Print quality from K-3

**TaiChiTom** · 11-14-2013, 12:19 PM

I haven't seen this discussed. I am most interested in the quality of prints made with the K-3. JPEGS and high ISO images displayed on a monitor are fine, but the value to me of an image is how it looks as a print. Are there any RAW shooters out there who use good quality lenses, shoot at low ISO and print carefully at sizes larger than 8x10? I have had my K-3 for about a week, but have not yet done any serious shooting with the aim of making prints. I have been really pleased with 12x18 prints I have made with the K-5lls. I don't expect dramatic improvement with the K-3 over the K-5lls, but I'd like to hear from some printers out there.
Tom

**jbinpg** · 11-14-2013, 02:27 PM

I am confused. If you have been making prints with your IIs, what is stopping you from making them with your K-3?

bdp1 · 11-14-2013, 02:37 PM

The original question is valid. Many of the comparisons between the two cameras which have been made so far have been done by downscaling the K3 files instead of upscaling the K5 or both files. Large prints will have upscaled files, and the detail and resolution of the original files will become more important than noise when printed to 16x20 or larger and viewed from a normal distance.

It can take the lab a few business days to turn around some prints, so I am not surprised that the original poster might not have any larger prints for comparison after only one week.

I imagine that the increased resolution of the K3 will be noticable in large prints v.s. the K5.

Having said all that, there have been professional photographers selling nice wall portraits since the days of 3 Mpixel cameras.

goubejp · 11-14-2013, 03:02 PM

I have enlarged prints up to 50cm*70cm made with the K5iis, 400 iso, with FA*600 and A*1200 lenses. Noise is not visible on the prints.

amoringello · 11-14-2013, 05:44 PM

8x10? Don't really need many MP to print that small.
It also really depends on how low the ISO is and what the subject is. Noise reduction is never going to give a great result if you absolutely need to resolve every hair.

It also matters who your client is....
If you're printing for another photographer, You're going to want to stay at 300ppi and ISO 400 or less and they are still likely going to find flaws.
If you're printing for a normal human, 150ppi and ISO 1600-3200 or greater, quite honestly, is likely to be acceptable.

**TaiChiTom** · 11-14-2013, 06:18 PM

Read the OP.

rawr · 11-14-2013, 06:21 PM

For a third party opinion on K-3 printing, if you look at the bottom of page 1 of the Imaging Resource K-3 review, they have an assessment of how well the K-3 prints images in various print sizes.

Pentax K-3 Review: First Shots

amoringello · 11-14-2013, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by TaiChiTom

Read the OP.

And...?

**TaiChiTom** · 11-14-2013, 06:39 PM

Thanks, rawr.

RonHendriks1966 · 11-15-2013, 03:58 AM

I have a few posters sized 59 inch tall made from images with the K-01 (DA*55mm and FA*85mm) and they are stunning, so I expect the same or better for K-3.

11-14-2013, 12:19 PM	#1
TaiChiTom Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 318	Print quality from K-3 I haven't seen this discussed. I am most interested in the quality of prints made with the K-3. JPEGS and high ISO images displayed on a monitor are fine, but the value to me of an image is how it looks as a print. Are there any RAW shooters out there who use good quality lenses, shoot at low ISO and print carefully at sizes larger than 8x10? I have had my K-3 for about a week, but have not yet done any serious shooting with the aim of making prints. I have been really pleased with 12x18 prints I have made with the K-5lls. I don't expect dramatic improvement with the K-3 over the K-5lls, but I'd like to hear from some printers out there. Tom

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-3 Build Quality	BlakeShellman	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	35	11-10-2013 05:54 AM
Pentax k-3 audio recording quality	vjacesslav	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	4	11-03-2013 06:12 PM
How does digital print quality compare at different stores?	stainsor	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	14	11-24-2011 01:29 PM
16x22 Print Quality	bethtphotos	Pentax DSLR Discussion	30	12-31-2008 07:53 AM
Print Quality	montezuma	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	2	06-20-2008 11:49 AM

11-14-2013, 02:27 PM	#2
jbinpg Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Prince George, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,546	I am confused. If you have been making prints with your IIs, what is stopping you from making them with your K-3?

11-14-2013, 02:37 PM	#3
bdp1 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 41	The original question is valid. Many of the comparisons between the two cameras which have been made so far have been done by downscaling the K3 files instead of upscaling the K5 or both files. Large prints will have upscaled files, and the detail and resolution of the original files will become more important than noise when printed to 16x20 or larger and viewed from a normal distance. It can take the lab a few business days to turn around some prints, so I am not surprised that the original poster might not have any larger prints for comparison after only one week. I imagine that the increased resolution of the K3 will be noticable in large prints v.s. the K5. Having said all that, there have been professional photographers selling nice wall portraits since the days of 3 Mpixel cameras.

11-14-2013, 03:02 PM	#4
goubejp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: France Photos: Albums Posts: 804	I have enlarged prints up to 50cm70cm made with the K5iis, 400 iso, with FA600 and A*1200 lenses. Noise is not visible on the prints.

11-14-2013, 05:44 PM	#5
amoringello Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,562	8x10? Don't really need many MP to print that small. It also really depends on how low the ISO is and what the subject is. Noise reduction is never going to give a great result if you absolutely need to resolve every hair. It also matters who your client is.... If you're printing for another photographer, You're going to want to stay at 300ppi and ISO 400 or less and they are still likely going to find flaws. If you're printing for a normal human, 150ppi and ISO 1600-3200 or greater, quite honestly, is likely to be acceptable.

11-14-2013, 06:18 PM	#6
TaiChiTom Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 318 Original Poster	Read the OP.

11-14-2013, 06:21 PM	#7
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	For a third party opinion on K-3 printing, if you look at the bottom of page 1 of the Imaging Resource K-3 review, they have an assessment of how well the K-3 prints images in various print sizes. Pentax K-3 Review: First Shots

11-14-2013, 06:24 PM	#8
amoringello Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,562	Originally posted by TaiChiTom Read the OP. And...?

11-14-2013, 06:39 PM	#9
TaiChiTom Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 318 Original Poster	Thanks, rawr.

11-15-2013, 03:58 AM	#10
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	I have a few posters sized 59 inch tall made from images with the K-01 (DA55mm and FA85mm) and they are stunning, so I expect the same or better for K-3.