jamie_wood Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 <p>Hi folks,<br> I read an interview with british photographer Paul Graham in the latest issue of Aperture in which he states that he shot his most recent projects "American Night" and "Shimmer" using a DSLR. I've seen some images of these pictures in exhibition and some of them are quite large, about 50"x60" or larger.<br> I know Graham doesn't patch images together in photoshop, and I know he doesn't normally exhibit crappy looking prints, so does this mean there is a DSLR out there that is capable of quality enlargements to this size? I shoot 67 and 4x5 because I've still yet to see a digital camera that can go this big, but if it exists, sign me up!<br> I would really appreciate anyone who can give me an update on what the current options are, and if digital really can deliver prints of this size now (without compositing!).<br> thanks,<br> JW</p> <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfophotos Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 <p>A full-frame DSLR and proper imaging software and commercial printing makes this possible. However, I would much rather see much smaller images on exhibit. Some people get very much into printing big, but I personally find it overdone. When one sees contact prints from some of the greats, that are no larger than 8x10, it makes for a more intimate experience with the image. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_b15 Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 <p>Technically, a Hasselblad H4D (50MP) or a Mamiya DM56 are DSLRs. With 80mm lens - $31,000US and $32,500 respectively. <br> A few landscape photographers use those to make their wall sized murals. I guess landscape photographers make good money to afford that kind of gear - or they've got a trust fund.<br> Judging by the size of the photos in your example, it could be a Nikon D3x, Canon 1s III, or a Sony 850/900. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamie_wood Posted May 23, 2010 Author Share Posted May 23, 2010 <p>Thanks guys,<br> What would be a decent compromise in an DSLR? Something I could make really good 20"24" prints from?<br> Anything under $2,000?</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 <p>Most modern dSLRs of the last year or so should handle prints up to a 24" max., but much does depend on viewing distance.</p> <p>You cannot press your nose up to such a print and expect to have it look crisp and sharp, any more than a similar enlargement from a Kodachrome slide would look good at such a viewing distance.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 <p>I have made many 24x36" prints from images recorded with a 12MP Nikon D300. Well exposed, well focused, shot with a quality lens, and printed by a competent lab ... it works. You can see such a print behind me in <strong><a href="../shared/portrait.tcl?user_id=2344388">this insufferably cheesy portrait from my profile</a></strong>.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_anderson7 Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 <p>I'm with Mark on that one. While I wouldn't want to limit myself to 8x10" for everything, I think it's silly to print photos as large as the ones in the exhibition photo.</p> <p>If I did want to make wall murals, I'd shoot Kodak Ektar 4x5 sheets. You'd have to buy a pretty darn nice (translation: expensive beyond most folks budget for a new car) digital camera that could do as nice of a job. A nice 4x5 can be had for anywhere from a couple hundred dollars or a Chamonix for $1,000 and a couple of $200 lenses, a light meter (or remember the sunny 16 rule), and a decent tripod.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_yardley Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 <p>I know Paul Graham, and you have some information that is a little wonky.<br> The prints behind him in that photo (about 6 years ago?) were from scanned 6x7 files - they were not digital camera files.<br> His more recent work - like 'a shimmer of possibility' - has indeed been on Canon dSLR's, and MF digital Phase P65+. I believe he uses the Phase more than anything right now, and does not shoot film anymore.<br> Of course buying the same camera does not mean you get the same images. duh.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now