Hello everyone,
I 've got a question about the maximum print size one can get from a 5D and still retain resonable detail - even if the print is examined closely ( a few inches...).
Some say one cant go bigger than 25inches wide, then others offer prints of the double size...
I see quite a few photographers here that use the 5D and those of you that are pro's, hence sell prints, might give some hints on what size should not be exceeded or what's the best printing technique to get the best results.
Since customer-satisfaction is what matters, what maximum print-size would you offer before you would be afraid of complaints ("Now when looked at this closely it looks blurry, I can see pixels or printing dots, ... complaints in that sense)
The thing is that I have not much experience with prints in general and I am not able to judge the prints from my 5D.
Another question related to this: Most "prints" I have are actually light-jet prints of intermediate size (25inches in the longer dimension) - so no "prints" in the closer sense. What is the printing technique you use for the production of your prints (no need to get detailed and techy, just a few keywords, maybe model names of printers used, etc,)
Thanks for info and suggestions. Links to some resources are also appreciated (= no need to issue a long answer if you dont want to)
Regards Dietrich.
Dietrich, this is a very subjective question. Terms like "reasonable" or "acceptable" really vary from one person to another and even the same person may not be happy with a given size when applied to different images (e.g. images that rely on tiny detail vs. strong composition).
I guess I can only offer my personal opinion - to me printing a good/sharp 5D image to 16x24 is "acceptable" though starting to push the envelope. Still, for the right image and venue (viewing distance is critical) I would have no problem going to 20x30.
Compared side by side against a print from 6x7 or 4x5, the film scans will definitely have superior detail at these sizes though.
Hello Guy, thanks for your opinion and experience on this. I know that this is subjective, but since you mention that 16X24 is already pushing the envelope for you, that means that your quality measures are rather stringent - mine as well. I heard people say that they have posters from a 6MP camera printed to 60inches and are pleased with the result - even upon closer examination. But I just cannot imagine that this would look good.
I do have a 30inch poster from the 5D and it looks good, even if inspected very closely.
Obviously, large format holds more detail, but I won't go analog in the near future. Unfortunately (?), I am a resultion-junkie and it would be just great to know that - if i wanted to - I just can have a print from a 5D file and get it printed to 100inches wide and get close and count every leaf...
Thanks&Regards,
Dietrich
Posted by Edward Sixbee on April 12, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Warner Brothers was producing 20 x 30's from D30's that looked great! That's D30's, not 30D's!
E
Posted by David Senesac on April 14, 2007 at 4:38 PM
I'm with you on prefering to see fine detail on larger sized prints. There are many photographers these days printing images they seem to think are just fine printed rather large that would look embarrassing next to conservatively sized LF.
Some of this printing size issue, though not specifically about 5D, was just kicked about a bit on the below drum scan thread, including a post I input:
Images that are weak compositionally and/or do not inspire emotion will always look embarrassing next to ones that do, regardless of the capture format.
As someone who actually has printed from 4x5, 5D, and other formats I can tell you that "success" depends primarily on such emotional appeal which is in my experience largely correlated with the quality of light, color (or tone in a B&W image), and compositional interest.
Saying that the same image will look better captured in one medium vs. another is a very academic exercise with little bearing on real-life contexts. If your work is unique and original, when you display an image nobody is going to place their version next to it for comparison. It either works or it doesn't. It lives or dies by its own qualities. If the image is about color, tone, composition, and emotion - the quality of detail will be secondary at best in how most viewers will judge it.
The fact is there are more galleries and living-rooms out there proudly displaying large Galen Rowell prints than any of us can claim, and the owners of such pieces do feel enriched and inspired by them and aren't particularly inclined to judge them under a magnifying glass.
Thanks again for your input guys.I agree that the success of photography is dominated by other factors than resolution or size of the actual print. In fact, one rarely sticks his nose onto a print to count pixels, printing dots, whatever.
But on the other hand - the human eye is quite demanding - its ability to resolve is really impressive and we might be dissapointed to see some flaws in an otherwise great photograph if we get closer. In fact - I enjoy it quite a lot to get close and see details that are invisible at a farther distance. The last image I posted - "backdrop of branches" now came as a 70cm (some 25 inches) print and it looks great to me. I think going larger would lead to dissapointment upon closer study because resolution-limits would get obvious. And this is where LF still could deliver. But I am pleased with my 5D, and I have no plans to go LF in the future but the resolution-issue might lead me to LF eventually.
Thanks again for viewing and your feedback.
Regards Dietrich
Discussion
6 repliesI 've got a question about the maximum print size one can get from a 5D and still retain resonable detail - even if the print is examined closely ( a few inches...).
Some say one cant go bigger than 25inches wide, then others offer prints of the double size...
I see quite a few photographers here that use the 5D and those of you that are pro's, hence sell prints, might give some hints on what size should not be exceeded or what's the best printing technique to get the best results.
Since customer-satisfaction is what matters, what maximum print-size would you offer before you would be afraid of complaints ("Now when looked at this closely it looks blurry, I can see pixels or printing dots, ... complaints in that sense)
The thing is that I have not much experience with prints in general and I am not able to judge the prints from my 5D.
Another question related to this: Most "prints" I have are actually light-jet prints of intermediate size (25inches in the longer dimension) - so no "prints" in the closer sense. What is the printing technique you use for the production of your prints (no need to get detailed and techy, just a few keywords, maybe model names of printers used, etc,)
Thanks for info and suggestions. Links to some resources are also appreciated (= no need to issue a long answer if you dont want to)
Regards Dietrich.
I guess I can only offer my personal opinion - to me printing a good/sharp 5D image to 16x24 is "acceptable" though starting to push the envelope. Still, for the right image and venue (viewing distance is critical) I would have no problem going to 20x30.
Compared side by side against a print from 6x7 or 4x5, the film scans will definitely have superior detail at these sizes though.
Guy
I do have a 30inch poster from the 5D and it looks good, even if inspected very closely.
Obviously, large format holds more detail, but I won't go analog in the near future. Unfortunately (?), I am a resultion-junkie and it would be just great to know that - if i wanted to - I just can have a print from a 5D file and get it printed to 100inches wide and get close and count every leaf...
Thanks&Regards,
Dietrich
E
Some of this printing size issue, though not specifically about 5D, was just kicked about a bit on the below drum scan thread, including a post I input:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=16804&b=vf2&st=0&la=1377&ph=27&sid=6926&u=6926
...David
Images that are weak compositionally and/or do not inspire emotion will always look embarrassing next to ones that do, regardless of the capture format.
As someone who actually has printed from 4x5, 5D, and other formats I can tell you that "success" depends primarily on such emotional appeal which is in my experience largely correlated with the quality of light, color (or tone in a B&W image), and compositional interest.
Saying that the same image will look better captured in one medium vs. another is a very academic exercise with little bearing on real-life contexts. If your work is unique and original, when you display an image nobody is going to place their version next to it for comparison. It either works or it doesn't. It lives or dies by its own qualities. If the image is about color, tone, composition, and emotion - the quality of detail will be secondary at best in how most viewers will judge it.
The fact is there are more galleries and living-rooms out there proudly displaying large Galen Rowell prints than any of us can claim, and the owners of such pieces do feel enriched and inspired by them and aren't particularly inclined to judge them under a magnifying glass.
Guy
But on the other hand - the human eye is quite demanding - its ability to resolve is really impressive and we might be dissapointed to see some flaws in an otherwise great photograph if we get closer. In fact - I enjoy it quite a lot to get close and see details that are invisible at a farther distance. The last image I posted - "backdrop of branches" now came as a 70cm (some 25 inches) print and it looks great to me. I think going larger would lead to dissapointment upon closer study because resolution-limits would get obvious. And this is where LF still could deliver. But I am pleased with my 5D, and I have no plans to go LF in the future but the resolution-issue might lead me to LF eventually.
Thanks again for viewing and your feedback.
Regards Dietrich