Seeking advice: dSLR capable of large prints

[diane_rose]

I'm looking to buy a digital SLR, hopefully under $1k. I currently

use a Nikon N70 and sell my (landscape/travel) images for the

corporate sales and rental market, so I frequently have prints made

that are up to 20"x30". I asked my pro lab whether an 8 mega pixel

camera can make files good enough for 20x30 prints and they

surprised me by saying yes.

 

Anyone out there have experience making large prints with a dSLR --

if so, which brand/model do you recommend? I would love advice,

particularly about models and features to look for or avoid.

[eric friedemann]

Nikon ... DSLR ... 20x30 inch prints ... under $1K- not so much. If you want to make professional-quality 20x30 inch prints with a Nikon DSLR, you'll want to wait for the new $5K D2X, which should be released at the end of the month:

 

 

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25215

 

 

But it depends on the level of quality you want. You could get an acceptable poster-quality 20x30 inch print from a good image out of a sub-$1K Nikon D70.

[chris_prinos]

Best thing is to find a local dealer that will let you try out some bodies, or maybe rent a couple of cameras. Most dealer let you apply rental costs to a purchase as well. Make some prints and compare it to your film work. Only you can be the judge of what is good enough for you at the print sizes you need. Canon 300D, Nikon D70, olympus E-300, (upcomoing Canon 350D/Reble XT) would all be in that price range, there's more options if you want a used camera.

[beauh44]

Hi Diane, See <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BBVZ">this thread</a> from earlier today. The short answer is yes, but there are qualifiers: Viewing distance, printer used and your skills as a photographer to name a few. If you're doing well, the obvious answer to "which model" is the Canon 1Ds MKII - a 16 megapixel monster that, according to many, hangs right in there with medium-format film, producing a 50MB tif file. Good luck!

[todd frederick]

What is a "Large Print?"

 

With my Olympus E-1 system, I can produce nice 16x20 plus prints at proper viewing distances. Is that a "Large Print?"

 

If you want 30x40" prints you may need to look into a Canon 1Ds or 1Ds mark II, and mortgage your home! Or a Hassleblad with a digital back at about $10,000 and mortgage you homes.

 

This can be a bit expensive! (^O^)

[diane_rose]

When I said "large print" I meant up to 20"x30". I know many people say I shouldn't be able to print that size with a 35mm, but I have found with a decent lens and 50 or 100 ASA film, most of my images can be printed that large and look good. I don't mind grain (in most cases) but I don't like if it noticably loses sharpness.

 

I don't have the option of spending thousands. I might be able to spend up to $1200... If 8 MP isn't good enough resolution, then I have to shelve my plans to go digital for a few years, since a $3k or $5k camera isn't an option. I need to decide fairly soon since I will be plunking down money for a couple bricks of Velvia if digital isn't an option. (I have a trip coming up this summer and if the switch to digital is on, I need time to get up to speed, etc.) When I thought about the cost of 2 bricks of slide film and E6 processing for it, I realized I had a healthy downpayment on a reasonably priced dSLR...

 

My lab had said that they had gotten good results printing 16x20 from a 6 MP and stressed that if I picked a photo name brand (e.g. Nikon, Canon, Minolta, etc.)that would have a good lens, they expect an 8 MP would have no problems printing high quality 20x30s. Any prints over 13x19 I have done at a pro lab (Dorian Color Labs in Arlington, MA).

 

It would be ideal to test cameras since I do think we all have different thresholds of what looks good and it depends on the type of photos we each shoot. Does any place rent out digital SLRs that sell between $800 and $1200? I thought they only rented out the ones that cost thousands of dollars.

 

Is there any consensus on whether there are 8MP cameras with a non-removable lens that have good quality lenses? I know the ideal would be to get another Nikon with changable lenses but the lens I have with my Nikon N70 is just ok (Tamron 28-200)so it's not worth buying one with changable lenses unless it comes with a good Nikon lens and the total isn't more than about $1200.

 

I realize the last question is probably silly, because the one thing I've noticed is that there's rarely much consensus on photography! Everyone's milage varies... and one man's mistake is another man's art. :-)

 

I appreciate all the comments and pointers to the other conversation as well. Thanks!

[jim_gifford]

Diane, the math is do-it-in-your-head simple. A 6 megapixel DSLR sensor is roughly 2,000 pixels by 3,000 pixels. If you print an image from that sensor at 20 inches by 30 inches, you see that you will be printing at 100 pixels per inch.

 

Lots of folks like to print at 300 pixels per inch for sharp results. They might find a 100-pixels-per-inch print to be fairly soft.

 

Viewing distance is important in deciding whether 100 pixels per inch is sharp enough for you. If you stand back a few feet from a 100ppi print, it'll look lovely.

 

Lots of folks have paid several thousands of dollars for one of those shiny new 42-inch HDTV plasma screen televisions. That screen doesn't give you 100 pixels per inch... it offers 20-30 pixels per inch. People viewing plasma screens from typical distances of 2 or 3 meters find them quite sharp.

 

Similarly, the typical computer monitor offers something quite close to 100ppi resolution, and viewed from half a meter away it looks pretty crisp.

 

There are also software processes to beef up the pixel count for large prints.

 

The truth is, people can make jolly nice roadside billboards from a 6MP original, so a trifling little poster-sized print is certainly within reason. You can have lovely, crisp 300ppi prints at up to 8x10 or so, and then as you get to larger and larger prints you just have fewer pixels per inch.

 

If you accept pixels the size of medium pizzas, you can have a print about a mile by a mile-and-a-half. If you put that print on a farm in Kansas and viewed it from 35,000 feet, it would look wonderfully sharp and detailed.

 

Be well,

[beepy]

My suspicion is if large prints are what you want, and you already have a 35mm film setup,

your $1200 can be directed towards a good (used?) film scanner? I would suspect that

really good scans of 35mm film (well shot, fine grain) at 3000+DPI would beat 6MP digital

images... And 8MP images?

<p>

That said, you might just want to try and print out some test images from borrowed or

rented cameras vs. a scan of your 35mm image.

<p>

If it is all about size of print to you.

<p>

A dSLR may improve your (digital) workflow compared to scanning 35mm (dedusting

scanned images drives me crazy).

[mark u]

For printing at 20x30, a key factor is the quality of interpolation algorithms. These are used at several points in the image generating train: colour interpolation when the image is recorded from the sensor, any interpolation you do in image editing software, and finally interpolation by the printer driver software. You will need to factor in better quality image editing interpolation software than is supplied with a DSLR as standard - e.g. Genuine Fractals (though there are others which offer better algorithms as well - Photoshop Elements isn't good enough, for sure). You also need to talk to someone knowledgeable about what the printer actually does, so that you can optimise the entire chain. As a first step, you should ensure that the pixels per inch setting of the image file to be printed is an exact factor of the printer's dots per inch specification.

[robertshantz]

<P>Diane,

 

<P>All dSLR's in your price range have a significant crop factor: 1.6x for Canon and 1.5x (I think) for Nikon. You may find that the cost of a new lens to cover the existing range of your film camera will take all or most of you budget for the switch to digital.

 

<P>Canon makes EF-S wide angle lenses designed for the smaller sensors in the Digital Rebel and 20D, and I assume the new D350, but they've received mixed reviews on the web. I have the 17 - 85 mm ($600 at B&H) and am reasonably pleased with 100% images on my monitor, but have never made prints. Note that with the 1.6x crop factor, this is 27 mm equivalent on the wide side which may not be enough for your purposes.

 

<P>Robert

[eric friedemann]

As has been noted, the key to acceptability of relatively large prints from relatively small films or digital files is viewing distance. This is what I meant be "poster quality."

 

 

When I was in college, I visited the Art Institute of Chicago with a photography professor of mine. We wound up in the very small office of the director of the photography collection.

 

 

There was an amazingly awful, six-foot or so wide reproduction of Ansel Adams' "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico." It took up almost a whole wall of the office. The print was too light, the tonal values were way off and it looked like it had been spotted by someone flicking a brush full of black ink at the print. I seriously asked my professor under my breath if the image was a poster.

 

 

The assistant director of photography- who had been talking to someone else- heard me (it was a really small office), stared at me as if I had just pissed on her shoes and informed me that the "Moonrise" was a rare, original print made to hang at the end of a long exhibition hall. Given her withering gaze, I didn't ask why a director of photography with access to one of the best photography collections in America would hang such a print in an office the size of a walk-in closet.

 

 

If your clients are accepting of large poster-quality images, you may be able to get by with images from an N70, or even a D70. But, if I know I'll want to make quality photographic prints over 8x12 inches, I won't bother with 35mm film or a 35mm-style DSLR- I'll shoot 6x7 cm medium format film.

[bill_chiarchiaro]

Diane asked:

 

<p>"Does any place rent out digital SLRs that sell between $800 and $1200?"

 

<p>Check with <a href="http://www.zeffphoto.com">Zeff Photo Supply (www.zeffphoto.com)</a> in Belmont, MA. One of their rental categories is "Semi-pro digital camera kits."

 

<p>--Bill

[dzeanah]

There are a few people on the dpreview forums that occasionally post full-res images in their pbase portfolios (I'm thinking of someone who posted images taken from an S3 and a 1DSII for comparison). It might be worth downloading an image from a camera you're interested in and sending it to mpix.com for a big print and see what you think.

 

How else will you know?

[dmarks]

Diane,I have a Canon 10D and have printed off some very nice 36x54 inch photos.I always run my files through photoshop and use interpolation software.From a normal viewing distance these photos look very good.Up very close you'll see some defects but a photo this size isn't meant to be viewed from 2 inches away.

 

I got my interpolation software free from the following site.

 

http://www.nyphotographics.com/ftppage.htm

 

Hope you find what you're looking for.

[peter_werner1]

Diane,<br>

<p><i>but the lens I have with my Nikon N70 is just ok (Tamron 28-200) so it's not worth buying one with changable lenses unless it comes with a good Nikon lens</i></p>

<p>The Tamron 28-200 is not as bad as you think. I have used it often on a film Nikon F100 and on the digital Fuji S2Pro. Try to borrow a Fuji S2Pro to see if the results with your existing lens are good enough. You can get good pre-owned ones on ebay within your budget.</p><div></div>

[alex_cole]

I have just recently printed a 16x20 from my Nikon D70 using the 18-70 kit lense and am very satisfied with the results. I have to get to within 4 inches of the print with my eye to be able to see any pixilation what so ever. Now, after I processed the image in photoshop I got the picture up to size with an action I setup that interpolates the image bigger by 10% incriments at a time until I got to a 16x20 image at 300dpi. this will result in less artifacts and image degidation that just interpolating in 1 big step. The picture I printed was this one here http://www.geocities.com/alex_cole78/Tim_Pic_01.jpg

 

The picture printed a bit softer than I would have liked but I feel that is completly due to how much I softened the photo with photoshop prior to printing that this size. Upon close examanation the print is printed to the exact thing that I see in photoshop when I zoom in real close. In my opinion the D70 is going to be capeable of printing the 20x30 and some 30x40 shots that I have planned for the future.

 

I also have heard of several wedding photog out west who use the D70 for there wedding shots and they regularly print 30x40 prints from them. I agree with the others when they say it depends on the intended viewing distance but after reviewing the 16x20 print I feel that the image quality will be that of a regular poster if post processed correctly.

 

I hope this info helps.

 

Alex

[peter_werner1]

Diane,<br><i>There are a few people on the dpreview forums that occasionally post full-res images in their pbase portfolios (I'm thinking of someone who posted images taken from an S3 and a 1DSII for comparison). It might be worth downloading an image from a camera you're interested in and sending it to mpix.com for a big print and see what you think.</i><br><br>

If you are interested, I could upload a full-res image taken with the Tamron 28-200 on a Fuji S2 Pro. Let me know.<br>Peter

[bill_hildyard]

Just a small point but as you appear to be earning??? a living from your work, my I humbly suggest that if you don't have much experience with digital workflow ie postprocessing in Photoshop ect it may not be advisable to jump in feet first, you may find you are disappointed with the results.

 

Please accept my apologies if I am wrong, but I thought it worth pointing out.

[astcell]

Here is my wife holding a poster I shot of her Dad with a D100. Can' ask for more.

 

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/astcell/Family/Amyholdingpic.jpg">

[t._duane_jones]

Diane,

The owner of a small pro lab I use in Atlanta used a D-100 to photograph a family of 4 in his studio. He printed 2 30x40" prints, one on canvas, the other on matte photo paper, on his Epson 9600. The results were absolutely incredible. When I saw the prints, I assumed he shot them on his Hassie. He used PSCS to resize the image, and sharpened it before sending it to print. I have a couple of D-70's I use in combination with my F-100's for weddings and portraits. I have enlarged to 16x20 so far, with good results. Good exposure and good glass are key elements to being able to enlarge successfully. Hey, YMMV, experiment and see what works. Good luck,

 

Duane

[peter_werner1]

Diane,

<p><i> if you don't have much experience with digital workflow i.e. post processing in Photoshop etc. it may not be advisable to jump in feet first, you may find you are disappointed with the results.<br>

I have a trip coming up this summer and if the switch to digital is on, I need time to get up to speed, etc.</i></p>

<p>That should be time enough to get up to speed. In your budget, do not forget to plan for software. Photoshop is quite expensive. Some DSLRs come with Photoshop Elements, which is enough at least for the beginning. Another alternative is <a href=?http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/psp/psp1.html?>Paint Shop Pro</a>. Personally, I prefer PSP for most of my work; I use Photoshop only exceptionally if what I want cannot be achieved in PSP. <br>

Another item to budget for, if you do not already have it, is a good color printer (and ink refills, some printers are real drunkards). Even if you give your big prints out for processing, you will want to make some smaller proofs.</p>

[peter_werner1]

<p><a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/psp/psp1.html" target="_blank">Paint Shop Pro</a>

[jack paradise]

Diane,

 

I recently learned that photographer Jay Maisel has images from his 8mp digital camera printed to 40"x60". And Jay is not a newcomer in the field of photography.

 

http://www.jaymaisel.com/

[diane_rose]

Thanks everybody for all the helpful answers! Here are a few replies:

 

I've been using Photoshop and an Epson 1280 and a Nikon Coolscan IV for a couple years, so I'm not a total newbie w.r.t. digital. I'm just hoping to capitalize on digital capture. I'm hoping to cut down on the cost and work of capture, since once a year I usually shoot 30-40 rolls of Velvia on 1 trip, and then it takes months to harvest down to my favorites worth going into the portfolio.

 

Thanks for the link to the website with free interpolation s/w -- I really appreciate that!!

 

Nice portrait poster!

 

My Tamron 28-200 works well as long as I don't try to use it at 200. Even with a tripod, 200 is noticably soft. Some people like the effect (or perhaps don't notice it); I notice it and it makes me cringe. So when I use that lens I always go to 200 and then back off before I press the shutter release. If I go digital, I'd rather not base a new camera on this particular lens.

 

Thanks for the pointer to Zeff Photo. I actually live in Belmont and have never been there. I've since found out they do rent the D70 and D100 and will apply half the rental fee towards purchase if you buy within 30 days.

 

I said I *sell* my work, I didn't say I *made a living*...if only <sigh>. But since most of what I sell is for the corporate market it's large sizes (up to 20x30).

 

On my quest to figure out whether this is feasible, I have a new tidbit of information. For what it's worth, Nikon's own materials (website, promotional literature, etc.) for the Coolpix 8700 (8MP) actually say it makes "stunning prints up to 20x30" whereas their specs on the D70 say it's "for printing 11x14". I'm frankly surprised they make so bold a statement. I just noticed that Zeff Photo's ads say the Coolpix 8700 makes "sharp, beautiful prints up to 20x30". Can a camera that's so much cheaper ~$799 minus a rebate really do so well? Which begs the question:

 

Anyone out there have experience printing large with a Coolpix 8700? Or 8800?

 

It's so great having you all as resources to ask these questions of!

[chris_patti1]

One thing to remember about any comparison between the 8700 and the D70 is that, although the 8700 has more pixels, its sensor is much smaller than the D70's--about 8.8 mm wide compared to 23.7. To get a 20x30" print from a 8700 you would be enlarging around 80x. That's a heck of a lot of enlargement no matter how many pixels you have. By contrast, the difference between 6 and 8 mp is really pretty minimal. Comparisons I've seen between the 6mp D70 and 8mp Canon 20D (with similar sized sensor) show only very slight differences. There's a lot of info on the web about the importance of sensor size. Try a Google search of "camera sensor size" and you'll pull up some articles.