JimboCin Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Back to the issue of print resolution. A few additional thoughts. (Not copying others posts because I don't want to turn this into an argument).
Just my thoughts - I have no problem with others who see the world differently than I do.
And I guess I am not going to use units so that we don't go down that rabbit hole ;-)
---
People talk about 300, then some say 360. Maybe down to 260. I have been to Nikon seminars where they said 220 would be fine, and that few people would notice 180. Not too helpful. I have seen some who have printed out at various resolutions and reported their findings. Another data point.
Then if I look at the on-line calculator I previously linked to ( https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/minimum-resolution-calculator/ ) and use the following:
- 40 x 60 inch print
- Viewed at the distance of the diagonal of the print (72 inches)
- for a person with 20/20 visual acuity
The results are reported as:
- Pixels/inch: 48
- Pixels/cm: 18.9
- Minimum Image Dimensions (pixels): 1920 x 2880
- Image Resolution in MP 5.5
- Est. Needed Bayer Sensor Resolution 7.3
Or, if you want to be confused more and click on "inscribed pixels" the result is:
- Pixels/inch: 68
- Pixels/cm: 26.8
- Minimum Image Dimensions (pixels): 2720 x 4080
- Image Resolution in MP 11.1
- Est. Needed Bayer Sensor Resolution 14.8
Interesting - is all I can say.
---
Then there is the issue of how good do you want it to be. There are a multitude of ways to look at this:
- As good as possible, dam the time and effort it takes.
- Fit for use (you get to determine what that means).
- Understand your audience. Make it good enough for them.
I am an engineer and yes, I am anal retentive. I am always amazed when I go to a show of photographs from famous photographers from the 60's, 70's and so on. Images taken with 35 mm film, blown up to somewhere between large and absolutely huge sizes. Others look at the scene and say "how beautiful" or whatever. I look at the images and see grain noise, significant lack of sharpness.
I was on a quest to find the sharpest prints from a printer that I could find. Dozens of prints to dozens of labs. Looked at them using a magnifying lens. I found one that I believe to be the "best" from a sharpness standpoint. It is from WhiteWall in Germany - their ultraHD Photo Print.
https://www.whitewall.com/us/photo-prints/ultra-hd
And their prints ARE sharper than any others I have seen.
A few problems with this. They are in Germany and I live in the US, so delivery times are longer than US labs. They roll their prints up in a tube - to get through international shipping, and they always arrive quite curled up. And then, I often prefer prints on matte paper, and they print on glossy Fuji Crystal Archive Maxima.
---
So now I think about my audience, who am I making the print for. If it is for me, and I want the sharpest print I know of - I will do all the tricks I know of and use WhiteWall ultra HD.
But generally I don't do this. I like what inkjet prints on matte paper look like. The largest I have displayed on my walls is 24x36 inches, and because of where it is located normal viewing distance is about 36 inches for me and for most people. My prints look great at this distance. I know if I look at them with my magnifying lens and compare these inkjet prints to the WhiteWall ultra HD I will see a difference, but that is not what I am after.
So I consider my audience, the amount of time I want to invest in the image, and other considerations. I live with the fact that my prints are not perfect - hard for an engineer to do ;-)
|