I was wondering what is the max print size possible from a Fine JPEG and a RAW obtained from a D1H? I have never needed to print but I am curious in the event that I do. Any additional comments regarding printing from a D1H would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
#1. "RE: Printing from D1H files" | In response to Reply # 0BJNicholls Charter MemberMon 24-Jun-02 01:42 PM
By resolution alone the 2000 x 1312 image size gets you 6.7" x 4.37" at the "ideal" output resolution of 300 pixels per inch. In practice, you can create clean enlargements twice that size without resorting to much, if any, oversampling to avoid pixellation. The printer you're using plays a role in what output resolution is acceptable.
The file format will only affect the relative quality of the image (jpeg compression creates artifacts - more visible with higher compression levels), it won't alter the baseline resolution limitations.
#4. "RE: Printing from D1H files" | In response to Reply # 1Gerald H Ling Basic MemberMon 24-Jun-02 08:33 PM
Thanks for the reply BJ.
One more query. Would it be possible to send these digital images to a professional lab to be printed? I am assuming that the methods stated above apply to home printers. I am more interested in high quality semi-comercial prints. Would I have to pre-prepare the image or just send it out to them? Thanks again for the responses.
#2. "RE: Printing from D1H files" | In response to Reply # 0
BJ is right on. Out of curiosity I went on dpreview.com and downloaded one of the full-size samples they have from the camera. Even though it's a JPEG file, I interpolated it to 8x10 in Photoshop and it printed GREAT on my Epson 890. I was amazed that such a low res file could look so good. There was a slight bit of pixelization, and if I owned the camera I'd be very careful about filling the frame with the subject, as the file size doesn't allow room for cropping IMO.
#3. "RE: Printing from D1H files" | In response to Reply # 0
From my perspective as a D1 owner (same resolution as the D1h) I'd agree with the other comments here. My typical print size is about 10.5 x 7 inches on A4 paper and at that size the prints will withstand close inspection pretty well.
I have also done some 17.5 x 11.75 inch prints on A3+ paper, but these are rather more variable in quality. A finely detailed landscape looks rather like a watercolour painting when inspected up close - there's no pixelization, but the details are soft. On the other hand close-ups of wildlife or flowers and portraits tend to look quite acceptable.
RAW mode makes enough difference in terms of the amount of detail visible to be worthwhile if you're going to make large prints. It also gives you much more flexibility when processing the image since you have access to the cameras full 12-bit dynamic range.
#5. "RE: Printing from D1H files" | In response to Reply # 3thompson1600 Basic MemberTue 25-Jun-02 02:23 AM
When you say you can do basically 8 x 10 prints with the D1, is that with a printer or at a "pro" studio where you take the file to be printed?
What size memory device do you use and how many RAW mode files does it hold? Thanks
#8. "RE: Printing from D1H files" | In response to Reply # 0
I just finished printing a shot from my D1 on an Epson 1270 on "Super B" paper (13" x 19", so the printed area is a little smaller). I was really pleased with the results. If you look very closely, it's a little soft, but from a normal viewing distance it looks great.
I used QImage Pro, which is found at http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/ . QImage will get the most out of your printer, and it only costs $35. There is a trial version you can download. ( I have no association with the creator of QImage. I'm just a happy user).
I also think it's important to sharpen the file properly before printing. I used Nik Sharpener Home Edition, which can be found at:
At $79 I'm not sure it's worth the money. It works, but I think one could do the same with Photoshop, but you'd have to spend more time working on it to get good results.
#9. "RE: Printing from D1H files" | In response to Reply # 8Wed 26-Jun-02 04:19 PM
>If you look very closely, it's a little soft, but from a normal
>viewing distance it looks great.
See if you have the same problem I do with these large prints: people look at them from a proper viewing distance, say "Nice photo!" or some variation thereof, and go to inspect it up close where they can see it isn't as sharp as it could be...
That said, it's amazing that we can get anything like an acceptable result at that sort of size from the D1's 2.75 MPixels since it equates to about 115 dpi, and 300 dpi is the usual figure for being considered photorealistic.
>I used QImage Pro
Have you tried using the Lanczos interpolation to resize your images? To my eyes it does as good a job as Genuine Fractals, and QImage is one heck of a lot cheaper. It's also my favourite NEF converter by far.
#10. "RE: Printing from D1H files" | In response to Reply # 9vfnewman Basic MemberWed 26-Jun-02 04:42 PM
>See if you have the same problem I do with these large
>prints: people look at them from a proper viewing distance,
>say "Nice photo!" or some variation thereof, and go to
>inspect it up close where they can see it isn't as sharp as
>it could be...
I think there is some innate drive in people to try to examine a print at as close a distance as possible.
>That said, it's amazing that we can get anything like
>an acceptable result at that sort of size from the D1's 2.75
>MPixels since it equates to about 115 dpi, and 300 dpi is
>the usual figure for being considered photorealistic.
We've been TOLD that we need 240 or 300 dpi to get an acceptable print. There is no doubt that more dpi is better, up to a point, but as far as I'm concerned, when done correctly, 115 can look plenty good for me. Most people I tell don't beleive it until they see if for themselves. Nikon made a big deal a couple years ago about making some gigantic (billboard-size) blowup from a Coolpix 990 shot for the movie "Godzilla".
>>I used QImage Pro
>Have you tried using the Lanczos interpolation to resize
>your images? To my eyes it does as good a job as Genuine
>Fractals, and QImage is one heck of a lot cheaper. It's also
>my favourite NEF converter by far.
I use Lanczos exclusively. QImage is a fantastic program, and definitely my preferred NEF converter.