Hi! Any experiences of large-sized prints from d700 raw files? The size of the files is smaller than those of Canon 5D mark ii. Do pixels or the quality of pixels make the difference? What about noise, “photographicality”, contrast, interpolation qualities? Normally I have my exhibition prints made by a lab using extra sharp drum scan and Lambda-technology. I shot mostly Velvia 50 with my Nikon F100 and Mamiya 645 pro tl. Normally in good lighting conditions, sometimes in morning dim too weak for Velvia 50. The exhibition size of my prints is about 26” x 40” (70cm x 100cm). I think there is no sense getting too close when looking at large-sized prints, but the quality should be stunning, anyway. Thanks for attention!
Thanks Silver, for a very illuminating link. Thom Hogan talks about "slight interpolation bump (120%)", but with Nikon D700 i would need more than 151%. (The largest photo size on the table was 24x36", which is 4 inches less in breadth i normally use.) With Canon 5D II Mark the percentage would be 115, but i know there is this factor of quality pixels and i have heard nikon prints have more "photographicality" in them, which I’m, of course, used to. The Hogan's text was dated in 2007. At that time there was no D700. I would like to purchase quality full frame digital slr and use it beside my 645 and 135 equipment. Earlier the quality of dslr cameras were not simply good enough for such a large print size. Now I’m considering between Nikon and Canon. No need to say I have some great optics for my Nikon F100.
>but with Nikon D700 i would need more than 151%. Why? Prints at 150 dpi often look sharper than those printed at 300 dpi, though 300 dpi shows better tone separation, and for best tonal separation on ink jet prints Fuji advise 600 dpi using their papers. To double 12 MP sensor resolution (because of inverse square law) requires 48 MP, not 24 MP. If you are serious about ultimate image quality at 24x36 you can forget Canon and Nikon 24 MP once you have tried even a modest Phase 1 back on a basic Hasselblad. To get the higher quality of medium format involves trading many features. To get the AF performance etc of the D700 at the lower price point of the Mk II is not possible with Canon, and in the UK the generally superior D3x over the 1Ds III is cheaper. A D700 in capable hands ink jet prints a very good A3 without interpolation, an A2 with modest interpolation and with considerable care an A1. A Mk II does an A1 with less difficulty with fewer other features for more money - but either are behind medium format digital quality at A1 print size. Only you can decide what priorities (and to a lesser extent budget) matter most to you.
Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.
> No need to say I have some great >optics for my Nikon F100.
I guess this is your answer.
Anyway, I haven't printed very large, so I can't tell. But Scott Kelby also writes about upscaling in his PS CS3 book. Can't remember exactly, but I think he recommends Bicubic sharper. At least it wasn't the default option.
26 x 40 is a bit of a stretch, unless you stopped down to c. 120 dpi (which would be about the right size for a c. 12 MB file...). Guess you would have to see an example to be sure. Can you run a sample at your printer's place? Best. D.
Yes, i have to see some samples, i'm beginning to think that i have to study real prints from d700 raw files to make up my mind. i use the Lambda lab only when i have an exhibition or when i will sell my prints, but i think i could have a sample pinted. (Lambdas come with frame under glass. The large size is not an idée fixe. It's simly that the dialectics of expression requires large scale - for tiny objects. You can see some old stuff of mine by googling "Lacustrine photography".) meta
Thanks for the link, FThompson. That's just what i would probably need when having originally digital stuff enlarged and printed in size of 40x26”. My drum scan files are over 200 MB and that’s why I have had no need for interpolation. Anyway, I changed my Photoshop values to “Bicubic sharper”. That was for “normal” digital photos I had to enlarge a bit. I was not especially convinced that the basic Photoshop interpolation would solve my problem with future files of Nikon D700. Are there any photo samples of results of this special fractal logic interpolation soft ware? meta
Do consider the distance you will be standing from the print in your equation for producing a 'quality' print. For example, you might be standing 1' (30cm) away from a 8x10 print but you are not likely to stand the same distance away from a 30x38 print. Sure a print that size will not be as pin sharp as a 8x10 but from 3' (1m) away, many may not notice the diminished sharpness.
Also, the purpose of the print is another thing to consider. If the print is for you to look at everyday, as a photographer, we notice things that many people will not.
Paul McLeod - BestPhotos.com.au Melbourne Nikonian
Hi hithere, actually i'm kind of stuck with graphic looks of film grains in my prints. Anyway, there is millions of possible photos i have seen through viewfinder, but couldn't take them, cause there simply was not enough light for my 645 stuff and Velvia 50. (I don't use flash normally.) Nikon D700 would solve that problem for sure. I accept it's more important to exploit those sublime lighting conditions and get the large-sized prints done than to look at them at very close distance. (Google "Lacustrine photography" and you'll see 3 samples.) So, not totally abandoning film, i have to say good bye to graphical dynamics of grain in many cases anyway. I am simply interested in finding the best possible equipment, not too heavy, to shoot in low light conditions, and after that, print BIG using Lambda or Lightjet technics. meta
>I am simply interested in finding the best possible >equipment, not too heavy, to shoot in low light conditions, >and after that, print BIG using Lambda or Lightjet technics. >meta
Have you ever considered using digital mosaics to solve your problem?
I participate with Roger Clark on another forum and he once found himself in the same position. His solution was found in creating digital mosaics. For static and slow moving subjects he states that you can create images far superior to medium and large format film cameras. He takes multiple frames and stitches them together with the program PTgui. Of course he has not abandoned his film cameras for they are still needed for fast moving subjects, but I believe he stated he prefers digital mosaics for the static or slow moving ones.
Take a look at his site, it may interest you, or then again it may not.
Digital mosaic seems to be an innovative idea, but it's not my cup of tea. I enjoy the glide of zones of sharpness and blur. And i don't mean simply bokeh, there is this almost metaphysical transition from sharpness to blur, mimetic to human way of looking. That's what does it for me. meta