chez wrote:
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.
Yep I agree. Landscape Images are specially susceptible to this.
LOTS of images look great here on the web, less so on prints to say 20x30 and even less so on larger prints and even less so on large prints when viewed really close. Then the numbers reeeally dwindle.
Sneakyracer wrote:
Yep I agree. Landscape Images are specially susceptible to this.
LOTS of images look great here on the web, less so on prints to say 20x30 and even less so on larger prints and even less so on large prints when viewed really close. Then the numbers reeeally dwindle.
This part kinda depends on how good is someone in pre-printing processing.. which is far more difficult than it seems. Reason why I leave printing (if any) to experts..
Mescalamba wrote:
This part kinda depends on how good is someone in pre-printing processing.. which is far more difficult than it seems. Reason why I leave printing (if any) to experts..
True, but even with a perfect file and workflow there are limits. Generally large Landscape prints (40x60in or more) when viewed up close require large formats and of course impeccable workflow from start to finish. I am talking 8x10 film and 60-80MP Medium Format Digital (single and multiple captures, stitched). Yes, smaller formats (in size and MP) can pushed to large sizes but they can't hold up to similarly well processed file from a larger format when placed side by side or in the same gallery.
Regarding the initial question. 12mp is good to about a 20x30in print with great technique and workflow and pretty high scrutiny up close.
My personal max for 20-22MP is about 40 in wide but I prefer 20x30in max. For the larger prints I use a PhaseOne back which absolutely crushes any file from any DSLR.
flash wrote:
above my pay grade unfortunately. I'm just going on my personal experiences and from readings from people much smarter than I am. Ian Lyons, The Digital Dog and Geoff (Jeff??) Schewe are the people to Google for really detailed information.
I only read about this stuff because at one stage I had an Olympus dye thermal printer that insisted on 314ppi files. i was sending 300ppi and getting soft fuzzy crap. Someone told me to send a file at the printers native resolution and instantly the prints were great. Then when I couldn't get my first Epson printer to play nice with Photoshop I found Ian Lyons site. Then colour management which can be a slippery slope. I stopped when I had enough information to get my own prints looking consistent.
