Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-28-2016, 06:04 AM - 1 Like   #61
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
QuoteQuote:
So you are really looking for the printer manufacturers to quote the very best case scenario, using the best quality paper and images of the highest standard for resolution?
This would be fine only IF all manufacturers used the same standard testing criteria.
You mean like Imatest for printers... sorry, I'm not seeing the problem.

72, 100 and 150 PPI testing hardly surprising although questionable as no mention of image content or just as important print viewing distance. 10 ppi can look good and appear to show detail viewed at the correct distance i.e. a poster viewed from across the road!
Would you care to share a link to your set of independent data?

QuoteQuote:
Apart from my own printing, such people as Jeff Schewe, the late Bruce Fraser, Mike Chaney (Qimage), Bart Van Der Wolf, Jim Kasson, Ernst Dinkla, the late Uwe Steinmueller to name just a few proffessional users and their practical observations
As it seems that you have seen very little data relating to the phenomenon a very short list below:
Schewe
The Right Resolution - Digital Photo Pro
Chaney
The Qimage Print Quality Challenge
This one had to think about because really it comes across as someone who has actually rediscovered the wheel. Nevertheless this does not mean the findings incorrect
Introducing the Ultraprint ? Ming Thein | Photographer
I did quite a bit of research on this.... and I found not one blind test, where it was established that higher ppi prints produced images viewers found to be better.

QuoteQuote:
72, 100 and 150 PPI testing hardly surprising although questionable as no mention of image content or just as important print viewing distance. 10 ppi can look good and appear to show detail viewed at the correct distance i.e. a poster viewed from across the road!
Would you care to share a link to your set of independent data?
A straw poll done in a photography class, 20 students, 8x10 images students could hold in their hands. Any data is better than no data.

Long story short, regardless of the printer company misdirection, my advice to people , as long as your original file size means you are going to have 100 pixels per inch, give it a try, you might like it.

Since I've been thinking for a while I have my own conjecture about why many photographer think what they think, I noticed a while ago comparing a friends D810 and my K-5 images at UWA waterfall thoughts. The photographers looked at the slight distortion of the 8mm Sigma and said "this is the K-5 file, meaning they preferred the D810 file. They were completely incapable of evaluating the artistic value of the prints because they were caught up in the technical. Ordinary people didn't care, they selected the image they thought was most pleasing to look at. They didn't care what format it was taken with and they didn't look for the fact that one image had twice the resolution of the other. . They looked at the image. and some preferred the APS-c image. This is the kind of thing I think technical people get caught up in. You tell me to look at the difference between my display and my grandson's retina display. Well, I have , and while some images look better on the retina, some are fine on either, and in that case, the retina display costs a lot more money to see the same thing.

I believe this comment
QuoteQuote:
FWIW. I am somewhat loathe to mention this and I will not be drawn into further discussion on this particular subject but.. My own practical experience is based on over 40 years working as a professional (Photographer and Consultant) in the image and information field including setting up analogue and digital printing services and educating photographers in best practice.
Probably fits into that category.

If it's any consolation, my current evaluation is that I'm going to use a printing service for further printing. The ability to do top notch prints is just as much a skill as photography, and just because you're good at one doesn't mean you're good at the other. And I'm starting to think the same about my final PP work. The final PP needs to be done by someone who understands the characteristics of the printer, and what the intended result is.

I see a lot of use for print professionals. But, I'd hate to see folks held back by the ridiculous input files size suggestions published in various places around the web. To me saying you have to have native 300 dpi or 600ppi to have the most enjoyable to look at print is next to criminal. It's industry hype encouraged by those encouraging the MP race.

An image can be a great image, without those kinds of file sizes.

QuoteQuote:
Canon's fine print option is not 300 PPI but 600 PPI are you talking about printer laying down ink (dpi) or your file size in PPI?
Actually I looked far and wide for this info and even wrote to Canon, so yo might be right.. I never found a definitive answer, but, some of the Services I used asked for my files going to their Canon printers to be 300 ppi. I guess they didn't know about the 600ppi thing either.

I'm quite happy to accept that I can't put the time and energy and expense into finding out exactly how my Canon printer worked. But, in high school, if finished in aptitude above 95% percentile in english comprehension and math, so, if I can't figure it out, how many people can? TO me this is middle ages guild type stuff. You don't know a thing if you don't know the secret handshake.

My conclusion after all this, is if you really want top notch printing, if you think it's critical to your print, and in most prints it's not, but the flip side of that is, in some prints it is, go to a pro, pay him to do some PP to clean up your work for the printer as well as work out the best way to print it.

But don't sell your lo-res files short. Modern upscaling software will get you amazing prints with little to work with, at much lower input resolutions than printer companies would suggest. And remember your best image printed from a low res file, is always better than a crap image printed at 600 ppi. Print standards have little to do with the enjoyment people get out of your images in most cases.

And don't be a criminal, don't tell folks that the most enjoyable prints will be 600 ppi without upscaling. That's just nonsense.

I'm sure a print professional will look at those 600 dpi prints and feel a certain degree of satisfaction, but for the average Joe to put his favourite picture from his vacation on his wall, for the most part, a lot less is just as good. Better, because he gets a nice big print that's great to look at, and didn't have to take a 645z and stitch four images together to get it.


Last edited by normhead; 08-28-2016 at 07:25 AM.
08-28-2016, 08:28 AM   #62
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,144
An amateur user's input:

My wife and I have only one colour printer in our house. It is a little Canon Selphy C910. It prints using die sublimation on 4x6 paper using a one use film. It prints very nice 4x6 prints, once you discover the correct settings in LR. My wife and I both use LR for our editing; I also use DxO and Franzis plugins.

If I want 4x5 inch prints up to 8x10, I send full res jpegs to Cranbrook Photo. If I want bigger than that, I go to print shops. My 20x30 metallic mentioned earlier in the thread was printed by Posterjack here in Canada from a 10 mpx file from my K10D. I sold it to a very happy customer, who wanted to be able to show prospective home buyers the neighbourhoods in an almost helicopter viewpoint. Every house is clear, but you cannot read the house numbers. I have an 11x14 print from Velvia 50 that is nothing short of gorgeous. The slide development, print specifications and the printing were done by a pro shop for a quite large sum of money - around $300 I remember - but the results are nothing short of spectacular. That's where I'm with Norm - let the pros do their professional thing. I'll take the image. If I want a huge print from my K-3, I will send the raw file, exported as a full resolution TIFF to a pro shop and let them have at it and my wallet.

I seem to be siding with Norm Head on this issue, and I am. I got my new-to-me K-3 (used) because my K10D was failing, not to get more resolution in the sensor. For scenery, I still prefer the colours I got without effort out of the K10's CCD sensor at ISO 100. I have had to set up special treatment to approach that in LR form the CMOS sensor in the K-3. On the other side, I can crop more from the K-3 without losing detail. That's a nice bonus.

For me, printing is someone else's forte. My forte is taking prictues. I hated the darkroom, and I find my Lightroom a pain, too, but I don't get migraine headaches from the fumes.
08-28-2016, 08:34 AM   #63
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 104
QuoteQuote:
You mean like Imatest for printers... sorry, I'm not seeing the problem.
The problem is that manufacturers will not undertake this type of test as generally it takes too much time and too many variables involved to offer meaningful results. In addition from a manufacturers POV it may be considered that competing manufacturers may not stick to recommendations.

Why should they use a third party application such as Imatest which needs to be licencenced and as good as it is does not have official standards associated with it such as ISO/ANSI or any other at least AFAIK? Better to let the customer arrive at the conclusion or others that test and compare printers for a living?

Imatest is I am sure a fine application but as they state If you plan to print charts using their modules, you should be skilled at fine printing and have a good knowledge of color management to obtain optimum chart quality otherwise you are wasting your time.

If you are suggesting that you have personally used Imatest then please share your findings as it is hard to believe that you cannot perceive differences between printing at higher ppi using this application and charts

QuoteQuote:
I did quite a bit of research on this.... and I found not one blind test, where it was established that higher ppi prints produced images viewers found to be better.
Please study the links I provided, in particular The Qimage Print Quality Challenge and do yourself a favour and download and print (after following the instructions) the correct file for your Canon or Epson printers. Also some research on what these experts say will yield you dividends with your own printing endeavours.

This is the image you should be printing (I post with full acceptance that Qimage owns all the rights hence also supplying the link) on your most used papers including your best and you will be sending image data direct to the printer of 600 ppi


If you cannot see any difference then your printing pipeline faulty.

QuoteQuote:
A straw poll done in a photography class, 20 students, 8x10 images students could hold in their hands. Any data is better than no data.
Long story short, regardless of the printer company misdirection, my advice to people , as long as your original file size means you are going to have 100 pixels per inch, give it a try, you might like it.
Straw polls and blind tests of the general public is of little value IMO. Show two prints with the correct subject matter i.e. a high resolution capture of a subject with considerable detail and make sure that contrast, colour matches and one printed at optimal ppi resolution and one at less than optimal then you may get someone to notice that fine detail is rendered better on the optimally made print. Show a professional art director, creative director, magazine or other photo agency something less than optimal will often get you a rejection.

Please either try and corroborate you assertions that printer companies misdirect the public with evidence as requested earlier otherwise this is just another highly subjective interpretation of what is presented.

I absolutely agree however that if all you have is 100 ppi for your required print resolution there is no reason why this cannot be acceptable (this is a different scenario than you seem to describe earlier). It really depends on your print size and viewing distance, your visual acuity (and acceptance of less than optimum data). An example of a 20"x30" print @100 ppi viewed by someone with 20/20 vision at 30" distance can be very acceptable, however someone with higher visual acuity may need much more than 100 ppi to get an acceptable view - assuming they actually cared about optimum quality.

Technical people and therefore by definition many professionals do not/should not get caught up in anything other than the pursuit of excellence. It must always be assumed that the data is to be treated in the best way to present the best result and that data is good data to begin with. Anything less is hardly professional and the fact that in some cases you may be casting pearls before swine pretty much irrelevant when discussing the real effects of high end printing

QuoteQuote:
The ability to do top notch prints is just as much a skill as photography, and just because you're good at one doesn't man you're good at the other. And I'm starting to think the same about my final PP work. The final PP needs to be done by someone who understands the characteristics of the printer, and what the intended result is.
Ahh, now this is again different to the previous thrust of needing no more than 100ppi.

I agree that printing correctly requires skill earned by good knowledge backed up by experience and it is no means assured that a photographer automatically has the knowledge and skill. I speak from personal experience of printing for many professional photographers and those in related printing industry

QuoteQuote:
I see a lot of use for print professionals. But, I'd hate to see folks held back by the ridiculous input files size suggestions published in various places around the web. To me recommending saying you have to have native 300 dpi or 600ppi to have the most enjoyable to look at print is next to criminal. It's industry hype encouraged by those encouraging the MP race.
An image can be a great image, without those kinds of file sizes.
Well we nearly agree on this as well.
You certainly do not have to have a native resolution of 300/360, 600/720 to get a great print or have an enjoyable print viewing experience. In fact without good data in the first place, that is an image with less than optimal sharpness (minor shake or missed focus on ROI) including treating correctly in post, then it is unlikely that higher ppi will add anything of observable benefit.
QuoteQuote:
Actually I looked far and wide for this info and even wrote to Canon, so yo might be right.. I never found a definitive answer, but, some of the Services I used asked for my files going to their Canon printers to be 300 ppi. I guess they didn't know about the 600ppi thing either.
You should find the answer for Canon is in the full specs for the printer and referred to as Nozzle pitch e.g. 600dpi x 2

Very few Labs seem to offer 600 / 700 ppi services - larger file sizes, lack of knowledge, not wanting to confuse the punters etc. - take your choice. But if truly professional lab they may offer it as a special (priced accordingly) if you ask

QuoteQuote:
My conclusion after all this, is if you really want top notch printing, if you think it's critical to your print, and in most prints it's not, but the flip side of that is, in some prints it is, go to a pro, pay him to do some PP to clean up your work for the printer as well as work out the best way to print it.
This I thought the crux of the discussion optimal print quality for when it is required and also the assumption that this related to producing professional level results
QuoteQuote:
And don't be a criminal, don't tell folks that the most enjoyable prints will be 600 ppi without upscaling. That's just nonsense.
I am not aware that anyone has actually stated or implied such in this forum and further would be interested to any links outside the forum where this is suggested particularly from pro users
08-28-2016, 09:26 AM   #64
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,001
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I do think that if you think you are going to "move up" in cameras over time, it makes little sense to buy the cheapest gear and then try to sell it and purchase a little more expensive gear. Better to start with your goal camera (if you can afford it) and learn to shoot with it.

As to how hard it is to learn any of these cameras, to my way of thinking it is a lot easier. Older cameras like the K10 or K7 really struggled with dynamic range and if you underexposed at all, you were likely to end up with a grainy, washed out image. Recent vintage cameras have much easier learning curve as even if you don't hit your exposure exactly, you can fix a lot of things in post (although the goal should be still to get the image right in camera).

It isn't rocket science. Learning to shoot with a 645z isn't really that much different than learning with a K50 -- it is just bigger and a lot more expensive.
The 645z has the guts of a K3, along with the larger sensor, in a larger body. Essentially the same controls as a K3. Now, I have only touched one a couple of times - actually was able to take a couple of shots, but looking at one - everything looks very familiar. I view it as a dSLR on steroids. I would love to have one, but I am really satisfied with my K5IIs.

QuoteOriginally posted by Kolor-Pikker Quote
....
The Z is still hard to use as a regular DSLR, in part due to the f/2.8 limit on lenses and the need to hold a shutter speed twice as high as you'd want normally for hand-held shooting, plus the lack of stabilization on all but the most expensive lenses. That's about three stops of leeway you're losing compared to a Canon with an f/1.4 prime, whether it be in noise or shutter speed.
I shoot off a tripod now any way with my K5IIs - late evening, nights, etc. - so, I'am thinking I could easily live with all the limitations.

QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
Yeah, MF can deliver stunning results, but it is much more difficult to use. It is big, heavy, the controls are more advanced, there are more things to think about. But the optics and image recording are a step better.
This is why most people start with an entry level DSLR, Yes, its cheaper, but its also made for beginners, with functions and automation that beginners need, without the most complicated features that only some pros appreciate.
But if you are willing to power through the steeper learning curve, you can start anywhere. But it might take longer to see good results if you start with 645Z than if you start with K-50.
If I were starting over again and had the opportunity to start with a 645z (or perhaps the K1), I personally would go with the better/larger camera (of whatever size). At one time, I would not have said that.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You've completely missed the part where he wants to do large scale prints. Not my experience but I was recently talking to one of the pros who helped me get into the craft sale circuit. He recently went from a Canon 3Dmk3 to a Nikon D810 and I had to listen to him rave on about the added detail for about 5 minutes.

For those of us who start with super hi-res on view cameras, you've got us wondering... do you actually understand that to do really high res images you have to give up run and gun shortcuts? Another thing you miss. As format size increases, the need for high quality glass decreases. Canon's stable of lenses means next to nothing to an MF shooter.

....

A 645z will give you that at 40 inches by 70 inches with no stitching. I'm not at all certain that you're seeing this right. The evidence I've seen would suggest otherwise.

I have seen test that show for large scale printing, 72 lw/ph is enough. that pushes your 645z file to huge sizes. I mean how big are we talking here? With a 645z producing more than 4000 lw/ph of strong detail you could conceivably push it to more than 60 inches by 90 inches and still show very fine detail down to 1/70 of an inch.

I know some people think they need to be able to count threads on an image of a 300 threads per inch bed sheet for the image to be acceptable, but folks, in the real world, that's preposterous. You need magnification to do that in real life.
I am certainly no expert at printing - actually quite the novice. My large prints at 20x30, I can count on one hand. Seeing my work in physical form - on a single sheet of paper to me was absolutely stunning, even from a K5. My thinking was, I want to see it, just how bad could it be - it is not going to be 300dpi, but it is what it is. It looks good on the monitor - and for $9.99 at Costco, it is not going to break the bank.

I send it off to Costco, and go pick it up the next day. I'm at the counter and get the print rolled up in the plastic sleeve and pull it out to take a look. My first reaction is WOW. There is an older guy right next to me, who looks over and says - That is really quite nice! He is a retired photographer - picking up some cat photos for his next door neighbor. While we are talking, he is very nicely walking through the image discussing what I have done right and a small problem I had with it (which I knew about - but didn't know how to correct). The print was at 160dpi. He then tells me, that if I truly want to be impressed - send it off to a professional print lab, strap myself in to a 5 point seat belt harness before looking at the print.

After a month of looking at the print on the wall, I get it professionally printed. The guy is right. The collective differences between the Costco print and the pro print is amazing. Better paper, better ink, better overall presentation of the image considering the better finish, materials and process. The shear difference in presentation between poster paper at Costco and pearl metallic paper, and the cost difference was not that much $9.99 at Costco and $40 at MPix. ... and this is a 16MP original image.

So, now I am in a quandary - what do I do with the Costco print. I can't bear to toss it, and a couple of folks at work heard me say something about the original print and say - Bring it IN. So, I do. Here is everyone gathered around the table in my office looking at it - close, as in a few inches away. Then one joker leaves and comes back with a magnifying glass. Everyone is commenting on seeing individual cobblestones in the foreground of the image - and can't even see the individual pixels. It just looks overall great. --- and I don't have the heart to tell them that they need to see the professional printed copy, to be truly amazed.

... so it is now hanging in the office of the joker with the magnifying glass.

QuoteOriginally posted by Kolor-Pikker Quote
I didn't miss anything, 30MP is easily enough for large-scale prints. As you go up in resolution, the percentile bonus to resolution progressively becomes less and less, which is what we actually perceive as detail. In case of your friend, going up to the D810 was not just a 250% increase in resolution but the added image clarity due to the wide dynamic range. The difference between that and an extra 14MP with maybe half a stop extra DR is still there of course, but much less impressive.
I have often said that I am so happy with the K5, that I can just stay where I am. Between this and what I saw with the K5 print, along with a lot of other statements about the advantages of the K1, I just might start to consider it. For me the 645z (and the 28-45 lens) is a bit too much to spend. If I do anything - it will either be the new crop body or perhaps the K1 (but then would need one more lens, the 15-30 to take advantage of the sensor size for WA).

QuoteOriginally posted by texandrews Quote
While you and I have had serious differences with each other on the forums in the past, this second portion of your post is something that should be read by all who print, with respect to the combination of the resolution of files, the camera's capabilities, and the realities of the printer's capabilities (and the "fine print" thereof...!), and real world viewing of a print. I have commented not so much to add needless affirmation but to make sure this is "bookmarked" and accessible to me in the near future.
Yes!! Absolutely - I have bookmarked this a number of posts ago. This has to be one of the best overall photography threads - capturing to printing, especially the printing aspects.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
...
I'm looking right now a an image that I printed a 300 DPI to trigger Canon's fine print option. The same image printed twice the size at half the resolution looks better, This is way more complicated than printer company information is going to lead you to believe.

...

The simple fact is we don't know what we're getting. We submit our the highest res work and hope for the best. to me, that's not acceptable. I won't be buying another printer, until I can understand the difference in the output of the various models, and I can have some kind of empiracle test to confirm my belief that what I am doing is actually working as expected. When i was burning $220 every few months for cartridges and doing a lot of my own printer, simple fact, most of the time I could not see a difference in quality between my HP 4 colour printer/scanner/fax machine and my Canon Pixma Pro 9500 10 colour printer. Owning my own printer was one of the more disappointing aspects of my career.
I have actually had some thoughts about getting a printer - but this discussion has cured me of that thought. Better to just go out and concentrate on the craft of capturing a wonderful image. I just can't do everything - and this is just for myself from here on out.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
....
My conclusion after all this, is if you really want top notch printing, if you think it's critical to your print, and in most prints it's not, but the flip side of that is, in some prints it is, go to a pro, pay him to do some PP to clean up your work for the printer as well as work out the best way to print it.

But don't sell your lo-res files short. Modern upscaling software will get you amazing prints with little to work with, at much lower input resolutions than printer companies would suggest. And remember your best image printed from a low res file, is always better than a crap image printed at 600 ppi. Print standards have little to do with the enjoyment people get out of your images in most cases.

And don't be a criminal, don't tell folks that the most enjoyable prints will be 600 ppi without upscaling. That's just nonsense.

I'm sure a print professional will look at those 600 dpi prints and feel a certain degree of satisfaction, but for the average Joe to put his favourite picture from his vacation on his wall, for the most part, a lot less is just as good. Better, because he gets a nice big print that's great to look at, and didn't have to take a 645z and stitch four images together to get it.
Thanks - you just described me to a "T"....

And then I saw this - way out of my league .... but - what a starter kit!just add a tripod, head and a couple of camera plates.





Last edited by interested_observer; 08-28-2016 at 09:39 AM.
08-28-2016, 10:51 AM   #65
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2014
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 146
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
I have actually had some thoughts about getting a printer - but this discussion has cured me of that thought. Better to just go out and concentrate on the craft of capturing a wonderful image. I just can't do everything - and this is just for myself from here on out.
Well, I can vouch that printing is a hobby in and of itself. Ah, the artisanal secrets of printer maintenance and joys of making sure that your expensive-chunk-of-cellulose-that-surely-is-made-out-of-unicorn-hide does not have any dust specks that could ruin the end result.

You should only do printing yourself if you are (IMO + YMMV):

a) A control freak wrt. your pictures
b) Genuinely interested in printing
c) Prepared to get ink up to your armpits
d) On enough of a budget not to worry about print and printer maintenance costs too much (or you print LOADS of prints)

But well.. printing is actually fun if you are so inclined. Tinkering with materials selection, color adjustments as per materials, gamma adjustments e.g. is an intriguing rabbit hole with loads of room for expressing your photos. And hey, at least you know who's at fault if the end result isn't up to snuff (and can't blame misinterpretation of the intent on the printers part).
08-28-2016, 11:18 AM   #66
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,001
QuoteOriginally posted by fromunderthebridge Quote
Well, I can vouch that printing is a hobby in and of itself. Ah, the artisanal secrets of printer maintenance and joys of making sure that your expensive-chunk-of-cellulose-that-surely-is-made-out-of-unicorn-hide does not have any dust specks that could ruin the end result.
I came across this new YouTube channel - the Swedish Dynamite Channel. I have a printer that they could use as a demonstrator. I liked it very much, but then the ink head dried up and it will no longer even scan... Here is to you - Cannon. Fire in the Hole!!!!


You should only do printing yourself if you are (IMO + YMMV):

a) A control freak wrt. your pictures - no, not me!
b) Genuinely interested in printing - I'm interested (my grandfather was a Master Printer from the old country).
c) Prepared to get ink up to your armpits - no, not at $800 per oz
d) On enough of a budget not to worry about print and printer maintenance costs too much (or you print LOADS of prints) - again, not me!!
QuoteQuote:
But well.. printing is actually fun if you are so inclined. Tinkering with materials selection, color adjustments as per materials, gamma adjustments e.g. is an intriguing rabbit hole with loads of room for expressing your photos. And hey, at least you know who's at fault if the end result isn't up to snuff (and can't blame misinterpretation of the intent on the printers part). :
It's fun up to a point - and then it's drudgery. As of next Friday - I am only going to do what I want to do. No more time cards and charge numbers in order to maintain a legal charging base. I'm retiring.....

08-28-2016, 11:30 AM - 1 Like   #67
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 104
Ahh, the trials and tribulations of printing. Comforting to think that not just related to your own printers whatever the size or cost.

Good to know that others offer good advice on how to fix including this guys innovative fix to Epson clogging issues

08-28-2016, 12:00 PM   #68
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,001
I feel his pain.....



08-28-2016, 12:45 PM   #69
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
QuoteOriginally posted by TonyW Quote
Ahh, the trials and tribulations of printing. Comforting to think that not just related to your own printers whatever the size or cost.

Good to know that others offer good advice on how to fix including this guys innovative fix to Epson clogging issues

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf6kOEtgQqE
As is often the case, once you get the hyperbole, rhetoric and different communication styles out of the way. Everyone is thinking the same thing.
08-30-2016, 10:56 AM   #70
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 104
As this thread seems to have reached its natural conclusion I have started a new thread with a couple of quick examples re ppi which I hope may be of interest link below

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/32-digital-processing-software-printing/3...ml#post3754735
08-31-2016, 02:27 PM   #71
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,201
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
I've handled a 645z and played with some real-world images from it, and believe it or not, I think the K-1 is closer to the Z in overall image quality (both resolution and DR) than it is to the K-3 and beats both in ease of use.
(Some have been making that point for years, that the FF sensor is closer in size to the MF sensor than to the APS-C sensor...but I am not trying to turn this into one of those threads )
08-31-2016, 04:36 PM   #72
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 758
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
In which case you ought to be looking at a Hasselblad H5D or something like that
Or a Hassy X1D. They're not much more than a 645z.

X1D - Hasselblad
09-04-2016, 09:54 AM   #73
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 110
QuoteOriginally posted by toolasm Quote
guys i need a camera to make big high quality prints. what's the best choice please canon 5dsr or pentax 645d. Thank you very much.

The 5DsR over this Pentax. You'd have a more difficult decision if you were considering the Pentax 645z. Both (645z and 5DsR) are 50 MPs but the Pentax is 4:3 and the 5DsR is 3:2. Framing becomes a consideration. If dynamic range is a concern, then the 645z is your tool. The 5tDsR has an electronic first curtain shutter which helps with camera vibration in certain circumstances. The 5DsR has a more robust AF system which is not to say the Pentax does not have accurate AF. Canon has a more robust lens line-up with whole bevy of world class zooms, Pentax is slowly but surely updating their line-up at a rate of about one lens a year.
09-04-2016, 12:30 PM   #74
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,001
QuoteOriginally posted by toolasm Quote
guys i need a camera to make big high quality prints. what's the best choice please canon 5dsr or pentax 645d. Thank you very much.
Hi Tool,

The question that you have posed does appear to be simple, and should illicit a simple response. However, your simple question goes to the heart of photography as a "system". What I mean by system is the ordered set of events leading up to your super large print arriving at your home. What you have extracted so far with your simple question is by far a wonderful and very engaging discussion of the entire process. You can acquire the absolute best "__________" - where you fill in the blank (camera body, lens, post processing, print pre-production, printing, ink, paper, process, etc.) and you can still come up short. What you need to do is look at the entire process, step by step and put the jigsaw puzzle together.

So, just for grins - let's give it a try.
  • Shooting - What kind of shooting are you doing? Always in wonderful light, or in late afternoons, early evening - low level ambient light - night, etc. Are you always going to be shooting at the absolute lowest ISO? It makes a difference. Landscapes, cityscapes, astro, etc., are always tough compared to studio shooting with lights where essentially everything can be made perfect. If you can make everything perfect, as in a studio, then just about any camera will do. So, this is going to have an effect on what camera you will select.
  • Lenses - to the heart of the matter, lenses collect and focus the light. Lenses are more important than the body. Canon has the widest range and selection of lenses bar none, and they are excellent quality. Pentax, can match Canon to varying degrees depending on what you shoot. For the most part - either Canon or Pentax will cover your needs. Exceptions - Tilt/shift lenses - Pentax has just a couple third party, Canon has a number. Macro - Canon has all you want, Pentax has a couple of very high quality lenses. The quality and resolution ability of the lens is going to determine the quality and resolution of what the camera body is going to be able to capture.
  • Bodies - You have honed in on high megapixel sensor bodies. Initially the 645D now the 645Z and the Canon 5DRS. You might as well toss in the K1, Pentax's new full frame that is pretty much the equivalent of the Nikon D810 (same sensor). Any one of these bodies will do a great job for you - with the caveat of what you are shooting. You can always arrange a shooting scenario where one body excels, while the others don't do so good. That is again why "what are you shooting" becomes really the first question, followed by the lens in terms how it is going to collect and focus the light - which determines what the sensor is actually able to collects. There are also questions about the camera's user interface and controls, etc. Also, take a look at this noise database. In particular select the 5DRS and the K1. The 5DRS at 50 MP has twice the noise of the K1 (and the 645Z which is not listed is pretty similar to the K1).
  • Post Processing - The software utilities (RAW processing). There are differences You have Adobe (LightRoom and PS), along with Capture One, along with - at least another 10. see the thread below - it has a running discussion on various RAW post processing utilities. You will be shooting in RAW and not JPG in order to do what you want to do. There are always pluses and minuses. The way you process and the various capabilities and functions you have available will matter.
  • Print pre-production - This can be one step or several steps. Might be some steps you do and other steps the printer does. But this is where you can take a low megapixel sensor's results and enlarge them to varying extents so that you can print really large. There are utilities that can do this. That said, it is best for you to do this in conjunction with you printer of choice. So that the printer knows what they are going to be getting to work with. Also, you want a printer that is VERY knowledgeable about printing large.
  • The Printer - You need to talk with various printers in terms of what you want actually printed. Do you want an image from a 16MP sensor printed at 4 feet by 6 feet on metallic paper? or Canvas or Metal Sheet or ________. You need to talk to a few and then think about it. This will have an effect on the camera body that you select. Talk with them, take good notes, figure out which one will be the easiest to work with, in terms of your subject matter and need for size. The questions that they ask you, and the information that they will provide will be very helpful in terms of selecting the right gear to shoot with. They will also have opinions certainly on the printer pre production utilities, but will also have opinions on the post processing utilities.
So, your easy question really comes down to a series of decisions across a number of areas. Sit down and handle each area one by one, laying out what you want to do. Bookend this. And what I mean is - take the first area - what are you going to shoot. That is a known to you. You know what you want to shoot. Write it down, describing what you intend to do, what weather conditions, and lighting conditions.

Then for the rest of them, start doing this backwards - start with the Printer and go backwards. Call them up and start asking questions. They will be happy to answer - especially for some one who wants to print really REALLY BIG. Ask, especially about the print pre-production utilities, since that is going to define the general type and size of sensor you are going to be interested in. They will say the largest, but there is more to this than just absolute size.

Awhile ago I ran across this wonderful article. It covers everything you are interested in - other than printing. It is a story of an on going - never ending odyssey. You can benefit from the article. This again goes back to what and how do you shoot. Pixel shift works for him in the studio. It may or may not work for you. That will help define the camera body. Even with the camera body, he had work in terms of re-selecting the post-processing utilities. Again, subject matter - matters.Now, compare and contrast the watch article with this video on landscapes...The watch article was studio based - nothing moving and able to use pixel shift to landscape and printing large, where there is possible movement within the frame, but the photographer who was using Bracketing (3 or 5 images), a small amount of movement does not matter. Again - the body selection goes back to what and how are you shooting.


Last edited by interested_observer; 09-04-2016 at 01:03 PM.
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!
645d, 645z, camera, cameras, drive, ft, gear, health, lens, lot, matter, medium format, mind, op, pentax, photos, pixel, print, process, resolution, results, shift, shot
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-3II High res mode ?? Qwntm Pentax K-3 21 07-03-2015 09:38 PM
First Canon 5Dsr camera "review" reytor Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 2 06-12-2015 02:42 AM
Pentax 645z vs Canon 5DSR 50.6 Mpx Stavri Pentax Medium Format 103 06-07-2015 06:03 PM
Korean 27" High Res Displays Tom Woj Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 10 08-20-2012 07:43 AM
A place to put photos online to share that prints but also allows full res downloads. ziscwg Pentax DSLR Discussion 14 03-08-2012 07:09 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:50 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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