[btnapa]

I print my images large and sell them at Art shows.

I use an Epson Stylus Pro 7600 that is 24 inches wide. All large format printers have a preferred resolution that they like and will print without interpolation. On Epson large format printers, their sweet spots are: 180dpi, 240dpi, and 360dpi.

Lately, I've been printing 17 inch by 25.5 inch prints from Pentax K3ii files at 180 dpi. They look quite nice and I'm happy with them. But I often wish I could make even larger prints at 240 dpi.

Enter the new Pentax full frame. If it comes out with Sony's 42MP sensor it it, I (and everyone who prints with Epson large format printers) will be able to print 24" by 30" at 240 dpi natively!

I would be extremely happy if the new full frame turns out to be 42MP. If it's less than 42MP, I will likely just hang in there and wait for Pentax to eventually release a 42MP full frame camera body.

The new FF will allow you to print big. It does some tricks that surprised me. Stay tuned for the surprising bag full of tricks of this baby.

I am in the same boat as you. I want large prints on my newly acquired Epson 9800 printer. I printed some 24x36" prints coming from my K3. They look good but I think a larger sensor will have even better resolution and corresponding clearer and detailed prints. Even at 42MP the FF will not have enough resolution for a 40"x50" prints. I think the ultimate camera at a reasonable price might be the venerable 645Z as the newly announced Phase One 100MP (at ($48K before lenses) is way out of the range of most photographers.

[rawr]

Prints that have incredible resolution far outsell those with lesser resolution.

Makes sense for reconnaissance satellite imagery, I guess.

For normal purposes, of course 42MP is only 'real' resolution if everything else is equal (ie lens, sharpening, print quality etc) and the camera craft is good. A 12MP image exposed well, and using a tripod and a good lens, will print very large and reveal a lot more detail under a loupe than a 42 or 100 MP image that has motion blur, or is simply of a hazy scene ...

[macman24054]

I have used Epson since 1995 and large format since 2005 and I am pretty darn sure 300 dpi is the optimum resolution for Epson. I have printed numerous large format prints from my K10D and K30.

[Fenwoodian]

I have used Epson since 1995 and large format since 2005 and I am pretty darn sure 300 dpi is the optimum resolution for Epson. I have printed numerous large format prints from my K10D and K30.

I don't think so. Do some serious research or talk to experts, you'll soon find that 300 is not a native resolution for large format Epson printers.

---------- Post added 01-10-16 at 10:41 PM ----------

Makes sense for reconnaissance satellite imagery, I guess.

For normal purposes, of course 42MP is only 'real' resolution if everything else is equal (ie lens, sharpening, print quality etc) and the camera craft is good. A 12MP image exposed well, and using a tripod and a good lens, will print very large and reveal a lot more detail under a loupe than a 42 or 100 MP image that has motion blur, or is simply of a hazy scene ...

Spoken by someone who obviously does not make a living selling large photographic prints!

---

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 01-10-2016 at 09:42 PM.

[btnapa]

I don't think so. Do some serious research or talk to experts, you'll soon find that 300 is not a native resolution for large format Epson printers.

---------- Post added 01-10-16 at 10:41 PM ----------



Spoken by someone who obviously does not make a living selling large photographic prints!

If my memory serves me well, the Epson native resolution is actually 240dpi. Prints still look good at 180 but for real high end fine art prints, minimum of 240 is most desirable. One can always go higher. I printed lots of large format prints back in the days and I remember testing 240 and up. Above 240 the quality gets better but not by a big margin. For all intensive purposes 240 will suffice. There is also the issue of native resolution and interpolated resolution. You want to stay as close to native as possible as interpolation at some point starts breaking the image down and the artifacts start showing up.

As I am interested in real large prints (42"X56" and up) from a single frame, I have been doing a lot of calculations to figure out what camera will deliver that. It looks like the 645Z is the closest thing to that camera. I would really like to get my hands on a 645Z and print some large prints on my Epson 9800 to see if it really holds up.

[rawr]

Spoken by someone who obviously does not make a living selling large photographic prints!

True.

But all I am saying is that most resolution numbers, including print resolution, go out the window unless everything else in the image production and display pipeline is executed in a way that is near technically perfect. Which it rarely can be, even in the laboratory.

Hence my little example of a technically excellent 12MP shot 'outresolving' a technically weaker 42MP shot. In such an example, the blur radius on the 42MP shot might equal 5 pixels but the blur radius on the 12MP shot might equal 1. Any 42MP resolution advantage may then not lead to more visible image detail than 12MP, no matter how big you make the print.

[vonBaloney]

True.

But all I am saying is that most resolution numbers, including print resolution, go out the window unless everything else in the image production and display pipeline is executed in a way that is near technically perfect. Which it rarely can be, even in the laboratory.

Hence my little example of a technically excellent 12MP shot 'outresolving' a technically weaker 42MP shot. In such an example, the blur radius on the 42MP shot might equal 5 pixels but the blur radius on the 12MP shot might equal 1. Any 42MP resolution advantage may then not lead to more visible image detail than 12MP, no matter how big you make the print.

Yes. Any any photo taken at an ISO above the lowest (or camera "native" ISO, usually the lowest) is getting an "effective MP" lower than the sensor spec anyway, not to mention the inherent loss to begin with by using a Bayer sensor (the amount of loss varies depending on image content). In short, what you end up with obviously is correlated with the base capability of the camera, but there are so many other factors in play. And the idea that you need anywhere close to 42MP to make a decent (or even great) large print is just not so unless the only purpose of your print is to show the most details possible. But in a fine art context, ultimate resolution is only one of an infinite number of aesthetic factors (for most content). And if one's primary aim is ultimate resolution, then medium or large format is really the only way to go, and why bother slumming it with relatively small sensors at all?

[bertwert]

Well 42 is the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything so 42MP makes sense.
My guess is that the FF will be 36MP.

[PPPPPP42]

Well 42 is the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything so 42MP makes sense. My guess is that the FF will be 36MP.

I agree on both these points.

I also was amused by Digitalis, large format film still shocks the hell out of me with its ridiculous level of detail in enlargements on such an old medium. I feel like we are still chasing with digital, what film did naturally decades ago. Too bad I don't have the skill to use anything larger than 35mm B&W.

On the general topic of buyers preference in resolution, It seems to my uneducated point of view that most people who prefer photographs over other art forms (paintings, ect) are looking for as perfect a reproduction as possible of the scene (creative editing and photoshop work aside) so highest resolution is the best to them. Its not really "art" in the traditional composition quality over image quality sense of the word that they want.

[Nicolas06]

The story of dpi you need depend a lot of the camera too. A 24MP bayer sensor camera get its 24MP interpolated. Pixel shift so there a very noticable different with what a real 24MP sensor can do. It is not that far to what a 36 or 42MP sensor with a bayer filter and no pixel shift would do.

In theory, with a K3, you can get 300dpi prints up to 20"x13" and on a 24"x36" print you should have 166dpi that is pretty great. So you client should not complain, detailled enough?

But the 24MP are not really 24MP, a 24MP could look much better. We are something in between 6MP (without interpolation at all) and 24MP what they "sell". So at 24x36" you are in the 83-166dpi range. It should be still enough but that let no margin for reframing, post processing, iso not at the minimum setting, the lens that don't exploit the center at 100% on border. Likely that many picture would not do better than 25-50dpi on some part of the print in practice.

To me it is more the increase from 50 to 80 dpi that people notice than from 180 to 240, if we speak of real dpi, but the camera interpolate its picture so the number are bigger than the reality.

I guess a part would be solved with more pixels, but you also want better lenses, large one without drop of performance in borders and maybe you'll even need MF. You'd want a tripod and fast shutter speed or perfectly still scene...

[Nicolas06]

Yes. Any any photo taken at an ISO above the lowest (or camera "native" ISO, usually the lowest) is getting an "effective MP" lower than the sensor spec anyway, not to mention the inherent loss to begin with by using a Bayer sensor (the amount of loss varies depending on image content). In short, what you end up with obviously is correlated with the base capability of the camera, but there are so many other factors in play. And the idea that you need anywhere close to 42MP to make a decent (or even great) large print is just not so unless the only purpose of your print is to show the most details possible. But in a fine art context, ultimate resolution is only one of an infinite number of aesthetic factors (for most content). And if one's primary aim is ultimate resolution, then medium or large format is really the only way to go, and why bother slumming it with relatively small sensors at all?

Man there something to understand out there: the client is king.

And really if you ask some serious money for your print, the client will be picky. Because really he could buy anyone else picture for the same or far less, so you have to be better, or as least as great as others to play the game.

In many cases, getting more resolutions is not that difficult. In particular if that only means a camera that is worth 3000$ instead of 1000$.

Even the taxi that want to provide the comfort of just a good car has to spend far more than that and buying the right to be a taxi driver can cost 100,000$ or more. Worse, if you took a specialty in nuclear physics, you will have difficulties to be an independant or to get your business of making and selling nuclear power plants or bombs that easily.

[normhead]

I disagree.

In my part of the USA, people who purchase large fine art prints do look super close at the print. Prints that have incredible resolution far outsell those with lesser resolution. That is a fact that not only I have observed, but also is supported by many friends of mine who also sell large fine art prints in the USA.

Maybe that is not the case in your country.

Do you have any kind of reference for this? Just curious.

If that were the case, as digitalis points out, we should all be shooting 8x10 film, which kicks the crap out of any FF sensor out there. 35mm is a very small fraction of what 8x10 film produces. It always amazes me how people try and hold 42mm FF as some kind of standard. The Canon 51MP ff is supposed to be fantastic, the Pentax 645z is awesome, and Peter Gursky use a 5x7 Linholf. 42 MP ff is small change. Those guys looking at large images with a loupe aren't going to be impressed with a 42 MP ff. They are used to seeing better. And if you think you're going to impress them with a 42 MP FF you're a few bricks short of a load. Those guys don't give a crap that you used a 42MP FF, in simple terms, that's a long way from the best, even for FF, and it comes no where near stacking up against larger formats.

Please don't delude yourself by thinking 42MP ff is going to get you into the big boy club.

It's not even going to get you into the top of the high end FF club.

I have to ask, how many images have you actually sold to these loupe wielding buyers, why should we believe you have a clue what it takes to satisfy them?

People like Gursky with their 120 MP files can talk about high res. People comparing 36 or 42 to 24 haven't even hit the 51 MP that's available for some MF and FF shooters forget about the new Phase one 80 MP FF MF camera, These days 42 MP in the high res game is small potatoes.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/38-photographic-technique/203024-who-took...hotograph.html

While Gursky got 4 million for Rhein II which brought in 4 million, other images have brought in over 1million that didn't depend on hi res at a all. My guess is whatever you think you are going to get by going high res, you could do just as well using a lower resolution, unless you think you can top the 1 million lower res image. It all depends, on who you think you are.

[vonBaloney]

Man there something to understand out there: the client is king.

And really if you ask some serious money for your print, the client will be picky. Because really he could buy anyone else picture for the same or far less, so you have to be better, or as least as great as others to play the game.

In many cases, getting more resolutions is not that difficult. In particular if that only means a camera that is worth 3000$ instead of 1000$.

Even the taxi that want to provide the comfort of just a good car has to spend far more than that and buying the right to be a taxi driver can cost 100,000$ or more. Worse, if you took a specialty in nuclear physics, you will have difficulties to be an independant or to get your business of making and selling nuclear power plants or bombs that easily.

No client has ever said the word "resolution" to me or would even know what that is as far as I can tell. When they ask for a bigger print that we've already got prices listed for, and we tell them the price, 9 times out of 10 we never hear from them again. As norm points out, unless you are competing in the highest echelons of the fine art world, most of this is irrelevant as long as you are competent and making decent prints. My main points are these:

-- Whatever MP the camera natively is sets the maximum resolution you're going to get out of the thing (which with a Bayer sensor is lower than whatever that number is), but the effective MP of each individual image varies WIDELY depending on color content of the image and ISO (primarily). So saying "now that I've got an X MP camera I can print at such-and-such a size because dpi blah blah blah" makes no sense, and is just not true. (Unless you're taking about ALWAYS printing well below the capability of the camera.)

-- The idea that you need a huge MP camera to make prints of 20x30, 24x36, 36x48, etc is absurd. You can intelligently upsample your images to get whatever dpi you desire. The idea that you can't enlarge the "canvas" that you start with is insane to me -- you can make it quite a bit larger before you run into trouble. So sure, there are limits, and all else being equal, more resolution might look "better", but we've been at the point of being able to make good prints of most content at those sizes for years and years now. With the MP counts we are getting into now, we should be talking about mega 60x80 prints and up while still being able to stand 2 feet away to look at details and have them look good. If you are actually going to take in the entire image and stand at an appropriate distance, naturally you've got much more leeway. (Giant billboards are printed at 150dpi or so I think.) But I understand the appeal of having a big print that never "degrades" as you look closer. (And we've been making them for years with our 16,14,&10 MP cameras.)

[Fenwoodian]

No client has ever said the word "resolution" to me or would even know what that is as far as I can tell. When they ask for a bigger print that we've already got prices listed for, and we tell them the price, 9 times out of 10 we never hear from them again. As norm points out, unless you are competing in the highest echelons of the fine art world, most of this is irrelevant as long as you are competent and making decent prints. My main points are these:

-- Whatever MP the camera natively is sets the maximum resolution you're going to get out of the thing (which with a Bayer sensor is lower than whatever that number is), but the effective MP of each individual image varies WIDELY depending on color content of the image and ISO (primarily). So saying "now that I've got an X MP camera I can print at such-and-such a size because dpi blah blah blah" makes no sense, and is just not true. (Unless you're taking about ALWAYS printing well below the capability of the camera.)

-- The idea that you need a huge MP camera to make prints of 20x30, 24x36, 36x48, etc is absurd. You can intelligently upsample your images to get whatever dpi you desire. The idea that you can't enlarge the "canvas" that you start with is insane to me -- you can make it quite a bit larger before you run into trouble. So sure, there are limits, and all else being equal, more resolution might look "better", but we've been at the point of being able to make good prints of most content at those sizes for years and years now. With the MP counts we are getting into now, we should be talking about mega 60x80 prints and up while still being able to stand 2 feet away to look at details and have them look good. If you are actually going to take in the entire image and stand at an appropriate distance, naturally you've got much more leeway. (Giant billboards are printed at 150dpi or so I think.) But I understand the appeal of having a big print that never "degrades" as you look closer. (And we've been making them for years with our 16,14,&10 MP cameras.)

Sorry, I don't buy what you are saying. You obviously are not in the business of selling large high-quality prints!

[vonBaloney]

Sorry, I don't buy what you are saying. You obviously are not in the business of selling large high-quality prints!

Like I say, there are limits. And some content would be less appropriate than some other. But you're telling me I can't make a (for instance) decent 20x30 print from my K-5? That's crazy. I've got a 20x30 print that just arrived from the lab (that actually came out of the 14MP K-7) sitting right here and it looks great. (We print this one as big as 30x45 -- 20x30 is a "medium-size".) We've sold dozens of them, and everybody raves about the quality and the printing. You are obviously not in the business of maximizing the potential of your images!