mdvaden wrote:
At say 30 inches to 40 inches, what remains of the detail in the tree foliage and branches - and color in the foliage? Does the image hold the same look as the viewing size increases?
With the dozen or so proprietary techniques Robert B Park (print Guru of gurus and owner of Nevada Art Printers) and I teach, we get 45", 60", 72", 80", 96"+ inch print with hyper detail from lower megapixels. Email me or check my youtube page if you want more information.
Can't help you with a name but I can say Wow!, this image grabbed my eye as soon as I saw the thumbnail!
I was about to click on the wildlife forum but I saw your image.
Oh my Mark! I have really been enjoying your coastal series of images, wave forms are so soothing. I can only say each time I view your work it reminds me of how much I don't know and how much I am missing so thanks for sharing your incredible images so I can appreciate and be motivated
Mark Metternich wrote:
If you have any questions feel free to email me at [email protected]. I can answer them more comprehensively there.
The video is easy to follow. Although for your photo in the OP, if you can share a crop of the tree on the right side showing the trunk to the far right end of the branches, that would be more streamlined. Or even the outer half of the right side tree's outer branches. It would be informative to see the result of 30 seconds in the flexible part of the subject .. Thank you.
Mark, I love most of your images, but this one takes it to another level. The composition just pulls you into the scene; I love the multiple layers of coast visible in the background. Obviously, the light and colors are phenomenal. Simply masterful. Voted, of course.
Mark Metternich wrote:
With the dozen+ proprietary techniques Robert B Park and I teach at The Ultimate Mastering Fine Art Printmaking Workshop (with a NDA required) we are able to teach people how to retain the quality detail in images in the 60", 72", 80", 96" 110" range and above. No joke! We actually guarantee it (money back guarantee).
Robert has taken LESS THAN 1 MEGAPIXEL to a highly detailed fine art 74" print.
AND LESS THAN 10 MEGAPIXELS to a detailed 80" Lumachrome HD Fine Art Print!
I have countless similar results. One of the best I have done is a 96" x 96" image out of about 8-10 megapixels, with incredible results.
We are pushing low megapixels into huge fine art prints full time. None of what we do is some new push button software. It is a comprehensive approach of using a variety of tools, many of which are techniques we innovated and are not known in the print industry.
If you have any questions feel free to email me at [email protected]. I can answer them more comprehensively there. ...Show more →
Who needs a high MP camera
How much time is involved in PP to increase a low res image to high res?
Aren't all calculations in PS from at least PS CS done with 32 bit floating point precision?
Mark Metternich wrote:
With the dozen+ proprietary techniques Robert B Park and I teach at The Ultimate Mastering Fine Art Printmaking Workshop (with a NDA required) we are able to teach people how to retain the quality detail in images in the 60", 72", 80", 96" 110" range and above. No joke! We actually guarantee it (money back guarantee).
Robert has taken LESS THAN 1 MEGAPIXEL to a highly detailed fine art 74" print.
There is only 1 MPX or less of information in a 1MPX file. And no doubt, computers and code are really great at multiplying data, but multiplying is not adding more information...
A lot of pictures looks great and detailed ... until viewed side by side with more detailed images.
Some of my pictures from a 35mm format look terrific...until I open a 1Gb scan of a 4x5 film next to it. Same goes about 4x5 vs 8x10, etc.
Beautiful image! Is this in jeep only territory or a long hike from the road? Just beautiful and would love to travel the coast from the SF bay area to capture it. Just really amazing image you have here! Congrats!
