Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-14-2010, 08:34 PM   #16
Forum Member
Cregar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Albums
Posts: 96
I have been doing Giclee prints the last 8 years on the Roland 54" HiFi Jet Pro printer then recently on the Epson Stylus Pro GS6000 64" printer. We recommended a resolution of at least 150 ppi but preferred a resolution of 200 ppi at the size you want to print at (exp: 20x30 at 200 ppi). We were printing for quite a few high end artist. We used a Cruse 4'x6' flat bed scanner to scan in original artwork.

07-15-2010, 10:40 AM   #17
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
when I go into GIMP (I know, I know) my image is 4672 * 3104 at 240 DPI.
Your image is only 240dpi *if* you happen to print it at 4672/240 inches long.

QuoteQuote:
I was only hanging an 8 * 12, so I went and increased the DPI to 300. This action is non-destructive so long as you allow the image size to decrease.
Non-destructive indeed, because it in fact accomplishes nothing and is completely unnecessary. If you have not increased or decreased the number of pixels, then the print comes out *identical* regardless of what dpi value is stored in the EXIF. Only operations that actually add or remove pixels affect the results in an way.

QuoteQuote:
In your case a DPI of 300 may be impossible without resampling, but the native resolution of 240 DPI is not bad either.
300dpi is perfectly possible and indeed *inevitable* without resampling, *if* you print at 4672/300 inches long. Again, there is nothing whatsoever "native" about 240dpi - that's just the dpi you happen to end up at if you print 4672/240 inches long. Saying a camera has a "native" resolution dpi is like saying a car has a "native" speed in mph. An image doesn't have a resolution in dpi until you print it, and a car doesn't have speed in mph until you drive it. The image resolution can be any dpi at all depending on how big you print it, and the car speed can be any mph at all depending on how hard you press the accelerator.
07-16-2010, 07:01 AM   #18
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Agreed, 72dpi looks bad printed, at least at the sizes a home printer can print. Your basic home inkjet printer - including the cheapest ones they often give away free with a camera or comuter - can do 300dpi. Well, 300ppi - pixels per inch, not dots - if we need to make that distinction here. You'll often see printers bragging about much higher dpi figures, but they are basically just multiply the 300ppi by the number of ink tanks they use. That is, a pixel is made of several dots of different colored ink. So a 300ppi printer that uses 4 colors of ink might says it 1200dpi, but that's still just 300ppi as far as you image is concerned. This distinction is usually made only for printers, not for digital images per se - so the figures reported in Photoshop or in the EXIF of an image as "dpi" are really "ppi".

Anyhow, yes, 72dpi is terrible for printing. But again, we're talking 72 *actual* dots per inch. If you've got 3000x4500 pixels to start with (nice round numbers that are somewhat close to the actual numbers), a 72dpi print is 3000/72 x 4500/72, which is a little over 40x60". That is, you'd have to make a print that big to get resolution as low as 72dpi from a K20D. Once more, I don't care if the EXIF says 72dpi. A print from the K20D is only 72dpi if you actually print 40x60". If you print at any smaller size, the actual resolution is correspondingly higher, EXIF or no EXIF. If you print 10x15", for example, the actual resolution is 300dpi, because you cannot possibly make 3000 divided by 10 not equal 10. Try it; you'll fail. If you take 3000 pixels (the short dimension of the K20D image) and print them on a piece of canvas that is 10 inches wide, that's 3000/10 = 300dpi. Cannot possibly be anything else.

Now, since you talk about "large" canvas prints, maybe you are talking about something approaching 40x60", and are concerned now that 72dpi will look terrible. It actually won't, because nobody looks at a 40x60" print from as close a distance as they do a 10x15" print, much less a 4x6" print. very large prints are routinely done at very low resolution, if for no reason other than that no one has cameras that could possible produce, say, a billboard at 300dpi.
Marc, as soon as you talk about printers it becomes DPI. You are laying a dot of ink down. Pixel refers to a triad color unit on a monitor.

Your basic printers will lay down 4 ink dots. Black. Yellow Cyan and Magenta. It will lay down 100% of the color. No more. No less. The shades of color you see are only an optical illusion. What changes is the size of the dot. Smaller dot in relatio to the white paper and it's a "lighter" color. Hi fidelity or Hex printing will add a silver and an orange. It makes the blacks and some of the other colors more vibrant. And large format can use over 10 color tanks. They add various shades of gray in addition to the black and and they add a few other colors to really make them pop.

On press you really don't go by DPI. It's LPI or lines per inch for your halftone screens. Every color you lay down has a screen at a different angle. I've got one vendor now that's running 500 LPI. It's offset printing that just about looks like a photo. Especially after it gets a liquid lamination.

Marc, as for the 72 dpi stored in exif. Like we've discussed before. That 72 dpi is the amount of dots per inch for the file/picture at the canvas size the camera has stored. It's not meaningless. It tells you outright one third of the equation software needs to know.
07-16-2010, 11:21 AM   #19
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
300dpi is perfectly possible and indeed *inevitable* without resampling, *if* you print at 4672/300 inches long. Again, there is nothing whatsoever "native" about 240dpi - that's just the dpi you happen to end up at if you print 4672/240 inches long.

Oh, ok! Thank you!

So my camera takes 4672 pixels, and I can divide that up however I want. When I divide it up into a larger DPI, I'm just cramming more pixels per inch.

For some reason GIMP always defaults to importing at 240DPI so i assumed the camera was saving that information into the DNG.

So when I save a .tiff file for printing, the DPI i set the file to be has no effect on the print, or does the DPI determine what the printer's DPI will be, or do both the file and the printer have to MATCH.

e.g., I printed at a place called Pickto which asked for (optimally) an 8bit .tiff with a dpi of 300. If I had sent them a 200DPI image, would their printer know and only print at 200DPI, or would it try to print at 300 DPI and I would therefore end up with a smaller image?

07-16-2010, 11:39 AM   #20
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by menessie Quote
I've got the opportunity to post images to a gallery that produces large canvas wall art prints and I'm really keen to do it. They have asked for high res images. When I use my K20 even at the highest setting I get image sizes of 4672 x 3104 pixels at 72 dpi. Is 72 dpi going to be a high enough res for printing large canvases? How can I get a higher res than that without losing quality?
Thanks in advance for much appreciated help
I think you need to look at the thread count of the fabric they are printing on.

If they have a thread couont of 100 threads per linear inch, that implies the grid pattern will be a limiting factor since anything less than this will get lost in the pattern of the fabric.

I would think you could get away with 50 dpi on a 100 thread per inch fabric and no one would notice.
07-16-2010, 12:53 PM   #21
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
Marc, as soon as you talk about printers it becomes DPI.
True, but again - the *actual* dpi is number of pixels dived by print size, regardless of what the EXIF says (or if there is even EXIF present). It is true that if you use a program like Photoshop, it will happily calculate the dpi for you if you set canvas size correctly (or vice versa).

QuoteQuote:
Marc, as for the 72 dpi stored in exif. Like we've discussed before. That 72 dpi is the amount of dots per inch for the file/picture at the canvas size the camera has stored. It's not meaningless.
OK, it has meaning, but no *relevance*. As I said, that 72dpi figure is absolutely correct *if* and *only if* you happen to choose to print your picture at 40x60". If you print at 8any other size at all*, then the resolution *will* be different, and you don't have to change one thing in your picture to do that - all you have to do if tell your softare to print at some other size. So *unless* you happen to be planning on making a 40x60" print, then the number in the EXIF does not tell you the actual resolution of your actual print.

QuoteQuote:
It tells you outright one third of the equation software needs to know.
On the contrary - the software doens't "need to know" the dpi figure from the EXIF; it doesn't even need EXIF at all. You can safely strip the EXIF entirey without affecting the printing of the image one iota - proof positive the software didn't "need to know" that number. The software it *calculates* the actual dpi for you, by simply dividing the number of pixels by the print size that you the user specify.

The only time the software would need to know a dpi figure - and not necessarily the specific figure in the EXIF, but any dpi figure you might happen to want to use for this purpose - is if you wished to ask the question, "what's the largest I can print at a resolution of X dpi". Then it would perform the normal calculation (divide pixels by size to find out resolution) in reverse, to tell you the size that would yield the specified dpi. But you can input *any* dpi figure into this equation - the value in the EXIF is nothing but a default value in this type of calculation.

In plain English: the fact that a camera puts 72 in the EXIF in no way whatsoever affects the resolution at which you can *actually* print. the resolution at which you actually print depends on one thing and one thing only: the size of the print you make. It does *not* depend on any number stored in EXIF- it does not even depend on there being EXIF at all. The camera could put the number 72 in the EXIF, or it could put the number 3, or 42, or 7231, or 1,000,000,000,000,000 - it won't have the slightest affect on the actual resolution of any print you make. If you take X pixles nad print at Y inches, you've got resolution of X/Ydpi, period, end of story - I don't care (nor does the software) what number is in the EXIF, or if there is an EXIF at all.
07-16-2010, 01:14 PM   #22
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
For some reason GIMP always defaults to importing at 240DPI so i assumed the camera was saving that information into the DNG.
It might be, but as mentioned, that's just a placeholder value. The *actual* dpi value will be number of pixels divided by number of inches, period, end of story.

Actually, though, most cameras put 72 into the EXIF, since that's what the EXIF standard itself says that cameras should do (the field is only there for the benefit of *scanners*, which are supposed to put the actual dpi figure - number of pixels in the scan divided by the size of the original source). I'm surprised GIMP overrides this and shows 240 as its default, but maybe that's because it has a default print size, and 240 is the resolution you happen to get when you divide that into the number of pixels? Let's see, you've got 3104 pixels on the short dimension; printed at 240dpi that would be a print size of 3104/240 = 12.9 inches. I suppose it's possible that the GIMP defaults to a canvas 13 inches wide, then, and simply calculates a dpi figure based on that. Not sure, but in any event,it also doesn't matter where theygot that numebr from, because that nuber goes bye-bye the moment you specify the actual print size you want. At that point, the resolution becomes number of pixels divided by size.

I guess it's also possible your particular camera puts 72 in the EXIF for JPEG, but 240 for DNG. I just know my cameras always put 72 in the EXIF no matter what format I shot. Again, not important to know where that number came from, as it gets replaced by an actual calculated dpi figure the moment *you* tell it how big a print you are making.

QuoteQuote:
So when I save a .tiff file for printing, the DPI i set the file to be has no effect on the print, or does the DPI determine what the printer's DPI will be, or do both the file and the printer have to MATCH.
I keep trying to explain this, and evidently keep failing. One more time: the resolution of the actual print will be the number of pixels in your image divided by the size you print at. Period, end of story*. The number you store in the EXIF of the file is irrelevant; you can even strip out the EXIF entirely and the image will still print *exactly* the same.

*OK, I lied: if the print is only capable of 300dpi maximum (as many are), then even if you've got enough pixels for 1000dpi, all you'll get is 300dpi. but you don't have to do anything special to make that happen. The print drivers built in
to the software and/or operating system no how to downscale the image in an appropriate manner. It's possible if you've got fairly high end software and a real mastery of the different resampling algorithms and know which algorithm will produce the results you personally prefer on any given image, that you ever so slightly improve on the results by directing the software under your own expert control to do the resmapling in some manner other than the way the experts who programmed the software thought would be best. After all, those experts don't know you personally or your tastes or the particular image and your vision for the subtleties of how you want the resampling performed. But 99.9999999999% of us haven't a clue about any of that either, so msot people are better off letting the print driver do downscaling for them.

*Upscaling* is another matter - if you want 300dpi but you've only got enough pixels for 150 (for example - and remember, the 240 number you are seeing is just a placeholder, don't don't go around thinking it has relevance here) at the szie you want to print, then *someone* has to make up some pixels. while print drivers can do this for you, they don't tend to

QuoteQuote:
e.g., I printed at a place called Pickto which asked for (optimally) an 8bit .tiff with a dpi of 300. If I had sent them a 200DPI image, would their printer know and only print at 200DPI, or would it try to print at 300 DPI and I would therefore end up with a smaller image?
If they print at any size other than the size you tell them print at, they are idiots, crooks, or both. If you give them an image with enough pixels for a 300dpi at the size *you* tell them to print, it won't matter what the EXIF says. Again, you could strip out the EXIF entirely for all the difference it would make. If on the other hand you give them an image with not enough pixels for 300dpi at the size you asked them to print, then they'll probably either do a "dumb" upscaling of the image, or charge you extra to upscale it well, or hand it back to you and say "we need a higher resolution image". But make no mistake - by "higher resolution image", they mean, *more pixels*, not a higher irrelevant number stored in the EXIF. If you just crank up that number without adding pixels, it's not going to be any different.
07-16-2010, 01:36 PM   #23
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
Ok, thank you. I suppose what was meant to be a helpful feature in GIMP just made me assume all sorts of things. It's really quite simple (you did a good job of explaining it).

07-16-2010, 01:47 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
Thanks, I'm glad someone thinks so! Amazing how what is really quite simple can lead to so much confusion and debate, though - as you may be aware by now, this is hardly the first time this has come up. I guess I have the good fortune to have a software background that predates any serious interest in photography, so I was writing algorithms that deal with this kind of stuff long before I had any reason to care about the issue for myself.

Now that you seem to understand these issues, I'll mention something else: it's *entirely* possible the people at the print shop *will* look at the EXIF, see a number lower than 300, and reject the file on the assumption that anyone who couldn't be bothered to get the irrelevant number in the EXIF to match their requirements probably didn't actually follow their instructions anywhere else. So it certainly wouldn't be a bad idea to make sure the number in the EXIF says 300 (assumign you include EXIF at all) so they don't reject your image before they even load it up. So go ahead and play along. But it sure helps to understand what's going on when trying to play with any of this stuff, or else you can easily shoot yourself in the foot by accidentally throwing away pixels while changing these values. Not sure what specific boxes you need to check or not check in the GIMP, but just make sure that nothing you do to get it to put the number "300" in the EXIF results in its throwing away pixels. Give them all the pixels you've got. And if it's not enough for 300dpi, then indeed, it's a good idea to do the upsampling yourself (GIMP should be OK for doing this) so you can pixel peep the results as you try different methods.

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 07-16-2010 at 01:55 PM.
07-18-2010, 07:26 PM   #25
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Thanks, I'm glad someone thinks so! Amazing how what is really quite simple can lead to so much confusion and debate, though - as you may be aware by now, this is hardly the first time this has come up. I guess I have the good fortune to have a software background that predates any serious interest in photography, so I was writing algorithms that deal with this kind of stuff long before I had any reason to care about the issue for myself.

Now that you seem to understand these issues, I'll mention something else: it's *entirely* possible the people at the print shop *will* look at the EXIF, see a number lower than 300, and reject the file on the assumption that anyone who couldn't be bothered to get the irrelevant number in the EXIF to match their requirements probably didn't actually follow their instructions anywhere else. So it certainly wouldn't be a bad idea to make sure the number in the EXIF says 300 (assumign you include EXIF at all) so they don't reject your image before they even load it up. So go ahead and play along. But it sure helps to understand what's going on when trying to play with any of this stuff, or else you can easily shoot yourself in the foot by accidentally throwing away pixels while changing these values. Not sure what specific boxes you need to check or not check in the GIMP, but just make sure that nothing you do to get it to put the number "300" in the EXIF results in its throwing away pixels. Give them all the pixels you've got. And if it's not enough for 300dpi, then indeed, it's a good idea to do the upsampling yourself (GIMP should be OK for doing this) so you can pixel peep the results as you try different methods.
Marc, when I print someone's file I do look at the ppi in Photoshop. If I see 72 ppi at an 8 x 10 I know for a fact how it will print.

As for Exif, true I don't need it. Software will do the calculation for me. If it's straight out of the camera PS will open it at the canvas size stored and at the amount of pixels stored. It will also calculate the dpi/ppi figure. Funny thing is it will be 72 if there is no PP done. Like I've said before the 72 dpi is the size of the pixel for the amount of pixels at the canvas size stored in the file. If the camera stored the file as an 8" file the the dpi would be 300 given the same parameters. All three numbers are part of the equation. I am NOT saying you can't print that file 8 x 10 at 300 dpi. I am saying that if you print that file at the canvas size stored by the camera it will be 72 dpi. It's not magic. Just math.
07-18-2010, 07:36 PM   #26
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
It might be, but as mentioned, that's just a placeholder value. The *actual* dpi value will be number of pixels divided by number of inches, period, end of story.
Which for the canvas size and amount of pixels in the image as stored by the camera just happens to work out to 72 doesn't it?
If they print at any size other than the size you tell them print at, they are idiots, crooks, or both. If you give them an image with enough pixels for a 300dpi at the size *you* tell them to print, it won't matter what the EXIF says. Again, you could strip out the EXIF entirely for all the difference it would make. If on the other hand you give them an image with not enough pixels for 300dpi at the size you asked them to print, then they'll probably either do a "dumb" upscaling of the image, or charge you extra to upscale it well, or hand it back to you and say "we need a higher resolution image". But make no mistake - by "higher resolution image", they mean, *more pixels*, not a higher irrelevant number stored in the EXIF. If you just crank up that number without adding pixels, it's not going to be any different.
Marc, again if you start out with an 8 x 10 and have Photoshop CS5 resample that image up to 300 it will still look like crap no matter how many pixels you add.
Strip out the exif. Won't matter a hill of beans. The info is stored as an integral part of the file. Strip it out. Open it up. All the program needs to know is size of canvas and amount of pixels. It can figure out the dpi. then again so can you or anyone else that can multiply. And if you open it up at the canvas size stored by the camera it might possibly be oh I don't know. 72dpi?
07-19-2010, 09:51 AM   #27
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
Marc, when I print someone's file I do look at the ppi in Photoshop. If I see 72 ppi at an 8 x 10 I know for a fact how it will print.
Well, sure - but since you've set the canvas size yourself, you're talking about looking about the *calculated* DPI, not the meaningless number in the EXIF. And again, that's my point. Yes, the *actual* calculated DPI is hugely significant. The number in the EXIF isn't.

QuoteQuote:
Funny thing is it will be 72 if there is no PP done.
*If* and *only if* you choose to print at 40x60" or whatever. As soon as you tell the software you actually want to to print an 8x12" or whatever else, the dpi changes.

QuoteQuote:
Like I've said before the 72 dpi is the size of the pixel for the amount of pixels at the canvas size stored in the file. If the camera stored the file as an 8" file the the dpi would be 300 given the same parameters.
Cameras don't know or care about print sizes in inches or resolution in dpi. All they store in the file are pixels. And pixels as recorded by the camera have no inherent size - that's completely a function of the print size. They might store a placeholder value in the EXIF because the EXIF standard demands they do so, but the fact that the camera puts those numbers in the EXIF has *no impact whatsover* on your ability to print at whatever canvas size you wish.
07-19-2010, 10:16 AM   #28
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
Marc, again if you start out with an 8 x 10 and have Photoshop CS5 resample that image up to 300 it will still look like crap no matter how many pixels you add.
Who starts out with an 8x10 at anything less than 300dpi? You start out with what comes from the camera - a whole heck of a lot of pixels. At 8x10, it's *already* better than 300dpi with a high MP camera. Once more, an image straight from the camera is *only* 72 *if* you choose to print it at 40x60".

QuoteQuote:
Strip out the exif. Won't matter a hill of beans. The info is stored as an integral part of the file.
I am fairly certain that is not true - the only place the meaningless number 72 is stored by the camera is in the EXIF, because it's only the EXIF standard that demands a value be stored even though it has no meaning for digital camera images.

QuoteQuote:
Strip it out. Open it up. All the program needs to know is size of canvas and amount of pixels.
Precisely - the number 72 is not an input to that equation at all. Once you tell the software how big you want to print, it calculates how many dpi that works out to.

QuoteQuote:
And if you open it up at the canvas size stored by the camera it might possibly be oh I don't know. 72dpi?
Actually - and check the EXIF specification for yourself (http://www.exif.org/Exif2-2.PDF) if you doubt this - the camera does not store a canvas size at all. All it stores is a dpi figure, and it only does that because the EXIF standards says, "When the image resolution is unknown, 72 [dpi] is designated.". The field was meant for scanners to stoe the actual resolution (using the size of scanned document as the canvas size). For digital cameras images, the field is just a placeholder.

So the only reason you are seeing a default canvas size is that Photoshop is looking at the meaningless number stored in the EXIF (72) and calculating a canvas size for you based on that. Most modern software doesn't bother doing that, but Photoshop, having it's original in the days before digital cameras, still does, mostly just out of tradition.
07-19-2010, 02:15 PM   #29
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Who starts out with an 8x10 at anything less than 300dpi? You start out with what comes from the camera - a whole heck of a lot of pixels. At 8x10, it's *already* better than 300dpi with a high MP camera. Once more, an image straight from the camera is *only* 72 *if* you choose to print it at 40x60".



I am fairly certain that is not true - the only place the meaningless number 72 is stored by the camera is in the EXIF, because it's only the EXIF standard that demands a value be stored even though it has no meaning for digital camera images.



Precisely - the number 72 is not an input to that equation at all. Once you tell the software how big you want to print, it calculates how many dpi that works out to.



Actually - and check the EXIF specification for yourself (http://www.exif.org/Exif2-2.PDF) if you doubt this - the camera does not store a canvas size at all. All it stores is a dpi figure, and it only does that because the EXIF standards says, "When the image resolution is unknown, 72 [dpi] is designated.". The field was meant for scanners to stoe the actual resolution (using the size of scanned document as the canvas size). For digital cameras images, the field is just a placeholder.

So the only reason you are seeing a default canvas size is that Photoshop is looking at the meaningless number stored in the EXIF (72) and calculating a canvas size for you based on that. Most modern software doesn't bother doing that, but Photoshop, having it's original in the days before digital cameras, still does, mostly just out of tradition.
Who starts out with 72 dpi at 8 x 10? Some of the idiot customers I seem to get. Then when I try to explain ad nauseum why their output will look like crap they split. Hopefully they go to FedEx/Stinkos.
02-24-2013, 11:47 PM   #30
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1
Hi,
I faced a similar issue and tried to find a solution. A friend recommended giving magnipic a try as they had some great blogs which dealt with similar issues. I finally found a solution to my problem and suggest you check out their site.
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!
art, camera, canvas, dpi, images, pentax help, photography, res
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K20D resolution and 30" x 45" canvas print Big G Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 22 08-11-2009 03:20 PM
K20d. Too high resolution? losecontrol Pentax DSLR Discussion 103 01-25-2009 12:35 PM
What makes a clear high resolution lens zoeybird Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 01-11-2009 09:56 PM
Capturing and printing large art: what software? deudeu Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 6 07-20-2008 04:40 AM
Has anyone had a large format canvas print made? konraDarnok Photographic Technique 1 06-03-2008 05:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:36 PM. | 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