Print sizes from 1d MKIII and 1dsMkII

[dave_nitsche]

Hi all. I need to print images 24" minimum (longest side) and probably up to 30"

longest side.

 

I like some of the features ont he MkIII but the pixels on the 1ds are very

tempting. I'd like to save the money on the 10mpx cam vs. the 16mp but I have no

first hand experience printing with either cam...

 

They have to be gallery quality.

 

Thanks for your input... Dave

[ralph_jensen]

Some people like the 20x30's they get from 6-megapixel point-and-shoots, while others have issues with smaller photos from larger sensors. Would you trust me if I said "I easily get gallery-quality 24x36's from my 1D MkIII"?

 

In other words, each person's standard for "gallery quality" are different, meaning that you should probably download large files from the web for both cameras -- such samples are all over -- and print them out (even just an 8x11 portion if that's all your current printer can do) so that you can judge for yourself.

 

This thread from three and a half years ago is surprisingly similar...

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007W4z

[jcmellen]

Well, I pull 28 inch prints off my 20D without problem. In fact, I have two 28x16 prints (matted and framed to 36x24) hanging in my house from my 20D.

 

I seem to recall you saying at one point that you don't like to crop to try to keep the highest image quality possible - although I could be imagining that. I seriously don't think it'd be a problem to pull 30" prints off a MKIII.

[tom_murray2]

+1. I remember reading some guy's website back when the original 1DS came out that it "beat medium format", and I hear it routinely about the 1DS-II. Lately I've even read it about the Leica M8, which has less MP and a smaller chip than the original 1DS (of course, anyone who spends that kind of coin on a camera with that many problems has to come up with something to justify it). I shoot with a 5D, a 1DS-II and the 39-MP Hassy. They all "beat medium format" if the medium format is scanned with a Nikon LS9000 or a flatbed, but if you want the ultimate quality in a large print then professionally drum scanned or (if you can find anyone who still wants to do it) expertly printed optically medium or better still, large format is the only way to go.

[patrick_p]

Here's what I don't understand, the max res of the a 10mp camera is 3888 x 2592. Now if you take an image in PS that is 3888 x 2592 and set the resolution to 300dpi (the max that most printers are capable of) the document size calculates to 12.96 x 8.64 inches. So anything bigger than that and you lose quality, no? So a 36x24 would be 108dpi. I don't understand how that can be considered gallery quality.

[keith_lubow]

It depends on your standards for quality. Files from any camera can be upsized quite nicely these days with things like Genuine Fractals. Nothing will look as good as an out-of-the camera-sized file, though.

 

If I were doing this regularly, I would first look at the best quality options. First, I would examine the possibility of shooting 8x10. I would probably decide that this is a bit of overkill, especially since I would need to rent or purchase the whole she-bang, and it proves to be quite expensive shooting 8x10, and hard to print without a multi-thousand dollar enlarger. As with almost anything wherre conditions allow, I'd try to do it with 4x5 transparencies if at all possible in the shooting environment. This is the default camera, without a doubt. Maybe even rent a digital back for the 4x5. Next option would be medium format...6x7 if possible to match the final aspect ratio better than 6x6. Again, you can rent a digital back for these cameras. As far as 35 format, I'd go for the camera with the greatest pixel dimensions straight out of camera, meaning a 1Ds Mk. II or 5D. Even some 35mm films will look OK at that size, as long as you are not putting your face right up to the photo. The best would probaly be Kodachrome 64 (special process available at onky one lab in the U.S.A.), followed by Fuji F64D. (Motion picture negative film, processing available at A and I in Hollywood, CA. You get a negative and a positive filmstrip back. It has practically no grain. Its RMS granularity factor is lower than Reala or the Pro 160 films.) I still think a large transparency and a high-quality scan will destroy the best 35mm digital offerings.

 

Keith

[nickc1]

Patrick - many printers can print at far higher resolutions than 300dpi - this is merely the 'rule of thumb' convention used for quality magazine production - and software can interpolate 'fake' pixels when resizing the image - not the same as a higher resolution off the camera I know, but the limitations you mention are not cast iron ones.

[keith_lubow]

"I don't understand how that can be considered gallery quality."

 

It is not, nor is 300 dpi. Any decent gallery wouldn't be caught dead with inkjet prints on their walls. Gelatin silver, Type C, or Type R is what you see (and, of course, cyanotype, van dyke brown, platinum, gum bichromate, etc.). I work for a museum exhibit preparation company in Los Angeles. The only time we do inkjet prints are for huge panoramas. If prints are from digital, Type-C lightjet prints is what is done. Most prints are NOT from digital, however.

 

Keith

[William Michael]

>>> They have to be gallery quality.<<<

 

Assuming you have bought neither camera, buying a 645, 6x6 or 6x7 or even 4x5 format film camera will be less expensive, and, optically printed, all will give better quality prints at the enlargement sizes you quote.

 

The cost benefits, obviously will increase as the print run, (and / or multiples of prints) increases.

 

The studio from which I just resigned uses 4x5 for studio and 6 x 7 for location portraiture: at 30 x 24 inch prints there is a noticeable difference to 135mm format DSLR.

 

I acknowledge that in various precincts, finding a quality professional lab will be difficult, but if you really want gallery quality at these sizes, IMO there is only one answer, as at July 2007.

 

WW

[images_in_light_north_west]

Get a 5D

[miles_hecker]

Dave,

 

I make and sell 20"x30" gallery quality landscape prints

from my 5D all the time. It costs about $2600 versus $6500 for

the 1dsMK2.

 

The 1dsMK2 will create files that look the same as the 5D

printed at 20"x30" and viewed at a distance of 1 foot.

 

The glass used and your technique will be the limiting factor in most instances. My 1DSMK2 replaced my Pentax 645 and my 5D replaced the 1DS. They both are the equal of drum scanned 645 at 20"x30".

 

Another limiting factor will be your skills in the digital darkroom.

You need to develop them to a high level or farm the post-processing work out to a good pro.

 

Hope this helps!

[William Michael]

`Gallery quality` is an arbitrary term and as such open to our personal interpretations.

 

In commenting, we can only say definitively `A` will outperform `B` etc.

 

But we may also make comment upon whether (or not) certain equipment combinations and skills will meet our personal standards for what we each term `gallery quality`.

 

WW

[colinsouthern]

Even 100 dpi is about 16 dots per square millimeter - if your eyes can resolve that at the normal viewing distance for a 20 x 30 inch print then they're a lot better than mine!

 

Remember that photographs are 2 dimensional - so if you want to double the resolution in both axis then you need FOUR times as many pixels - ie to double the resolution of a 20D (along both axis) you'd need a 32MP camera.

 

Honestly - 8mp - 10mp - 12mp - even 16mp really don't make a lot of difference.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[bluphoto]

Yes, your optimum print res for "magazine quality" prints is 300dpi - but how close do you hold a magazine (1-2ft), compared to how close you view gallery prints from (6-10ft?).

 

At five times the viewing distance of normal "magazine" viewing. the "dot spacing" on the wall can be five times that of the magazine. So you're 300dpi comes down to about 80dpi.

 

You can see what I mean by looking at 30x15ft billboards, close up. The dots there are huge - maybe 5dpi or less, but all the drives passing by see is a decent picture.

 

IMHO, it's all about viewing distance.

 

cheers,

Guy

[gaetano catelli]

5D.

[patrick tom]

Even 100 dpi is about 16 dots per square millimeter - if your eyes can resolve that at the normal viewing distance for a 20 x 30 inch print then they're a lot better than mine!

 

Remember that photographs are 2 dimensional - so if you want to double the resolution in both axis then you need FOUR times as many pixels - ie to double the resolution of a 20D (along both axis) you'd need a 32MP camera.

 

Honestly - 8mp - 10mp - 12mp - even 16mp really don't make a lot of difference.

 

This is not true...I'll do it algebraically first...(Z)mp = Y" x X"...2(Y)mp= 2(Y" x X")...the best way I can explain it...is if you determine the print size from 8mp...it is already a number that describes a square unit...square inches...doubling that number doubles the square...whew...I hope that helps

[bluphoto]

Much as I'd like to agree, I think I have to differ. Doubling the number of pixels doesn't double the pixel resolution in both X and Y Axes.

 

Think about it like this - put two 8MP sensors next to eachother -tou then have double the number of pixels in total - that's double the number of pixels along the bottom, but exactly the same number along the "side".

 

To get double the "resolution" in both X and Y axes, you absolutely MUST have four times the number of pixels in total.

 

Okay so that's only when I use my definition of the word "resolution". If you are simply talking about the number of pixels in total when you talk about resolution, then double the res = double the pixels - but I don't think that's the right definition for it.

 

cheers,

Guy