Jump to content

Large Prints and EOS 5D Mark II


romain_j.

Recommended Posts

<p>Hi all,<br>

I wanted to know about your experiences to produce large format prints with the Canon EOS 5D Mark II white USM lenses. By working in RAW format images. Allows it print very large sizes approx. 1m x 1.80m? What type of extension support it from a good file? Any advices ?<br>

Thank you,<br>

Romain</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Romain,</p>

<p>This is a very argued over question. Basically it depends on how far the print is realistically going to be viewed from and just as important, what the subject matter is. Any camera image can be enlarged to a billboard, but it might only look good if you view it at 55mph from 200yards away on the highway!</p>

<p>I regularly print 20"x30" and sometimes go to 24"x36", these I expect to be viewed quite close. I'd print a 70" print if the viewing distance was further. Fine detailed images suffer more, so trees and foliage are more difficult and don't enlarge as well as sky, for instance.</p>

<p>The best thing for you to do is print a small section of your image at the full size, say a 12"x12". Tack that onto a wall and see if the quality will work for you.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thank you for your reply.<br /><br />I noted that many photographers who work with this camera sell their edition of prints of their large size, approx. 36x48 inches (for larger).</p>

<p>To make prints suitable (which will look at 3 / 4 meters away), from images rigorously taken (tripod, iso minimum, RAW), the 5D may be issued prints are acceptable?<br>

<br />Scott, have already tested for prints larger than 24x36in. ?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Romain,</p>

<p>No I haven't printed above 36" on a single capture. But I agree with Daniel and think that for a 3-4 meter viewing distance then 70" should be fine. But please do a small area test print first, this is all very personal, some people won't print a 5D MkII file over 14"x21", others are very happy at 64"x96".</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hello....</p>

 

 

<p>You can see what your output will look like at 1x1.8m for the cost of paper and ink at 8 1/2" by 11".<br>

1. Open file in photo editing program.<br>

2. Select print.<br>

3. Use the same premium paper that you will use for the full sized print. Set the paper type inquiry for the proper type, i.e. super glossy, set print type to highest.<br>

4. Back at main printer window, select center on page. Then type 1m into either height or width boxes.<br>

5. Print.<br>

You'll get the center 8 1/2 by 11" of a 1 Meter+ print. One can also do it with 4X6 paper, which is obviously about the fourth of materials cost for 8 1/2 by 11. However, you may not get enough square area to make a good decision on whether you've sharpened enough or too much, etc.</p>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I just did the above with a Canon 5D II "sample" file photo off of Dpreview.com here: </p>

<p><a href="http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/111122.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1300315223&Signature=ON4aWMzGTwajK%2f1qI1Dh%2f%2fIglbk%3d">http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/111122.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1300315223&Signature=ON4aWMzGTwajK%2f1qI1Dh%2f%2fIglbk%3d</a> </p>

<p>The image is 3744 Pixels by 5616 pixels. I set the short side to scale as if the print would be 40" (close to 1M) and printed the center section on a 8 1/2" x 11" piece of Epson Glossy Photo Paper with an Epson 1400. </p>

<p>It looked pretty good. Why not try it with your printer and premium paper. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I use a 5DmkII with good lenses,tripod,RAW, good trusted lab,lambda print, Fuji paper and never go above 36x24 and only then at a stretch. Any bigger and the print stops looking like a photograph and starts looking like just a big image. The 'flat' appearance that all DSLRs produce starts becoming really apparent above that size and is a problem for me. If its just the resolution that really concerns you, you could probably go a little bigger before the detail degrades but not much.<br>

On the idea of an ideal viewing distance that you hear people talking about- like a big print has to be viewed at a certain distance...How does that work, I don't get it. What you going to do put a rope around it to stop people looking close? If you watch anyone look any print(and especially big ones), they stand back for a bit to look at the whole thing and then they go close when they want to examine something they've seen, then they go back a bit and so on, constantly changing their distance as they respond to the image and examine it. If when they go close to look and all they can see is a degraded,smudgy detail thats generally an unsatisfactory experience and people notice that. This only applies of course if what you want is detail ( which it sounds like you do ).<br>

My point is whatever your 'ideal' viewing distance is, your viewer is probably going to have another idea and that will be the real experience of looking at your photograph.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

<p>Link does not work...</p>

<p>Truth, It did work for about 5 minutes and then I got a timed out message also. Go to Dpreview, Reviews, Canon 5D Mark II and check out the sample page (about the last page in the review). You can tap on a thumbnail, get a larger view and from that page select the full size. Save and open in your photo editing program and try the printer routine at whatever size you want to. The printer will only print out the paper size of the requested print size. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>All the above being said, for myself I try not to print at less than either 300PPI or 360PPI depending on the printer input specs (Lightjet, HP and Canon @ 300PPI, Epson @ 360PPI and even my Fuji Pictograph @ 400PPI and Sony dye sub @ 403PPI). That is why I usually use 6x7, 6x9 and 4x5 FILM cameras for large prints.</p>

<p>3.8" @ 3150PPI scan gives me 11970 pixels on the short side. 11970/300=39.9"</p>

<p>4.8" @ 3150PPI scan gives me 15120 pixels on the long side. 15120/300=50.4"</p>

<p>and produces a tack sharp 40"x50" lightjet print.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have made 40x50 inch prints from the original 5D. My assistant had the camera and didn't really prep them as well as I think they could be. They were incredible even up with your nose in them. There were a couple of places where they could have been better, but you had to look hard to find those places.</p>

<p>I have printed 40x60's with the 1dsmkIII, same size files as the 5dII, and they have no flaws at all. Depending on the image, I think you could even go larger, but in most cases I do think that is close to where some issues might start to show in most images.</p>

<p>Although I haven't seen them, I do understand that Gursky's very large prints=over 8 feet aren't all that wonderful up close, but sell in the millions. What is there to be concerned about?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>

 

 

 

 

 

From your experiencer can print to the 40x60inch approx. without too much damage.<br /><br />Art Thomas: that you use MF and LF cameras for better image quality. Review foryour test with the 5D should be fairly accurate (as you know the quality produced by a4x5).<br /><br />By cons for such expansions with the 5D, the resolution must be reduced to 72DPI tobe large as 40 "x60" size image? no?

<br />

 

 

 

 

 

 

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>How big can also depend on the DPI setting you have to print at. 200, 250, 300 can make a big difference.</p>

<p>I've been using OnOne Software's Genuine Fractals (now renamed as Perfect Resize). It takes much of the guess work out of equation. The results are much better than anything you get out of the native Photoshop tools.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Also, forgot to mention, if what you need to blow up is a static type of scene (nothing moving), then don't forget the option to break the scene into multiple smaller photos and then stitch the photos together.</p>

<p>I've had great success at that. Took 24 pics in a 4x6 grid with 30% overlap and as able to blow it up native to 40x60</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My Photoshop reports that a panorama I did had a native size of 30" x 195". see here:<br>

PortOrange_Panorama1_resize

The example is a reduced size, but zooming in will show a huge amount of detail, based on stitching 10 or more images.</p>

<p>Trouble is, I have no printer that can do it justice.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My first digital camera had a 0.97Mp sensor. In my (then) blissfull ignorance of all things digital, I printed a nice shot of my daughter on my consumer color printer at 8.5x11. It looked great. I calculate that this picture has barely a hundred pixels per inch stretched over those 11 inches. This experience gave me a considerable skepticism about the holy 300 dpi rule. It's the shot that counts. Use the best lenses you can afford, stop down, use a tripod -- all these things count for more than how many dpi you print at.</p>

<p>Oh, and get yourself a decent letter size printer. They're cheap now. What everbody above says about using a test print at the same enlargement you plan for your big print is on target. Really big prints are really expensive, and even the best monitor isn't good enough to show you what you'll get in the print.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>@John A<br>

Gursky, like most of his fellow members of the Dusseldorf School is famous for shooting on Large Format (8x10) negative film( with the possible exception of Candida Hofer who occasionally goes down to MF). Also Gurskys images are intensively manipulated, possibly involving the stitching of multiple 8x10 negatives together in a single image for extra post- modern grandeur. The detail is of course, immaculate. I doubt if you'd get any of them giving more than a passing glance at my lowly 5D mkII.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have an Epson 7900 and do my own printing. This is a 24" wide printer. I shoot a 5D2 and also work with earlier images form a 5D. </p>

<p>As mentioned earlier in the thread - and no, I have not read the entire thing - the definition of "good" is a very subjective thing. It depends a lot of factors including the subject, how the images will be displayed, and your individual ideas about where the boundaries for excellent image quality lie.</p>

<p>Most of my work is shot from a tripod and shot fairly carefully with excellent lenses. I know what I'm doing in post in regards to the factors that affect the objective and subjective levels of sharpness in the prints. My feeling is that - for me - a 24" x 26" print of quite high quality is a reasonable expectation when all of the factors that affect sharpness are well handled. I also know that - for me - not every image will necessarily support my ideal print quality standard at this size.</p>

<p>That said, if the image will not be inspected too closely or if the subject and display are such that totally optimal print resolution isn't necessary or with originals of exceptional quality, it should be possible to print a bit larger. However, if your target print output is regularly going to by in the 1m x 1.8m range (about 50% longer in both dimensions than what I mentioned above) then I think you might want to consider MF digital as long as your subject is amenable to that format. </p>

<p>Of course, you can always try making a print at this size from your best original and see what it looks like. Alternatively, you can go through the process of generating the print file for such a print and then print a small crop out of it.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p><em>Unfortunately I have no printer, so I inquire here. I usually make my prints in alaboratory. So no paper tests.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can still do the test as described - just have the lab make the letter-sized test image for you.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I recommend that anyone who is going to use a lab also try to have a small high-quality printer in house, at least if optimal print quality is important to you. It is not possible to fully know what a print will look like if you only preview on the screen.</p>

<p>BTW, as is often the case when this question comes up a) the "answer" is highly subjective, b) you'll have to try it to know how you feel about it, and c) you'll undoubtedly read a lot of "common wisdom" that is just plain wrong or at least very much open to argument. For example, I now see a mention of "300 dpi" and "360 dpi" standards for good prints. That is just plain untrue. In fact, some of the commercial print shops are using processes that natively use lower print resolution than that. With very small prints - likely to be held in hand and viewed very closely - higher resolutions may be useful. With very large prints - even those that must retain sufficient detail to stand up to closer inspection - most who print a lot will agree that falling below a native resolution of 180 is risky, but that excellent work can be done with resolutions between that value and commonly quoted higher values.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For those who feel mentions of 300 dpi (if you're referring to me, sonny, I carefully used ppi because many inkjet pixel areas are made up of several dots of ink), and 360 dpi as being just plain untrue, I obviously disagree. If you had said it isn't necessary for you, I'd say fine. If you had said a lot of people would not appreciate the finer pitch provided by those numbers (if properly given in ppi), you'd be right. If you had said that many people's visual acuity does not measure up to those standards and therefore it is useless to them, you would be right. But that's not what you said.<br>

<br />Yes, I know the world, and especially America, is dumbing down and rapidly. Some years ago, when either Nikon or Canon first came out with a pro-bodied extremely expensive SLR of approximately one megapixel, one of the self-proclaimed professional photographers in town bought one. I considered him to have more money than brains. He often used it to put out 20X30" supposedly professional photos that looked pretty sharp, but only from across the street. I remember one he brought in and proudly showed off at one of the local photos store that was either 3X4' or 4X5'. They looked terrible and yet he was so proud of his work. He bragged about how he could palm these off on people who didn't know any better and it would save him so much darkroom time and expense. He sneered at the ignorance and poor taste of his customers and proclaimed that this type of work was essentially the wave of the future. He was right and people who make improperly definitive statements about lack of quality are his supporters.<br>

<br />Back when many large corporations and even normal everyday American values felt they had to adhere to a certain high level of standard (yes, I'm going wa-a-a-ay, wa-a-a-ay back), a Leica had a goal or standard of providing print acuity of 7 lp/mm. Yes, it took pretty good and young eyes to fully take advantage of that value, but it was still their value. I think Kodak even rated "acceptable sharpness" for enlargements up to 4 lp/mm. Four lp/mm is close to 200 PPI; obviously 300 PPI is pretty close to 6 lp/mm, which is pretty close to the Leica standard.<br>

<br />Just for curiosity, I took a scanned medium format slide of around 8500 pixels/side and printed it at 6'X6'. I was surprised at the detail, even from a foot away. If it was in a gallery with a rail of rope 10-15' from the print, I suspect that only some of the youngest military pilots with their keen eyesight would be able to see any unsharpness or lack of detail.<br>

<br />Yes, everything is relative. You have your standards and you're entitled to them. But it doesn't make somebody who adheres to a traditional higher standard as saying something that is just plain untrue. You would have more credibility, or maybe even some credibility, if you said that you, a product of the dumbed down society, choose to lower your standards and accept work of lesser quality. You could have also used a few words from your prior sentence that said it was open to argument because an argument can take into account such things as personal standards, distance of viewing, and pride in workmanship.<br>

<br />When you say that a standard is just plain untrue, I'm afraid I beg to differ with you. But on the other hand, why beg? Your statement doesn't deserve any begging, so I'll just say I differ with you and have pointed to evidence, rather than conjecture.</p>

<p>***<br>

<br />P.S. Why 300 or 360 PPI? Take Hewlett-Packard, for instance. Some of its better printers, at 300PPI, put down 4 ink droplets in a square box per pixel. The ink droplets are so small that the eye picks up that combo of droplets as a particular color by averaging out the color of the various ink droplets. If you input to an HP printer at 75 PPI, 150 PPI, 300 PPI, or 600 PPI, the printer software can evenly divide out or multiply the input material and come up with a reasonable solution to keep from lessening resolution more than necessary. On the other hand, what if you input at 360 PPI? The printer software is going to have to interpolate as it reduces the pixel information by an uneven proportion. Straight lines are going to find themselves a little squiggly. Curves are going to be jagged. It is the same when inputting 300 PPI material into a 360 PPI machine. Again, all the pixels are going to have to be reformed in an uneven basis. You can't just double length and width of the pixel, ending up with 16 ink droplets, 4 of each of the original 4 colors. The printer driver, printer and computer have to make some decisions, which won't necessarily make the output look exactly the same as the input. This is especially true where there are vertical or horizontal lines very slightly off axis, and all curves. It can also do such things as show a window with some panes wider or narrower than others, as it tries its best to reproduce a decent picture, considering the intelligent programming that went into the driver and software.<br>

<br />All of the above being said, other people are still entitled to their opinion, as I think I am, but calling it an absolute, through the superiority of ignorance, is a bit much.<br>

<br />Opinions are like rectal orifices, most everybody has one. I obviously think my rectal orifice is just as worthy as anyone else's.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...