What camera can do this?

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by jamie_wood, May 23, 2010.

  1. Hi folks,
    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.
    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!
    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!).
    thanks,
    JW
    00WWUx-246431584.jpg
     
  2. 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.
     
  3. Technically, a Hasselblad H4D (50MP) or a Mamiya DM56 are DSLRs. With 80mm lens - $31,000US and $32,500 respectively.
    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.
    Judging by the size of the photos in your example, it could be a Nikon D3x, Canon 1s III, or a Sony 850/900.
     
  4. Thanks guys,
    What would be a decent compromise in an DSLR? Something I could make really good 20"24" prints from?
    Anything under $2,000?
     
  5. Most modern dSLRs of the last year or so should handle prints up to a 24" max., but much does depend on viewing distance.
    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.
     
  6. 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 this insufferably cheesy portrait from my profile.
     
  7. 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.
    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.
     
  8. I know Paul Graham, and you have some information that is a little wonky.
    The prints behind him in that photo (about 6 years ago?) were from scanned 6x7 files - they were not digital camera files.
    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.
    Of course buying the same camera does not mean you get the same images. duh.
     

Share This Page

1111