Wedding Portrait done with digital

[tripp_flythe2]

My fiance just had her bridal portrait done yesterday and she told me

he was using a Nikon digital camera (I think it was either a D70 or

D100). My first reaction was, "What!!!" Since I know he has MF and

this would be enlarged to 16x20" or even bigger, why the heck didn't

he use the MF? When we met with him, he talked about going digital

for the weddings, which as a photographer I see the advantage of

digital for weddings (that's what I'd use too). I thought surely for

the bridal portrait, when you have plenty of time and will be

enlarging BIG, you'd want to use the MF. Is a D70 or other 6MP DSLR

capable of doing prints that big? The way I see it, at 300ppi a

2000x3000 pixel image can only go up to about 7x10", and even if you

go down to 200ppi it will only do about 14x20". Am I missing

something here or do you just have to see the prints from the

DSLR's?

[ray]

I routinely print 16x20 canvas prints, of wedding portraits, from D-SLRS (D1x). Perhaps,

you should hold your criticism until you have seen the prints.

[beauh44]

<I>Am I missing something here or do you just have to see the prints from the DSLR's?</i><BR><BR>Yes, I believe what you're missing is called "interpolation". I make 13X19 prints from my 10D all the time that look great beside my Hasselblad prints. When done right, they're just fine. Best wishes . . .

[tripp_flythe2]

Correction - To print a 14x20" you'd have to do it @150ppi. From what I've read from the experts here and elsewhere you don't want to go lower than 200ppi. I am reserving my criticism...which is why I'm asking the pros here who do it all the time. I've only enlarged from a 3MP P&S digital using inkjet. The reason I was questioning it is because our photographer (who I truly like) just got his DSLR a little over a month ago and even confessed to my bride that this was the first portrait he'd done using the digital. Can you enlarge bigger than 16x20 and it still be comparable to MF?

[stephen_lutz]

I did a 16x20 of a shot I took with my Canon G-2 (4 mp) and the print was fine. No problems at all. I shot in RAW mode, converted it to a TIF, and had the lab print it.

 

With my Digital Rebel and 10D I routinely print jpgs shot in large/fine mode all the way to 13x19 on a Canon i9100 and Photo Paper Pro and they also turn out spectacularly well. I can't say they are better than a MF drum scan, but they are pretty damn good. Generally, I don't even do interpolation. I just print the image, choose, "print to fit media type" and choose 13x19, and print it. It's really cool how well these image files hold their resolution. I can well imagine that with proper care a 16x20 should be completely possible.

[alexdi]

Keep in mind this is <i>wedding</i> photography, not landscapes. It doesn't take a great deal of resolution to enlarge skin, and the rest can be faked to an extent with good technique.

<P>

DI

[magnus_nystedt]

I wouldn't worry too much. I have an Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 (8Mp) and I've printed very

good 30x20 prints from it, more than good enough for what I consider a wedding portrait

should be like quality-wise.

 

//Magnus

[bob_bell]

Ask him to redo it with a Sinar 22MP back for his MF :) Then you can do life sized cutouts if you want :)

[beauh44]

Hi Tripp, Almost no one I know keeps the original file size from a digital camera and then prints at a lower dpi; they interpolate the file and print at or around 270-300 dpi. Someone posted these links here last week. Check 'em out: http://www.interpolatethis.com/reallife1.html and http://www.nyphotographics.com/blowupsample.htm Both were from a six and/or three MP Canon DSLR. Best wishes . . .

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

You have to see the prints. The wedding photographer I work with uses his Hasselblad for very little these days. Just about everything is done with his 10D. He is no Photoshop wizzard and the 11x14's look stunning. I don't know what he charged for the bridal portrait, but the cost of a single roll of 220 film and processing is $25 - $30, and doesn't include the time and expense of going to the lab. When that comes off the bottom line it counts for wedding shooters. It isn't like commercial photography where the client is billed separatly for materials.

[beauh44]

Sorry. Just try clicking <a href="http://www.interpolatethis.com/reallife1.html">Here</a> and <a href="http://www.nyphotographics.com/blowupsample.htm">Here</a>.

[bob_bell]

Thats not really relevant as the quality of the truck sized images are not in the same league as a portrait print. Most ppl are going to see it at 60mph and not spend an hour look at it from a foot away.

[gary_woodard]

You can enlarge anything to any size, quality aside, pulling pixels from

the air.

[beauh44]

<I>Thats not really relevant as the quality of the truck sized images are not in the same league as a portrait print.</i><BR><BR>Methinks thou doth protest too much. My point was to demonstrate interpolation, not to drag out the Pixel Police. Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seemed that Tripp had the impression that one must accept the size of the file as it comes out of the camera and it was my intent to demonstrate the concept of interpolation. The second link does indeed show a portrait - done with a three megapixel digital camera, and enlarged greatly. With regards to the bus, it's impossible to tell from a web pic how good the image is, but that brings up another key issue in all this: viewing distance. A billboard from the road may look very sharp; stand three feet from it and all you'll see is dots. Best wishes . . .

[tripp_flythe2]

Thanks for all the reassurance...at least I can rest assured that her portrait will at least look great up to 16x20". I know what interpolation does, but always understood that to be "phony" pixels as Ken Rockwell explains <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm" >here</a> and <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/scantek.htm#interp" >here</a>. Bob Atkins here on photo.net also explains that adding pixels don't add sharpness because the software must make up the extra pixels <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/resize/" >here</a>.

But I'm no expert, and haven't seen the prints like you have, so I'll take your word for it!

[beauh44]

<I>I know what interpolation does, but always understood that to be "phony" pixels as Ken Rockwell explains</i><BR><BR>Without interpolation, if we all just accepted the resolution that a digital camera gives us, we'd all be printing at no bigger than 8X10 with our expensive Nikon and Canon DSLRs - even a full-framed 1Ds would barely cut it. (Rhetorical question): I can scan a 35mm slide and get a 55mb file - is that somehow superior to an image from a Sinar 22mp digital back? Of course not; the Sinar will kick its a$$ with less megapixels than my scanned 35mm chrome. I think too much value gets placed on "megapixels" sometimes. This is just my opinion, but to me, interpolation is analagous to the difference between a contact print in a traditional darkroom and using an enlarger. The contact print will be MUCH sharper, but not many people use a camera big enough to shoot 8X10" film and thus give a decent-sized contact print. Interpolation works <I>very</i> well when done properly and sharpened with skill afterwards. Best wishes . . .

[michael_spencer3]

Tripp, you asked "Am I missing something here or do you just have to see the prints from the DSLR's?"

 

I recently read an interesting perspective on this issue. Basically, digital images and film images are qualitatively different. And it is not a issue of pixels or resolution. I think of it this way: go down the musuem and check out a Homer Winslow watercolor. Get right up to it and it becomes nothing but a dirty bit of paper with pigment fragments on it; back away and its a startling view of Bermuda - just the way I remember it. Now go and find a Monet. Get right up to it and its nothing but yucky piles and blobs of color, but much different than the paper texture of the watercolor. Back away and the image becomes a startling reflection of reality.

 

Digital and Film are like Watercolor and Oils .. they are different media. Arguments over pixel to grain comparisons, resolution in lines per mm precision are all very theoretical and miss the point. Digital images are frequently described as "smooth". this is because at whatever level of precision they have, that's it - no further clutter. Pixels are very clean looking as individuals and in the aggregate. Film, on the other hand, is comprised of silver crystals of varying size and surface condition. There can be more resolution on the film, but as you enlarge, the grain wrecks the picture before the lack of resolution does.

 

Bottom line here? Apparantly many photographers doing portraits have learned to appreciate the "smooth" effect of the digital image on skin in particular. My guess is white satin dresses would also be favorably treated by this type of media. Maybe you and your fiance should just ask to compare some samples of his digital output with film samples before making up your minds and then choose the style you prefer.

[scott_eaton]

Ask to see samples of their work before commiting to the photographer. All the bantering here is irrelevant if the photographer doesn't know that they are doing.

[larry_tudor1]

In fact,many purists will claim that interpolation is just B.S. Well...I hope for them they use a Sigma D9 or D10 or the new Foveon's sensor Polaroid camera,if not...these guys are all already using interpolation in all their shots since with the standard digital camera with the Bayer pattern,only 25 % of your pixels read the red color,only 25 % of your pixels read the blue color and finally only 50% of your pixels read the green color(the Sony 828 is an exception to this)so all the rest of the information you get is simply...interpolation.

[andrew robertson]

People who think interpolation is bogus better not make any prints except contact prints,

and even those are 'interpolated'.