I don't have a good printer yet, so I see my images mostly on the screen. I would like to know what printer size I should be heading for.

So my question: how large can you print, using no software for murals or suchlike, so that the image appears sharp from normal reading distance distance (from which you also appreciate small prints)?

Also what would you say is the viewing distance from which a 100% size printout looks sharp?(By the way, how large exactly are 100% image files? I can't find information about this, my guess is about 44"x66".)

Lukas

Trying to be a keeper of the light

Were that it were so simple, Lukas!.

Viewing distance and DPI are inversely proportional. Something printed 40 x 60 at 100 DPI will look good at 15 ft and look bad at 1 ft. Printing it smaller, say 8x10, but still at 100 DPI won't make it look better.

The native D800 image, at 300 DPI will print at 16.4 x 24.5". Reduce to 240 dpi, which is still pretty fine and would allow close up viewing, and you get a 20.5 x30.9" print.

As you reduce the DPI you can go larger, but the viewing distance should increase to maintain the perception of sharpness. No reason you couldn't print a billboard from one of these file, if you are looking at it from the road, it will still look good. Of course, it helps if you do some processing work to resize the file and output sharpen it for the environment that it will be viewed in.

As for a printer, I would recommend at least a 17 inch printer so that you can take advantage of the files. But, if you don't think you want prints that big, get something smaller. No sense waisting money and desktop space!

Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery

I ran across this and while I have no idea if it is accurate, it is interesting as it shows how these relationships vary.

http://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/minimum-resolution-calculator/

You can move the slider around, change print size, see the impact on expected DPI.

Linwood

Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

It depends a lot upon the printer.
The new ones have nozzles that spray very small drops.
Then there is the ink and paper. They both can make a huge difference.
It also depends on how well the printer software interpolates.
My Epson Stylus Pro 4000 will turn a 10 MegaByte image into a 60MB file before printing it.

It has been so long, I can't remember if it was Bibble, Qimage, or something else that I used to print a 2.7MP Nikon D1 file into a Poster.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thank you, Mick, Linwood, and RRRoger.
The calculator is really interesting.
I have, however, one more question - just due to my lack of personal hands-on experience in this matter: When I click on the actual pixels view in PS, or 100% in the raw developer or photo viewer, a file carefully exposed at100 ISO or so, with just basic processing and sharpening, is still beautifully sharp, and I see details in it which just do not show up in smaller magnifications.
How does such a magnification appear in print? I haven't seen this yet, and the reason I ask is that a 48" printer should be able to print the size of a d800 100% file. It is, however, a major investment, and I wonder whether I should try to save up for this - or for a 24", for that matter.
Given the fact that I like large and sharp prints, and this being a prime reason for getting my d800e together with 5 lenses in the first place - the biggest investment into photography I ever made - do you think to get such a printer is worthwhile?

Lukas

Trying to be a keeper of the light

>Thank you, Mick, Linwood, and RRRoger.
>How does such a magnification appear in print? I haven't seen
>this yet, and the reason I ask is that a 48" printer
>should be able to print the size of a d800 100% file. It is,
>however, a major investment, and I wonder whether I should try
>to save up for this - or for a 24", for that matter.
>Given the fact that I like large and sharp prints, and this
>being a prime reason for getting my d800e together with 5
>lenses in the first place - the biggest investment into
>photography I ever made - do you think to get such a printer
>is worthwhile?
>
>Lukas<Quote<

Again, it depends on the Printer, ink, and paper.
A 48" print should look a lot better than a magnified computer screen.

I would just outsource my 48" prints.

A 48" Printer and supplies will take up a wall in your house,
but could be a good sales tool in a Professional Studio.
You would gain control over the output if you developed the skill, and would not have to wait for results.
However, besides cost, you have to use your large scale printer at least once a week just to keep it going.
If not, you run the risk of clogging it up (ink drys) and an expensive maintenance or repair.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>When I click on
>the actual pixels view in PS, or 100% in the raw developer or
>photo viewer, a file carefully exposed at100 ISO or so, with
>just basic processing and sharpening, is still beautifully
>sharp, and I see details in it which just do not show up in
>smaller magnifications.

Hi Lukas, "Magnification" in digital photography isn't magnification; it's either upsampling or downsampling. When you upsample to make the picture larger than its native size the software you're using adds pixels -- by extrapolating between the pixels that already are there. When you downsample below native size the software reverses the process and produces a single pixel from two or more previously existing pixels. I'm not sure how small the details are that are there at 100% and gone after downsampling (smaller magnification), but the downsampling process itself may be the reason.

As far as the effect of the printer is concerned, if you were printing from film with an enlarger on gelatin-silver paper any loss of detail would come from the quality of the enlarger lens and the quality of the paper itself, but in digital printing, since an inkjet printer puts out a bunch of dots for each pixel it receives from your computer, it's unlikely you'd lose detail because of the printer or the paper unless you're working with a very low grade printer or printing on something coarse, like canvas.

Russ Lewis
www.FineArtSnaps.com

> I can't remember if it was Bibble, Qimage, or something else that I used to print a 2.7MP Nikon D1 file into a Poster.

I bet it was QImage. I detest its user interface, but it makes some very impossible printing surprisingly possible. I refuse to use it unless absolutely necessary - for me maybe once or twice a year - but it will do some things that other software won't.

I used QImage to make a 24" wide print of a shot of a Lotus 51 - when I discovered that I had only gotten good shots of him with the D2h and NOT the D2x that I thought I had used. I only used about half of the pixels - the print ended up about 13x24 or so, meaning that I used all of the horizontal ones but cropped out half of the sky and grass. If you look at it from regular computer reading distance (15-18"?) you can see a few jaggies, but a 24" print from call it 3mp is not bad. If it's on the wall (it's in the Lotus owner's race shop) nobody would ever know that it came from such a tiny sensor.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

If you're even contemplating a 60" print, you need to consider software, even from a D800. I have a third of the pixels (I'm still stuck in 2005 with 12mp) and I can easily make a 24" print simply by doing a decent job in Lightroom and pressing the print button. I've made one 45" print - since my printer is only 24" and since I've had only one request for a bigger print to date - and that was sent out to White House Custom Color. (I'm working on a 12 foot wide print, but it's a panorama of many captures stitched together.) So if you do your part, with minimal software your D800 should be able to easily do 44" or more. My advice is to go no larger than a 44" printer, since there are really very few applications for 60" or larger prints unless you run a gallery.

The other thing about a 44" printer is that is HUMONGOUS. As in "dominate your room" gigantic. I have "only" a "little" 24" Epson 7900 and it is literally bigger than my desk! A 9900 (the 44" one) is obviously a couple of feet wider yet.

Oh, and the price of a 64" printer is also pretty steep. The Epson 11880 is about the same price as a Nikkor 600/f4 AFS VR-II. And from experience installing a 7900 and a 44" 9900, I'd say you will need four or five people to get it off the pallet and into place. I strongly recommend NOT moving it up or down stairs.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

What size printer do most of you have for normal use? Is it really cost effective to print your own pics? I always wanted a 17-20" print capacity but never pursued it because I thought it was less expensive to have a print shop do it. Local but after another thread here it seems a lot of you use online printers.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I guess it depends on what you print and how often.

I can print an 16x20 print on Epson or Red River papers with my 3880 for no more than $5.00 including ink and paper. The cost of the printer would need to be factored in, based on how many prints you make over it's lifetime (and I suppose you might want to include the cost of money, if you are more financially analytical).

Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery

When I think about it I haven't even figured printing price in a long time. I imagine everything has come down now. Heck a printer I paid 300 bucks for is now obsolete and the new sub 100 dollar ones do the same or better quality prints. Thanks!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I have an Epson R1800:
Cost @ 600.00 when I bought it
A full set of Inks ranged from 112.00 - 125.00
Largest paper size 13 x 19
Had to be used every week to keep nozzles from clogging. To clean the nozzles could use an entire set of inks depending on how long it had been between uses.

Epson R200:
Cost don't remember
full set of inks range from 60.00 - 65.00
Largest print size 8.5 X 11

Epson workforce 645:
its an all in one
cost on sale for 59.00
Inks ranges from 40.00 - 60.00
largest print 8.5 x 11

Both of these printers are pretty much useless now, house was broken into so now they have glass dust in them.

For me it is easier and cheaper to send my work out to be printed.
For quick test prints or prints just for myself I send them to Sams club I can have a 20 x 30 size print within an hour for under 10 bucks.
For quality prints, oversized prints, and specialty items I use a professional lab.

By sending the work out I don't have to worry about the normal printer issues:
Banding
running out of an ink color half way through my print
storing extra inks
trying to find desk space for a large printer
buying and storing different sizes and types of paper
monitor and printer calibration (which I personally believe should be done at minimum every two weeks)

What I miss most about my Epsons:
The ability to print directly onto CDs. It was a nice perk to be able to give my clients a CD with a professional looking printed front.

"Step into my world and see as I see"

My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I echo what mfphoto1 said. I also have an epson R1800. For a long time I was printing every week and while it was a bit finiky, I generally worked very good. When my print volume slowed down the ink jets would clog and now it is a very large paper weight.

-------------------------------------------------
You can't have a light without a dark to stick it in.
-- Arlo Guthrie --
-------------------------------------------------

-Michael-

More Pictures : http://pbase.com/mboswell

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I very much see this problem of regular printing to keep the printer in working order. It is absolutely clear to me that I will not be able at all times to have a regular output, if only because I travel several times in a year. And, when I leave my home here in the summer, the printer (as well as my other stuff) will have to endure room temperatures of 40°C/104°F and more. But, first, would this not be a problem for every Epson photo printer, large or small? Second, are there really no ways of cleaning a printer, setting it up for a period of inactivity until it will get used again (running methanol through the nozzles or something like that)?

Lukas

Trying to be a keeper of the light

The current generation of Epson printers is far less susceptible to nozzle clogging that former generations. My R1900 is far better than thte R1800 was (which did clog a lot). The 3880 hasn't caused me a bit of problem.

Ernesto probably has some good advice on how to prep a printer for long idle time in hot, humid climates.

Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery

My 7900 is used very irregularly, for similar reasons: I travel a lot. It is often shut down for two weeks at a time, and it can be idle for a month if I am gone for a three or four weeks. I find that I have to clean the nozzles just about every time I start it up, but that has become far less problematic. (With the previous Epson 9600, that was an expensive operation.) I don't think the 40C is a good idea, though. That will be tough on the inks at minimum, and possibly also the papers as well.

You don't want to drain the lines if you can help it. Especially with the larger printers, that's a huge amount of money.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

>What size printer do most of you have for normal use? Is it
>really cost effective to print your own pics? I always wanted
>a 17-20" print capacity but never pursued it because I
>thought it was less expensive to have a print shop do it.
>Local but after another thread here it seems a lot of you use
>online printers.

I wouldn't get anything larger than a 17" printer starting out. I have a Canon 5100 and a 6300. The 5100 is a lot more versatile than the 6300 except for the width. Doing your own printing can get out of hand real quick especially if you start doing custom profiles and such. Ink is expensive and you cannot leave large format printers sitting around without printing each week. I personally enjoy doing my own printing.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I use an Epson 4000 for all my printing.
It will print edge to edge 17" x 100'.
For anything less than an 8.5x11, I print two or more on a sheet using FotoSlate.

I do my own printing for speed and control.

Not saying print labs can't do better work,
but they usually either don't or cost too much.
Turn around time can also be excessive.

At our last Event, I culled over 4,000 pictures and then uploaded to my website the same day.
My first print order was in the mail the following day.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Well, thank you for all this advice. I have been thinking about getting my prints done outside, but as I live in Pakistan, there is an issue about quality. Also, more important, as I am into alternative processes, I will want to print out large negatives from my image files. (I think the material which is prefered my many people for this purpose is called pictorio or something like that.) This is a delicate work, needs a learning curve, and it is hopeless to demand this from any shop here.

I think now that what I will try to get an Epson 7900 (24"), for financial reason and others. I have not yet calculated the costs of running it, and I am certain it must have periods of rest, but then I want to work out exhibitions here, obviously with large format prints, so having a printer which is up to the task seems imperative.

Can anybody perhaps suggest a good website or discussion list for (Epson) printer operation and maintenance?

One more question: some people here tell me that HP printers are less complicated to operate. Any thoughts on this?

Lukas
Trying to be a keeper of the light

> some people here tell me that HP printers are less complicated to operate. Any thoughts on this?

Not directly. But what I can say is that literally every fine art photographer I know here in the US is printing with Epson. That's not to say that HP and Canon don't play, but Epson pretty much owns the space. I think you'll find much more advice with Epson than HP or Canon.

As for complicated, I'll say only this: once I had mine set up, it's only a matter of knowing how to read the nozzle clog report and doing the least intrusive cleaning operations (via menus in the firmware). I've had few issues with the printer otherwise, and for the most part I just tell Lightroom to print stuff. HP could be less complicated, but the Epson does not seem problematic to me.

No matter what sort of printer you get, I'd think carefully about how to keep your supplies in temperature range. 40C is almost certainly outside of that range. You may have to consider air conditioning in at least one area of your home to accommodate. Check with Epson or whoever makes your printer.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Well, this confirms my impression; I just wanted to make certain.
An Epson it will be; all instructions or advices for printing out negs are also for Epsons.
With regard to the 40°C: I don't *work* in this temperature; naturally I have an AC in the room. The problem are the times I don't work in my photographic workspace because I am away or otherwise: it is quite expensive, forbiddingly so, to let the AC run every day when the room is not in use, apart from the fact that the thing needs some weekly attendance.
Come to think of, a colleague of mine here also has a (smaller) Epson printer; I have to ask him how he takes care of it.

Lukas

Trying to be a keeper of the light

Glad you've made your decision

You might want to check out our Printers Forum if you have further questions when your new printer arrives.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Thanks, Brian,
and I take the hint about different forums. It is just that I started with a question about printing d800 files, and got quite some informative answers which I wanted to follow up.

Lukas

Trying to be a keeper of the light

Temp is not so much a big issue even if it is over 40C but the humidity is. Print heads (regardless thermal or piezo) tend to dry up and clog in dry atmosphere.

Some LAB equips with a humidifier for this reason.

www.hitoshiujiie.com/photography.html