I'm noticing a curious couple of trends lately: people dismissive of a small format being able to compete with a big one, and people dismissive of big prints.
How big does everyone like to print? How many of you routinely print bigger than 40" wide?
I'm noticing a curious couple of trends lately: people dismissive of a small format being able to compete with a big one, and people dismissive of big prints.
How big does everyone like to print? How many of you routinely print bigger than 40" wide?
In his later years Ansel switched to a Hassy.
Shooting 4 x 5 has its own charm. As was said it is not all about res. And 4 x 5 is not a slacker in the res area anyway.
13 x 19 is it for me.Originally Posted by paulr
Just go print a damn forty inch print from one of these marsupial-mouse devices! I still contend that you have no idea of
what a sharp print looks like. Micro-films are capable of higher resolution than digital receptors, and no way they are even in
the ballpark with large format done with two bits worth of competency. The most experienced guy I know per Nikon actually
uses an Apo Nikkor process lens with his DLSR for astrophotog etc because it exceeds the resolution he can get with any
Nikon branded lens... and that thing will easily cover 8x10 film. Ever sat in front of a high-resolution monitor eight feet across? Ever seen one? I have.
Indeed. Drew probably DOES have a lot to offer on the things he actually KNOWS from his own experience. I am not convinced he knows anything about digital however. He constantly references his prowess and experience in analog. And in fact uses his claimed skill at this to discount others with fewer years. Yet he then denounces the real experience of others in digital with anecdotes of people he knows from his hiking trail, instead of confronting this head on and doing his own testing.
I am done printing big or even planning to print big.
For me it is 10x10 to 16x20. That is a photo you can be intimate with. And own. And display in a normal home.
The absolute maximum is a rare 11x14. Typically no larger than 8x10, frequently 5x7 and 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 contacts. Mostly the latter size enlargements from 4x5 negatives.
Thank goodness I've never had to (and never intend to) sell prints.
I haven't printed wider than 40 inches. There's only just so much space in my apartment. I've only done one image that size, but have printed it multiple times.
By my calculations, it would take at least a 40Mp camera to give me what I want at that size. Based on the quality I want, it would be a MF camera, not 35mm. And from my view, that would absolutely be maxing out what 40Mp can do. Is a smaller size of that image good? In a print, yes. But it really comes into its own when it's at 40 inches wide.
For presentation, my most common print size is 13x19 or 16x20.
And from what I have seen, 13x19 is entirely within the range of a 12Mp camera, for many shots. Not all, but many.
As for what fits in a normal home, it's height that constrains the photograph, not length. For an average 8ft ceiling, a 30in tall print is going to take up half or better with framing. But a panorama will fit nicely. And a panorama, or a simply wide photograph, is very nice, enjoyable, and happily hangs in many places.
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
That is an interesting and accurate observation.
Panoramas are not part of my goal personally, but it does add a twist to "what is a big print".
I'm going to toss much fuel into this fire.... against my better judgment..
This image appears sharp, yes. BUT..
It looks digital to me even on my note book LCD screen. The sharpness appears to be enhanced/processed in some way and the contrast range does not appear linear to me, color.. no proper point of reference to judge by. Note the high light burn out just under the eye.
Can one make a 50" x 70" print, sure. Will this image meet the vast majority of viewers, absolutely.. but it does not meet my standards for high quality color images...
Understand what is commercially acceptable and what working image makers need are not of the highest image quality, these hard working folks are deeply concerned with meeting deadlines and keeping their clients and art directors happy. Know the majority of images viewed today are on a screen from a digital source. These are more the root reasons why Digital imaging has almost completely taken over the commercial image making industry. It is not about image quality, but about economically driven marketing requirements. These are the same reasons why film does not fit well at all with the current digital communications world and technology.
There are very strong marketing forces at work here, consider how much $ has been turned from the selling and conversion of the image making market to digital. New cameras, new lenses (claimed to be MUCH better than before, Ha!), New printers, New printing medium, Inks, and all else involved in the image making process.. See there is much to be gained economically by forcing the image making market to accept this new thing and getting image makers to switch over by using the lure/bait of instant gratification, image control and ....
As for optics design, not much has changed unless you're willing to accept the marketing hype and ... The laws of physics that govern how light and refractive optics has not changed. This does not mean lenses do not have their individual personality, it does mean they all are forced to abide by and obey the laws of physics and market economics. A Cine Xenar Prime or Panavision Prime is going to out perform any mass production Nikkor/Canon/ etc.. lens as they should given Cine optics usually cost many times more than mass produced optics.
As mentioned before, there is a place for digital and film image making tools and process. It is a matter of what the individual artist's goals are and the image creation tools are merely a means. Regardless of digital or film, both requires a great deal of commitment, resources, talent and artistry to get the most form each.
To believe digital is superior to film, newer is always better and all that marketing ick.. is pure folly.
Rant off...
Bernice
Yes, you should believe that even old designs can perform spectacularly on newer digitals. Here's a snippet from what would equate to a 50x70 inch print, using a positively outdated Nikkor pre-AI 105mm f/2.5 (Double-Gauss), on my D800E. Oh and I think I was at f/2.8.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks