Some people claim that they have seen spectacular 40 inch prints from the Sony A7s. At ISOs over 10,000.
Is this possible from only 12mp? Or is this one person's idea as to what a high quality print is and/or depends on viewing distance?
I know you can upscale prints (my primitive method in LR asks me to define a print size, and then the files become HUGE!), but is that good enough to make super high quality large prints from not that many mp?
I was under the impression that one would need 24 or 36 mp from the A7 or A7r, otherwise what is the point of those cameras vs the A7s?
I've looked at Ming Thein's 'Ultraprints' and the quality of those are outstanding. But he says he needs a minimum of 36mp to make 12 by 16 inch prints. Which is why I am a bit confused to the 12mp/40 inch spectacular print claim.
This is a learning experience for me, so pardon my ignorance!
You never really "need" anything. There are many aspects to large prints. Viewing distance and apparent sharpness come to mind. My professor was able to print 4'x6' prints with the original 5d that were comparable with prints from the digital medium format backs available at the time.
If you pixel peep, sure they'll be a difference. But who actually stands less than 3ft away from a print that large?
Its all relative to the subject matter, medium, audience, and photographer.
Back when myself and lots of other professionals shot the 4 meg Canon 1D, we still had double page spreads in magazines etc published. Now shooting 12 meg Nikon D3s' I've still had plenty of double page spreads in magazines, work made in huge banners on arenas and billboards and done plenty of 24x36" prints.
For that matter, I have large prints on my walls from my original 1d's still.
Amazingly they hang, and look fine, right next to prints I've made with my D800 and the
A7r. Never had any visitors to my home ever look closely at any of them to comment on differences in resolution, nor would I expect them to.
Maybe a fine art landscape buyer might feel different though. I'd expect if your paying several thousand dollars for a print, and most of your work is by guys shooting 50+meg medium format backs you might pixel peep a little closer.
Then again, I've also seen photos taken with 10 year old point and shoots sell for several thousand dollars. Just a different kind of fine art......
Long story short, its all subjective and up to YOU
systema wrote:
You never really "need" anything. There are many aspects to large prints. Viewing distance and apparent sharpness come to mind. My professor was able to print 4'x6' prints with the original 5d that were comparable with prints from the digital medium format backs available at the time.
If you pixel peep, sure they'll be a difference. But who actually stands less than 3ft away from a print that large?
Sometimes the internet seems to make people think they do. Their are "rules", that seemingly must be followed, about what resolution you need for a given size, what type of subjects you can shoot with what type of camera, what camera models are for "pro's" and what are hobbyist toys.
There are specific focal lengths you need to use for specific subjects. There is a right and wrong amount of post-processing you can do to your files. People need to buy 4 copies of a lens and then test for a "good" copy.
Etc etc
Internet is a great source for information, but also a great source for a ton of BS
Aside from it being entirely subjective and largely up to subject matter and viewing distance another factor to consider is print type. Canvas prints by nature are less resolution hungry so to speak vs metal prints and so on.
I have a 5ft print on my wall that has sold quite well and was shot on my 12mp D3 a few years ago. No one has ever questioned the resolution of the camera when looking at that print.
What are you printing for? Who are you printing for? Forgive my shortness, but such questions are often from people who never print or like to squeeze out theory over images
That aside, I've printed around 1.5meters (long side) from an older 12MP sensor. You know what? I like them because they mean something to me.
Good luck with your experiments.
millsart wrote:
Internet is a great source for information, but also a great source for a ton of BS
For photography, there is a wealth of anecdotes out there on the internet, and with the nature of it being information sharing, it almost discourages people from taking action and risk them self, in someway. You can feel satisfied that someone has done something or said something and this is how it is, and then have little interest in what might work for you or satisfy you or what you might actually learn from trying something yourself.
So, for the OP, don't take this the wrong way: please go try it yourself. See what you learn. Tell us what you found!
systema wrote:
You never really "need" anything. There are many aspects to large prints. Viewing distance and apparent sharpness come to mind. My professor was able to print 4'x6' prints with the original 5d that were comparable with prints from the digital medium format backs available at the time.
If you pixel peep, sure they'll be a difference. But who actually stands less than 3ft away from a print that large?
This is the biggest fallacy out there...the imaginary viewing distance. Unless there is a way to restrict people from coming closer to a photo, they will come in close to view the details. Happens all the time in galleries and happens in my home when people come over. This is especially true for landscape photos where there is a lot of details. Many start viewing the photo as a whole from further back...then come in close to see the "picture within the picture" that large detailed photos expose.
For many years now, a friend of mine has had two prints I made, both 24x36", hanging above and below each other stuck on his studio wall. One is from my 5D original, the other from his RB67, scanned on my Nikon 9000 scanner.
They both look very good from that so-called standard distance. As you move closer, the 5D image, shot at ISO 100, looks cleaner and very sharp, as you move still closer, the shot from the RB clearly has more detail despite the sharpness of the 5D image. We both prefer the "look" of the 5D image, but as I said, both look good.
It really does depend on subject matter whether detail will hold up to closer than standard viewing distance, and I agree completely with chez- unless you hang large photos up over a stairwell, people will just be drawn toward certain types of photographs. Who am I to tell them not to?
I'd probably stop inviting people over who I see staring, nose a few inches from the glass, at any of my photos. Those kind of folks are the ones whom also will go through your medicine cabinet in the bathroom lol
Interesting fact: while I always zoom into a 100% view on every shot I take, looking for critical focus, how sharp the corners are compared to the center etc, most people who take pictures don't do this.
Pixel peeping, measurebating, and other such behaviors common to internet camera forums are not indicative of the general public.
The question that original poster actually means to ask is this:
"How big of a print can I make before an astute observer would be able to tell that the print was made from a 12MP camera instead of a higher-MP camera?"
Possibly useful theoretical knowledge, if anyone wanted to make huge prints of my photos, which they don't.
millsart wrote:
I'd probably stop inviting people over who I see staring, nose a few inches from the glass, at any of my photos. Those kind of folks are the ones whom also will go through your medicine cabinet in the bathroom lol
Actually' those are the type of people who appreciate a great print...and I have nothing to hide in my prints.
millsart wrote:
Interesting fact: while I always zoom into a 100% view on every shot I take, looking for critical focus, how sharp the corners are compared to the center etc, most people who take pictures don't do this.
Pixel peeping, measurebating, and other such behaviors common to internet camera forums are not indicative of the general public.
Neither are noses to prints
Sorry...you are wrong on your second point. Just go observe a gallery for a day and you'll see that your view of people not looking close at a print is wrong.
There's gotta be a way to do the math but a simple Google search will give you that answer.
But even that doesn't answer the question fully, because of photo stitching. With todays software you can stitch photos into giant mosaics and generate massive prints with stunning detail from a 12mp (or less) camera.
millsart wrote:
I'd probably stop inviting people over who I see staring, nose a few inches from the glass, at any of my photos. Those kind of folks are the ones whom also will go through your medicine cabinet in the bathroom lol
You can feel free to sniff my images... I hope you love glorious out-of-focus-ness and scratchy grain .
Joking aside, I did find myself going quite close at an Ansel Adams exhibition. Some of the images, of course, are technically very high and so almost invite you into to explore further. Others, you just want to view and appreciate from far away and up close, and take it all in, as I wasn't sure when/if I'd get the chance to view such prints again.
dgdg wrote:
So Chez,
What is your answer to the OP? How large could 'you' go to be pleased and with the types of viewing you encounter?
David
A lot of thing influence how large I would print any image.
Firstly, the subject of the image. Is there a lot of detail in the image such as a rain forest image, or is there very little detail such as a football player making a catch. The higher the fine details in the original image, the less I would blow it up.
Secondly, what medium would I choose to print the image on. A glossy image shows off all the details in the image and is most critical with fuzzy images that are blown up too large. Canvas is a very forgiving medium and details by the canvas texture, get obscured so you can print larger on Canvas. Matte papers lie between glossy and Canvas.
I never put glass in front of my images as that just hides all the details through the reflection off the glass. This even occurs to a lesser degree using museum grade glass.
So in the end I cannot say how large a print I would make without looking at the image and deciding which type of medium would work best with the image.
In order to maintain retina quality, one must strictly adhere to 300+ ppi. For a 12MP camera we can safely assume a 3,000 x 4,000 pixel dimension which will limit you to a 9.6" x 12.8" print.
Thanks for all the comments!
Currently the largest I print and sell at is 20 by 30". I do view them from all distances, whether it is from afar or inches away. I guess I like to get into the picture and see all the detail. I consider that different from pixel peeping as one is immersing yourself in the image, while the other is nit picking. I'm not the only one that does this, as I have seen others in galleries do the same thing so I don't believe in having to tell someone what the optimum viewing distance is. A customer can determine that for themselves.
Because of this, I have not gone larger than 20 by 30 (from 18mp) which is why I wonder how 12mp could render 'quality' 40" prints.
For landscapes and situations where detail is the subject it will be a factor although not a primary one. For everything else, doesn't matter a whole bunch.
.