, 06:59:39 pm
A 50mm lens on a 36mp full frame is far more useful than the same lens on a 16mp cropped format with similar pixel quality and pixel size.