D2x Maximum print size.

[marke_gilbert]

I am considering a D2x to complement (no longer to replace) my current

MF set up. Something I have been considering for awhile, and after

having gone on a shoot Friday and gotten back 15 rolls of film to go

through, and scan the keepers for the model, shots that I will not be

keeping for myself, Im leaning toward a digital addition even more.

<P> I asked recently about comparing the two formats, but my question

here is more specific: how large can I go with a RAW D2x file, before

getting into interplation programs (which I will use, and have nothing

against), and maintain critical sharpness?

<P> I generally scan MF negs at 4000dpi, and print at 300 dpi.

Everyone I know who uses the D2x, and all the information I have read,

indicates that the D2x (and other high end cameras) can exceed the

print size their MP count would seem to indicate.

<P> If Im thinking 24"x24" cropped image, should I be thinking in

terms of it looking like a really clean 35mm enlargement? Or will it

greatly exceed this standard?

<P> How large have you gone? And, yes I realize it varies with subject

matter, just looking for real world experience.

[david_rosenbloom]

If you are shooting 6x7 or 6x9 and scanning @ 4000dpi, then large prints like a 24x24 will be less sharp with the D2x.

 

If you are shooting 6x4.5 and scanning @ 4000dpi, they will be very close.

 

I would download some raw files from the D2x and print them for yourself.

[jeffrey moore]

I'm sure you'll get several responses from D2X owners. I am currently saving my coins for my own D2X purchase. A couple of weeks back, my best photographer friend let me borrow his D2X for the weekend. I filled up a couple of 2gb cards, shooting a wide variety of subject matter: landscape, nature, macro, still life and architecture. (I currently shoot with a D100, F100 and 4x5).

 

I made several 24x36 prints on my Epson 7600 with no ressing up; they were all printed at the camera's native resolution. In my opinion, these prints absolutely blow away anything I have ever printed on the 7600 from a 35mm slide; it's really not even close. And what was even more shocking to me was how well the prints held up against some of my 7600 prints from my 4x5 scans. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the prints from the D2X equal the prints from 4x5 scans; they don't. But the difference is no where near what I expected.

 

I am drooling in anticipation of getting my own D2X, probably around the end of the year.

[frank_skomial]

"I made several 24x36 prints on my Epson 7600 with no ressing up; they were all printed at the camera's native resolution. "

 

You need to understand how your Epson printyer driver DOES the "ressing up" on your behalf, apparently.. without you being aware of it.

[ilkka_nissila]

Yes, that's exactly what happens - the Epson printers are very clever.

[jeffrey moore]

Yes, I am aware of that. I print with an ImagePrint RIP, and I am aware of how it works as well. The specific point of Marke's question however wasn't an inquiry into resolution algorithms of specific printers or RIPs, but how do D2X enlargements compare to those from 35mm. That is the question that I addressed.

[jeffrey moore]

Perhaps better wording, instead of " . . . printed at the camera's native resolution." would be, " . . . sent to the printer driver without prior ressing up in Photoshop."