Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-12-2020, 11:38 AM   #1
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 4
Image quality when zoomed - am I supposed to see pixels? K1 Mark II + 24-70 mm f2.8

Hi all !

I am bit newbie in photography and in this forum. I couldn`t find the answer to myquestion, so I beg your pardon if my question is silly...

I have had K-70 for the past couple of years and was saving for FF camera since. Just recently finally decided to buy K1 Mk II + 24-70 mm f2.8 kit. I am veeery excited about the pictures that comes out from K1 Mk II. Nevertheless, I have one concern...

I am shooting at the highest quality (L ***), in raw format (DNG). Pictures look gorgeous even without post-processing, but when I am zooming in the pictures, I start to see 'pixels' very quickly (squares of pixels - see the examples attached of one area in the picture zooming from 100 % to 500 %). I have never experienced such thing in K-70 - there pictures are usually just becoming 'blurry', and you need to zoom in a lot to see those 'squares'.
As I am planning to do some big scale printing, I am afraid that there is something wrong with the quality of images...

Can you please clarify if it is normal, or should I give the camera back while I can? Or can it be settings issue? Or maybe I am just too needy...?

Thanks everyone in advance!

Attached Images
         
10-12-2020, 12:34 PM   #2
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,735
QuoteOriginally posted by MaiaM45 Quote
Hi all !

I am bit newbie in photography and in this forum. I couldn`t find the answer to myquestion, so I beg your pardon if my question is silly...

I have had K-70 for the past couple of years and was saving for FF camera since. Just recently finally decided to buy K1 Mk II + 24-70 mm f2.8 kit. I am veeery excited about the pictures that comes out from K1 Mk II. Nevertheless, I have one concern...

I am shooting at the highest quality (L ***), in raw format (DNG). Pictures look gorgeous even without post-processing, but when I am zooming in the pictures, I start to see 'pixels' very quickly (squares of pixels - see the examples attached of one area in the picture zooming from 100 % to 500 %). I have never experienced such thing in K-70 - there pictures are usually just becoming 'blurry', and you need to zoom in a lot to see those 'squares'.
As I am planning to do some big scale printing, I am afraid that there is something wrong with the quality of images...

Can you please clarify if it is normal, or should I give the camera back while I can? Or can it be settings issue? Or maybe I am just too needy...?

Thanks everyone in advance!
Yes it is normal. You are at 600% viewing. And the camera has no anti aliasing filter to blur the pixels. Same view with my images at 600% on the K-1 mk1. Stop pixel peeping
10-12-2020, 12:39 PM - 1 Like   #3
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 4
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
Yes it is normal. You are at 600% viewing. And the camera has no anti aliasing filter to blur the pixels. Same view with my images at 600% on the K-1 mk1. Stop pixel peeping
Thank so much for the answer, GUB! I though I might be too picky...

I just wonder if that`s the case with all cameras from various brands? And what about big-scale prints (e.g. with the width of 1 -1.5 meters) - should I process them somehow before sending for printing?

10-12-2020, 12:42 PM   #4
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,383
Hi, and welcome, and enjoy your new camera! What you are seeing looks normal to me---these are quite high magnifications. I have no idea why you didn't see this with your previous camera(s).


You don't say what you want your print sizes to be. Using 300dpi, you'd have a print 67.3cm on the long edge w/o cropping. Depending on what your image is, you could print at a lower dpi. If using 200dpi, then you'd get a 93.47cm print on the long edge. with a 10cm mat reveal on each side, and perhaps 2cm frame profile, that's an object on the wall that's nearly 120cm on the long side. That's pretty good size. If you are not doing the framing yourself, I would check how much that would cost you---in Switzerland yet!

Furthermore, it is more possible now than ever before to uprez your images with post processing software and get fantastic results. With pixel shift you should be able to print larger as well, if your subject matter allows for pixel shift. There's also stitching multiple images together to get a much bigger image.

But again, I return to the costs involved of properly mounting and displaying large images. If you don't use a mat, large images look great floated, and it's possible to decrease the size of the frame this way w/o things looking odd (small mats look bad, and look even worse with large images). And then, there's the devil that stalks every museum in the world: storage. As a working artist, I can tell you that storage becomes a huge headache very quickly.

I think you will find that you will be entirely satisfied with the results of properly sharpened K1 prints printed large.

10-12-2020, 12:51 PM   #5
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,383
QuoteOriginally posted by MaiaM45 Quote
And what about big-scale prints (e.g. with the width of 1 -1.5 meters) - should I process them somehow before sending for printing?

GUB answered you while I was writing my post above---to answer your next question---if you are shooting raw then you have to be processing---so I am confused by your question. Anyway, a lot depends on your subject---how you process it is often very dependent on that. There's no definitive answer, except that something that is very detailed will need more attention. For pints of the size you are discussing, if you are very serious, then I recommend test prints. You can reduce the cost of this by cropping portions of the image as separate images that will be smaller, but the same scale. Then you can see how certain areas look before spending the money on the large print. Again, if you are very serious, use a pro lab.
10-12-2020, 01:43 PM - 1 Like   #6
Pentaxian
swanlefitte's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Minneapolis
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,068
at 1:1, 100% each pixel from the sensor is represented by one pixel on your monitor. At 600% each pixel is now 6 of your monitors pixels across and 6 pixels up or 36 pixels. These pixels are not reinterpreted so they are all the same color. where colors change quickly you will see the blocks very clearly. Where the colors are close, your eyes will kind of blend them.
10-12-2020, 02:23 PM   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 420
QuoteOriginally posted by MaiaM45 Quote
I just wonder if that`s the case with all cameras from various brands?
Yes, and even if you create a picture in graphical application (like MS Paint), you will see pixels when magnification is bigger than 100%.

QuoteOriginally posted by MaiaM45 Quote
And what about big-scale prints (e.g. with the width of 1 -1.5 meters) - should I process them somehow before sending for printing?
As texandrews wrote, one could use special applications (for instance Exposure BlowUp) to prepare a picture for a large-format print. However, you may find it simply unnecessary - here is why. In analog times there was simple rule of thumb - if 13x18 cm print looked good, one could enlarge it to any size. This is because people usually look at a picture from the distance equal to or bigger than diagonal of the picture. You can easily verify it with your TV set - it's rather uncomfortable to watch it from 10 cm Of course other factors, like colour calibration greatly affect end result, but this is entirely different story, related to processing of RAW files rather that preparation of large prints.

10-12-2020, 02:23 PM   #8
sbh
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
sbh's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Black Forest, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 847
Regarding big prints - as the others just said - you can calculate yourself how large you can print in good quality. It depends on one thing that you need to research or ask your print shop: What is the dpi they print in. DPI is dots-per-inch.

Short viewing distances like 30cm-50cm need a higher dpi like 300 dpi. For example post cards or so...
Longer viewing distances like posters are usually viewed at 1m or more. In those cases it is enough to print in 150 dpi or less.

Let's say you have an image from the K-1 which has a resolution of 7360 pixels on the long side. At 150 dpi you can print at (7360/150 = 49.06 inches = 124cm) 1.24 meters without losing quality.
10-12-2020, 02:27 PM - 1 Like   #9
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,254
I have never looked at any of my images at beyond 200% - and that has only ever been for academic purposes, like measuring the width of purple fringing to inform a discussion about a lens' performance.

With appropriate processing and output sharpening, a well shot 36 megapixel image should be fine. Don't forget that very large prints are meant to be appreciated from a distance, not inspected with a magnifying glass.

How big are you planning to print?
10-12-2020, 02:42 PM - 1 Like   #10
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,383
Just a point of order: Yes, it's a rule of thumb that the larger the print, the greater the stand-off distance. That's just a rule of thumb, however. I work in a major museum, and I see people get close to huge prints all the time, like this one.

Several of the Dusseldorf School photographers do very large work, and people do indeed peer closely at them---I know I do. In fact, when I see really large prints I always inspect them closely, and I ding the artists when it's clear they enlarged further than they should have.

Another thing we haven't mentioned is the paper. Matte prints on rag papers today are more forgiving because of the obvious tooth of the paper, which can conceal some "faults". Not so much with glossy prints that are trying to mimic film era surfaces, although printing generally gives you a little forgiveness versus your screen.
10-12-2020, 03:00 PM   #11
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
c.a.m's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,170
QuoteOriginally posted by MaiaM45 Quote
I am planning to do some big scale printing
Hello @MaiaM45,


Welcome to Pentax Forums!


With respect to printing, you might be interested in a review of the K-1 Mk II, at Imaging Resource: Pentax K-1 II Review - Image Quality

Please scroll down to the section on Print Quality Analysis. In summary: Excellent 30 x 40 inch [75 x 100 cm] prints and larger up to ISO 400; a good 20 x 30 inch [50 x 75 cm] print at ISO 1600; a great 8 x 10 inch print [20 x 25 cm] at ISO 12,800.

- Craig
10-12-2020, 03:04 PM   #12
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
StiffLegged's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2018
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,560
I used to look at raw files at 200 or 400%, until it was pointed out how pointless it was. If it ain’t crisp at 100% then it won’t be sharp at larger magnification, so I don’t do that anymore.
10-12-2020, 09:55 PM   #13
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,110
QuoteOriginally posted by MaiaM45 Quote
I am shooting at the highest quality (L ***), in raw format (DNG)
The L*** setting in your camera applies to jpeg output. It has no affect on a raw file.

QuoteOriginally posted by MaiaM45 Quote
And what about big-scale prints (e.g. with the width of 1 -1.5 meters) - should I process them somehow before sending for printing?
A raw file like the DNG you are using is not a picture file. You need to create a .jpg or .tif file from the DNG before you send it to a printing company. I see you are using Adobe Camera raw, that is good. My workflow if using Adobe camera raw is to process the raw file so that the colour and exposure/contrast is to my liking, then create a TIFF file. Then open the TIFF in Photoshop and do any localised adjustments, before converting the image to sRGB colour space, resizing the image, apply some output sharpening and saving as a jpeg (.jpg).

The printing firm I use require 300 ppi for prints. So a full sized K1 image 7360x4912 can be printed at 24"x16" by resizing the image to 7200x 4800. You can also up-size the image if you want to print larger. You will need to ask your printing firm what ppi they require and if they require colour profiles to be tagged to the image, otherwise sRGB is usually the best choice.

One final thing is that a print usually requires more output sharpening than an image designed for screen viewing.
10-13-2020, 12:08 AM   #14
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 4
Original Poster
Dear all,

Thanks sooo much for the answers! All makes sense now. Apparently I will have to try first to print something and see how it looks like. Just as someone mentioned - I live in SWitzerland where printing prices are not pocket-friendly

Overall, I love my new Pentax!
10-13-2020, 02:49 AM   #15
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 1,116
OP. Are you sure that you're not just seeing air-borne seeds or similar captured in the photo?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, f2.8, full frame, full-frame, ii, image quality, k-1, k1, k1 mark ii, pentax k-1, pictures, pixels, pixels on pictures, quality, quality of photos
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K1 or K1 mark ii Kevin.mcde Pentax DSLR Discussion 23 05-06-2019 04:46 PM
K1 to K1 Mark II or not II Kingman Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 39 03-07-2019 10:09 PM
Pentax-K1, Playback: Is it possible to switch Images if zoomed in? Martin__ Visitors' Center 7 06-04-2016 12:38 PM
I am confused...zoomed out shots outside are not crisp crossover37 Pentax DSLR Discussion 6 03-22-2011 01:31 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:44 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top