Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Z6/Z7 & paper size  (Read 723 times)

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1423
Z6/Z7 & paper size
« on: February 08, 2019, 06:49:05 PM »

If you do not EVER print larger than A2 (420mm x 524mm, or 16.5 x 23.4 inches) would there be a perceptible difference in resolution between the Z6 and Z7?

And as a corollary question...perhaps this should be in a different forum...with the finest printing technique, the kind you'd get from a pro art printer, at what common paper size/sensor size do the sensor differences begin to pop for good photographic eyes?
Logged

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 834
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2019, 11:14:07 PM »

I've never used a Z6, but I've done an experiment that should be close - top-end Fuji APS-C (X-T2 and X-H1) with very good lenses, including the 16-55mm f2.8, against the Z7. Resolution-wise, the Fuji is going to be very close to the Z6, although it may not have the dynamic range.

At 24x36" (roughly A1), the differences are immediately visible, and from some distance. The Nikon print is simply sharper. The Fuji print looks pretty good unless you have a print from something with a lot more resolution next to it, but if you have both in front of you, there's no contest - once you've seen the two together, you can spot the difference immediately, and without having to get close.

At A2, the Fuji is holding up a lot better. You can see extra detail and lower noise in the Nikon print, but you need to be close. One thing that is special about the Z7's image quality is that it's utterly noiseless at low ISO. The Fuji's minimum real ISO is 200, and, while not noisy at all, you can never get it to "utterly noiseless". The Z7, and I suspect the A7rIII and D850 as well, has that special quality we associate with 4x5" film and MF digital, where, under certain circumstances, the noise simply isn't there at all. I don't know if a Z6 can do that, having never used one. Older 24 MP full-frame cameras, while very low noise, never reached complete noiselessness.

The other difference between Z7 and Fuji is the Z7's dynamic range. There's close to a 2 stop difference - much of it due to the Z7's remarkable low ISO (so a lot of it goes away if you're shooting both cameras at, say, ISO 800). On certain images where the dynamic range comes into play, you can tell the difference on the web. I'm not sure where the Z6 falls on that scale.
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1964
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2019, 06:37:26 AM »

Z6 will be enough.  about 300dpi on A2 size.
Also considering the lenses are upto the Z7, you have perfect prints.

Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1964
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2019, 02:11:53 PM »

the previous was the short answer.
Longer answer:

My printer does 600dpi - in that case a Z7 will not be enough for A2.
You need a loupe to tell the difference from 300dpi.
A lot of prints you see in musea are 200dpi.

The Z7 will produce the next results. ( if your lenses are up to their task)


Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3230
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2019, 03:21:00 PM »

It really depends on the viewing distance from the print.  I shot with a Nikon D300 (12 mp sensor) for some years before moving up to the D810.  I was able to produced some quality 17 x 25 inch prints that are hanging in some offices from that camera (Epson 3880 printer).  Doing loupe comparisons might be fun for some people but I prefer to look at how the image is from the normal viewing distance.  I decided to get the Z 6 as I don't print any bigger than 17 x 25.  If I did find a panorama situation, stitching would always be a viable approach.  For me, the move to the Z 6 was simple, I needed a smaller and lighter kit for travel and I got a good trade in for the D810.
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3631
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2019, 04:34:59 PM »

I can make 14x21" prints (as large as I'm interested in making) from images captured by each of my current & past 12mp+ sensor-based cameras that look all but indistinguishable at any reasonable viewing distance. When there are visible differences in side-by-side comparison they tend to be tonal in nature.

This is one reason why I went from a Sony A7rii to an A7iii.

-Dave-
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2019, 08:57:40 PM »

I don’t understand “proper viewing distance”. I print large 24x36 and up to 40x60 detailed landscapes and I notice a lot of people come in very close to the prints to examine the details within the print. These people are not looking for noise in the image but details like a small crab on the beach which is not apparent when viewing the entire print from afar. This concept of proper viewing distance is a falsehood made up to justify one’s faults in a print.
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3631
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2019, 04:28:16 PM »

For me "proper viewing distance" is the distance I prefer when looking at a print. I like to easily see the whole thing at once. If you OTOH wanna stick your nose in a print, have at it. But if you then complain that the gnat's nads are a little fuzzy in one of my prints…too bad, you've missed the intent. If I wanted to show off the nads I'd make a bigger print.  :D

-Dave-
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1423
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2019, 06:58:06 PM »

This concept of proper viewing distance is a falsehood made up to justify one’s faults in a print.

Nonsense. "Proper viewing distance" might be something of a misnomer, but there is a general distance at which art works are best appreciated, and that distance is one in which you can take in the entire work. There's a reason for standing closer than that -- to examine technique, which can be a perfectly legitimate thing to do  -- but that's not the same as grasping the feel and intent of the art work. If you print so people can get nose-to-print so they can see a crab, that they can't see when looking at the entire work, you're simply engaging in a technique trick. Which is fine if you think the summit of an art work is expressed in the trickiest of technique. I think that would place you in a tiny minority of people who are serious appreciators of art; in a minority who would be more interested in Whistler's Mother's nose rather than Whistler's Mother the painting.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9916
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2019, 10:04:40 PM »

Nonsense. "Proper viewing distance" might be something of a misnomer, but there is a general distance at which art works are best appreciated, and that distance is one in which you can take in the entire work. There's a reason for standing closer than that -- to examine technique, which can be a perfectly legitimate thing to do  -- but that's not the same as grasping the feel and intent of the art work. If you print so people can get nose-to-print so they can see a crab, that they can't see when looking at the entire work, you're simply engaging in a technique trick. Which is fine if you think the summit of an art work is expressed in the trickiest of technique. I think that would place you in a tiny minority of people who are serious appreciators of art; in a minority who would be more interested in Whistler's Mother's nose rather than Whistler's Mother the painting.

John,
The best appreciation of any art work, whether painting or photograph, can exist only in the mind of the viewer. Each individual has different tastes and interests, at least to some degree. There might be a general consensus that a particular photographic print of a particular size is best viewed from a specific distance in order to appreciate an 'over all' artistic intent of the image.

However, photographic images tend to have much more detail than modern paintings. They are closer to certain forms of Renaissance art which were very realistic and detailed. In order to appreciate the curious expression of a smaller figure in the background, or the fine detail on a costume a lady is wearing, one has to get closer to the painting. This is not the same as getting close to a modern painting in order to examine the brush strokes.

As we should all know, this detailed style of Renaissance painting, or naturalism, gradually went out of fashion as the camera developed. What's the point of spending hours or days trying to paint fine detail as accurately as possible, when the camera, with a single click, can produce much more accurate detail??

The great strength and attraction of the modern digital camera is the ease with which it can create amazing detail. The higher the resolution, the more options one has to create different prints from the same original image, through cropping, whilst still maintaining acceptable resolution from the so-called 'proper viewing distance'.

Of course, if you are a Cartier-Bresson style of photographer, or street photographer, only interested in catching a specific event, such as a man jumping over a puddle, then you certainly don't need a Z7, or even a Z6. Who cares what type of watch the puddle-jumper was wearing, or what brand of shoes!

On the other hand, it could have been interesting to see the expression of anguish, or perhaps excitement, on the puddle-jumper's face, which would of course have required the viewer to get close to a large print of the scene, if such detail existed.
Logged

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 586
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2019, 11:03:34 PM »

For me "proper viewing distance" is the distance I prefer when looking at a print. I like to easily see the whole thing at once. If you OTOH wanna stick your nose in a print, have at it. But if you then complain that the gnat's nads are a little fuzzy in one of my prints…too bad, you've missed the intent. If I wanted to show off the nads I'd make a bigger print.  :D

-Dave-

It's not what I prefer...it's what your audience prefers. Go to any gallery where large prints are on display and just stand back and watch. You'll see many come in close to view the detail.

Also, I don't appreciate your condescending tone of your reply.
Logged

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 586
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2019, 11:06:30 PM »

John,
The best appreciation of any art work, whether painting or photograph, can exist only in the mind of the viewer. Each individual has different tastes and interests, at least to some degree. There might be a general consensus that a particular photographic print of a particular size is best viewed from a specific distance in order to appreciate an 'over all' artistic intent of the image.

However, photographic images tend to have much more detail than modern paintings. They are closer to certain forms of Renaissance art which were very realistic and detailed. In order to appreciate the curious expression of a smaller figure in the background, or the fine detail on a costume a lady is wearing, one has to get closer to the painting. This is not the same as getting close to a modern painting in order to examine the brush strokes.

As we should all know, this detailed style of Renaissance painting, or naturalism, gradually went out of fashion as the camera developed. What's the point of spending hours or days trying to paint fine detail as accurately as possible, when the camera, with a single click, can produce much more accurate detail??

The great strength and attraction of the modern digital camera is the ease with which it can create amazing detail. The higher the resolution, the more options one has to create different prints from the same original image, through cropping, whilst still maintaining acceptable resolution from the so-called 'proper viewing distance'.

Of course, if you are a Cartier-Bresson style of photographer, or street photographer, only interested in catching a specific event, such as a man jumping over a puddle, then you certainly don't need a Z7, or even a Z6. Who cares what type of watch the puddle-jumper was wearing, or what brand of shoes!

On the other hand, it could have been interesting to see the expression of anguish, or perhaps excitement, on the puddle-jumper's face, which would of course have required the viewer to get close to a large print of the scene, if such detail existed.

Nicely put. There is so much more in a large print that cannot be appreciated standing away from the print.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20481
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #12 on: February 11, 2019, 02:49:15 PM »

Another way of looking at it (sorry!) happens much earlier, on the monitor.

I find that my decisions about a pic are made by looking at it around postcard size. That way, I instantly get a feel for the entirety of the thing, and so know how to proceed and how to push its direction.

In other words, it's about making the overall take in one fell swoop. So yeah, back to relativity regarding the viewing distance. The larger the print, the further away to see it "properly".

That said, I, too, have looked very closely at large images out of some curiosity about how they are going to break up. Maybe that's just because one is in the image-making world and it has no deeper significance.

Rob

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3631
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #13 on: February 11, 2019, 05:12:05 PM »

It's not what I prefer...it's what your audience prefers. Go to any gallery where large prints are on display and just stand back and watch. You'll see many come in close to view the detail.

My "audience" is me! Along with my small group of photo/art-loving friends, who know what my approach and intent are. What people might do in some hypothetical gallery show is irrelevant in this case. That's just not gonna happen. Context matters.

-Dave-
Logged

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 471
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #14 on: February 11, 2019, 05:20:22 PM »

My "audience" is me! Along with my small group of photo/art-loving friends, who know what my approach and intent are. What people might do in some hypothetical gallery show is irrelevant in this case. That's just not gonna happen. Context matters.
If you are sharing with friends, presumably they are handling the prints, and are being looked at from a close distance.

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1964
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #15 on: February 11, 2019, 05:23:44 PM »

My "audience" is me! Along with my small group of photo/art-loving friends, who know what my approach and intent are. What people might do in some hypothetical gallery show is irrelevant in this case. That's just not gonna happen. Context matters.

-Dave-

I agree, and your audience ( does not hear a thing  ;) )  is not relevant as you do it not as an asignment but as an artist.
So (again), there are many types of photography/photographers.  I really like all the details when viewed 100%.

Coming back to topic; Looking close 300 dpi is perfect, even 200dpi will do fine as many art printers use(d) that.
I use 600dpi because my printer can do it and i have the pixels- It only shows different from 300 dpi with a loupe.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9916
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2019, 01:02:42 AM »


I find that my decisions about a pic are made by looking at it around postcard size. That way, I instantly get a feel for the entirety of the thing, and so know how to proceed and how to push its direction.

In other words, it's about making the overall take in one fell swoop. So yeah, back to relativity regarding the viewing distance. The larger the print, the further away to see it "properly".

That said, I, too, have looked very closely at large images out of some curiosity about how they are going to break up. Maybe that's just because one is in the image-making world and it has no deeper significance.


Rob,
This is not an 'either/or' situation. To get an 'over all' impression of the entire scene represented in a photo, one needs to be at a viewing distance which is roughly proportional to the size of the print. This is usually considered to be around 1.5x to 2x the diagonal of the print, assuming one has normal eyesight or is wearing appropriate glasses.

If  the photo does not have any fine detail, such as the texture of rocks, leaves and grass which is often apparent in landscape shots, or does not have the impressive wrinkles of a 90 year old farm lady, there might be no incentive to view an A2 print closer than, say, a couple of metres, except perhaps to confirm that there is no further detail to see.

However, the larger the print and the greater the amount of detail, the more varied and numerous the viewing distances will become, provided one is interested in appreciating everything the print or art work has to offer, of course.

Here's an example of a Renaissance work of art that illustrates my point; 'The Wedding Feast at Cana', by the Italian artist Paolo Veronese, depicting the biblical story of the Marriage at Cana, at which Jesus converts water to wine.

This painting is huge, about 10 metres wide. A 'proper' viewing distance would be around 20 to 30 metres. However, there are so many individuals and activities portrayed in this painting, the entire work could be divided into about 50 sections of A2 size, and each of those A2-size sections would need to be viewed from a distance of 1 to 2 metres in order to best appreciate each individual and his/her expression and activity.

Attached are some images of the painting, from Wikipedia, including a few crops.







Logged

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 586
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2019, 03:56:25 AM »

And here are examples of photos that if only viewed from standing back one would miss out on the details within the photos such as the people in the landscape which gives it scale and the decaying buildings which give the photo character.

Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3230
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2019, 08:53:42 AM »

Here is an example of an image that has to be viewed from the proper distance. ;)
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1964
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Z6/Z7 & paper size
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2019, 11:35:56 AM »

Here is an example of an image that has to be viewed from the proper distance. ;)
but also up close it has something to offer...
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up