What has been your biggest print ?

dane.dawg · 02-20-2012, 06:08 PM

I printed this pic 16x20 Iso 2500 and i could not see any noise in the print..

westmill · 02-21-2012, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by Winder

In the film days I did posters shot on T-max 3200 which would look like 6400 from my K-7. With a K-5 I'm sure I could do 6400 posters with the right processing. It really depends on the look you are going for. I have some 16x20 canvas prints done with my K-7 at 1600. You don't need 12 EV for every picture, and a lot of images work better with more contrast and narrower EV. I intentionally black out shadows if they contain distracting objects and blow out highlights in post to make sure my subject stands out.

For commercial product photography it is a different animal and you have different needs. It depends on the look you are going for.

Yes I used to use 35mm and I also used Bronica ETRS
and the wonderful Bronica RF645 with all 3 lenses and I used Mamyia RZ67 in the studio. Detail wise, I still have lots of work from all the cameras for me to compare images side by side for direct comparison. Its amazing, and I dont think people realise just how good digital has now become. 13" x 19" pics are as sharp as the prints taken on the RZ67. To get this kind of quality from something so small as the K5 is truly a great feat in its own right. I had and miss my darkroom too I might add.
I remember the 3200 asa film lol.... grain like golf balls !
People often used it for that effect on landscapes.
My work nowadays mostly consists of weddings and glamour photography. The glamour side of things calls for files rather than prints. My clients simply request file sizes to be a minimum of 4mb. The K5 gives an average of 12mb jpgs so well ahead of my needs or requirements. I think all digital cameras are different though.... in that.... they all react diferently when blown up huge. Some like Fuji, go to great lenghs to produce film like quality. So that even when it starts to break up it can still look good even if grainy.

toooldtocare · 02-21-2012, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by westmill

Its amazing, and I dont think people realise just how good digital has now become. 13" x 19" pics are as sharp as the prints taken on the RZ67. To get this kind of quality from something so small as the K5 is truly a great feat in its own right. I had and miss my darkroom too I might add.

I agree, I shoot mostly film (Hasselblad and Leica) and find that my digital prints from the K5 can come close to the quality of my film shots, even match those from the 35mm Leica especially if I use prime lenses and low ISO's. I still shoot film for B&W because I like the texture of the prints, but I am sure with the correct post processing the K5 images could match the look too. I do not miss my darkroom though, because I still have mine in operation and use it often.

westmill · 02-21-2012, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by toooldtocare

I agree, I shoot mostly film (Hasselblad and Leica) and find that my digital prints from the K5 can come close to the quality of my film shots, even match those from the 35mm Leica especially if I use prime lenses and low ISO's. I still shoot film for B&W because I like the texture of the prints, but I am sure with the correct post processing the K5 images could match the look too. I do not miss my darkroom though, because I still have mine in operation and use it often.

Yes ! The quality now depends on the lenses for sure.
I agree also that its hard to match the creamy tonality of B+W from a neg from the darkroom.
Something else I often think about when I compare digital to film quality.... Yes... digital is miles ahead of film now. BUT !!!! and its a big but !
Everyone has always compaired it to negative film.
Yet ! when we wanted the ultimate quality we didnt use negative film.... we used the seemingly forgoten cibachrome. A projected medium format image !
WOW ! I will also add at this point that the quality of Cibachrome is so high it is still in high demand.
Ive gotten too lazy etc with the conveiniance and speed and all around ability of digital though to think of going back down that road, but there is no denying the superlative quality of fine slow Ciba !

normhead · 02-21-2012, 09:59 AM

20x30 is my largest, done on canvas... and we've done a pile of them but we send them out to be printed... 19x13 is the largest we do at home.

westmill · 02-21-2012, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by demp10

I routinely make my own prints at 24" x 48" both from the K10D and K-7. The largest was from K10D at 44" x 60" on EPSON Enhanced Matte paper in B/W. Quality was great as it was sold at a high price.

Those are from single frames. When I stitch panoramas I can go to more than 12 feet wide easily.

Now theres a thought ! That just takes you into large format teratory !

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hello from the Biggest little city!	Bruspeed	Welcomes and Introductions	4	04-25-2011 08:42 PM
People My biggest photo challenge: Ballet	ismaelg	Post Your Photos!	13	08-16-2010 08:55 AM
biggest Windows automatic update ever	jogiba	General Talk	7	06-12-2010 04:24 PM
Traditional print vs scan & print	rodneysan	Pentax Medium Format	8	05-06-2010 03:33 PM
My biggest LBA score to date!	JP_Seattle	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	29	04-13-2010 07:07 AM

02-20-2012, 06:08 PM	#16
dane.dawg Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,436	I printed this pic 16x20 Iso 2500 and i could not see any noise in the print..

02-21-2012, 05:09 AM	#17
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146 Original Poster	Originally posted by Winder In the film days I did posters shot on T-max 3200 which would look like 6400 from my K-7. With a K-5 I'm sure I could do 6400 posters with the right processing. It really depends on the look you are going for. I have some 16x20 canvas prints done with my K-7 at 1600. You don't need 12 EV for every picture, and a lot of images work better with more contrast and narrower EV. I intentionally black out shadows if they contain distracting objects and blow out highlights in post to make sure my subject stands out. For commercial product photography it is a different animal and you have different needs. It depends on the look you are going for. Yes I used to use 35mm and I also used Bronica ETRS and the wonderful Bronica RF645 with all 3 lenses and I used Mamyia RZ67 in the studio. Detail wise, I still have lots of work from all the cameras for me to compare images side by side for direct comparison. Its amazing, and I dont think people realise just how good digital has now become. 13" x 19" pics are as sharp as the prints taken on the RZ67. To get this kind of quality from something so small as the K5 is truly a great feat in its own right. I had and miss my darkroom too I might add. I remember the 3200 asa film lol.... grain like golf balls ! People often used it for that effect on landscapes. My work nowadays mostly consists of weddings and glamour photography. The glamour side of things calls for files rather than prints. My clients simply request file sizes to be a minimum of 4mb. The K5 gives an average of 12mb jpgs so well ahead of my needs or requirements. I think all digital cameras are different though.... in that.... they all react diferently when blown up huge. Some like Fuji, go to great lenghs to produce film like quality. So that even when it starts to break up it can still look good even if grainy.

02-21-2012, 06:52 AM	#18
toooldtocare Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lake Saint Louis Posts: 126	Originally posted by westmill Its amazing, and I dont think people realise just how good digital has now become. 13" x 19" pics are as sharp as the prints taken on the RZ67. To get this kind of quality from something so small as the K5 is truly a great feat in its own right. I had and miss my darkroom too I might add. I agree, I shoot mostly film (Hasselblad and Leica) and find that my digital prints from the K5 can come close to the quality of my film shots, even match those from the 35mm Leica especially if I use prime lenses and low ISO's. I still shoot film for B&W because I like the texture of the prints, but I am sure with the correct post processing the K5 images could match the look too. I do not miss my darkroom though, because I still have mine in operation and use it often.

02-21-2012, 09:44 AM	#19
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146 Original Poster	Originally posted by toooldtocare I agree, I shoot mostly film (Hasselblad and Leica) and find that my digital prints from the K5 can come close to the quality of my film shots, even match those from the 35mm Leica especially if I use prime lenses and low ISO's. I still shoot film for B&W because I like the texture of the prints, but I am sure with the correct post processing the K5 images could match the look too. I do not miss my darkroom though, because I still have mine in operation and use it often. Yes ! The quality now depends on the lenses for sure. I agree also that its hard to match the creamy tonality of B+W from a neg from the darkroom. Something else I often think about when I compare digital to film quality.... Yes... digital is miles ahead of film now. BUT !!!! and its a big but ! Everyone has always compaired it to negative film. Yet ! when we wanted the ultimate quality we didnt use negative film.... we used the seemingly forgoten cibachrome. A projected medium format image ! WOW ! I will also add at this point that the quality of Cibachrome is so high it is still in high demand. Ive gotten too lazy etc with the conveiniance and speed and all around ability of digital though to think of going back down that road, but there is no denying the superlative quality of fine slow Ciba !

02-21-2012, 09:59 AM	#20
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	20x30 is my largest, done on canvas... and we've done a pile of them but we send them out to be printed... 19x13 is the largest we do at home.

02-21-2012, 10:11 AM	#21
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146 Original Poster	Originally posted by demp10 I routinely make my own prints at 24" x 48" both from the K10D and K-7. The largest was from K10D at 44" x 60" on EPSON Enhanced Matte paper in B/W. Quality was great as it was sold at a high price. Those are from single frames. When I stitch panoramas I can go to more than 12 feet wide easily. Now theres a thought ! That just takes you into large format teratory !