D300 for wildlife- Print quality?

[jonpaulgallery]

I am a professional photographer shooting large format, producing my own drum

scans, my own digital darkroom work in PS, and finally large, sharp lightjet

prints for gallery display. I would like to add wildlife images to my gallery

walls. i believe that digital is the way to go now for this type of work. I

have a few nikon lenses, so will choose a Nikon body. The D300 looks like the

right choice for me. I like the price, the 1.5x lens extension due to the

sensor size, adequate number of exposures per second etc. My question is...has

anyone tested the print quality yet? I am accustomed to pristine prints in

large sizes. i understand that these images will not equal prints from large

format film! I am trying to educate myself as to what i can expect. should

24x30 prints be doable at a high quality (fine gallery quality)?

 

thanks for your educated input.

 

Jon

[jimstrutz]

If I were you, I'd download some of the sample images from the D300, and make some test prints. Here's a couple places to start looking...

 

http://www.nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d300/sample.htm

 

http://nikond300.dpnotes.com/full-sized-high-iso-nikon-d300-samples/

 

For more, do a Google search for "D300 samples."

[bob_sunley]

The easy answer is crop one of your scans to 1x1.5" and print it at 25x linear. It won't be exact, but it will be in the ballpark.

[lwg]

I am not happy with enlarging the D300 images that much. From the sound of your other images I think the lack of detail would be readily apparent as your customers browse between your images. I haven't had my D300 long enough to know how large they can go, but I did a few crops with detail printed at 180ppi (you are planning on either 120 or 140ppi depending on your crop) and I wasn't happy with the quality. I am also used to drum scanned 4x5 and 6x7 film for large prints.

[Ed_Ingold]

Taste varies! The D300, at 12.1MP should be similar to my D2x (12.3MP). With resampling, I can get an excellent 16x24 inch print. Larger than that, I'd suggest using 645 of (better) 6x7cm film.

[douglas_greenberg]

24x30 is obviously quite large for a DX-sized original image, even at 12.3 megapixels and even with the very finest lenses. A key issue here is what your standards for sharpness actually are. When most people look at gallery-sized photos they are looking from a certain distance; they don't generally crowd up close to scrutinize them from a few inches away. From even a couple of feet away a small amount of enlargement-caused "lack of detail" is not at all objectionable.

 

On the other hand, if what you are used to is the level of detail that can be achieved using large format film, these kinds of enlargement from a small original image will surely disappoint you.

 

I think that Jim's suggestion is excellent, i.e., that you download some good sample files from the D300 and experiment with printing a few.

[trunfio]

Not understanding this thread... I shoot with D200/D300 and regularly print larger than

16x20 (24x30 resampled in Genuine Fractals 5). I have compared 20x24 prints of Imacon

scans of my 120 film on a Hasselblad with 150mm CF and do not get the clarity I get from

the Nikons. I guess if I wanted to go the route of a drum scan, I could do that, but then this

is getting ridiculously expensive.

[summitar]

I consider that "need many megs to print large" is a fallacious urban legend. I have made excellent 12 by 18 inch prints from 5 meg Canon Powershot photos with minimum PP at Costco for $2.99 each. Give it a try. I know I am just an ignorant amateur, but I spent quite a few years supporting overhead recce. You want to talk resoluton, I'll talk resolution, assuming you have the appropriate clearances.

[jtk]

If you're printing on a lesser printer the native resolution may be under 200ppi, but Epsons have long been 300/320ppi.

 

As well, the issue may not be resolution so much as shadow detail, which

appears to be less with any of the Nikons than with 5D or perhaps the new Sony Alpha700 (which reportedly rivals D300 resolution while beating its shadow detail, using essentially the same sensor).

[www.flickr.comphotostone]

This seems to be a reoccuring theme the megapixel myth I have made

tack sharp Images with a 6mp Nikon D-50 (now replaced) and a Nikon D-200 I am talking 16x20 and 20x24 If the image is exposed correctly and

you use cs2 0r 3 and or Genunine fractals. I have seen 20x30 prints from the D-300 and D-3. so with some education and patience it's

possible.<div></div>

[van_camper]

Anthony, I don't consider that image of the eagle sharp. I recommend go to the store, shoot a few, bring the samples home and print it yourself. No doubts left.

[www.flickr.comphotostone]

I agree Van, this particular image isnt the best example, but as I stated earlier It is possible. this image was shot from a vehicle with a 500mm f/4 with a kirk window mount and ballhead, not the best example by far. I have personally seen Images from a D-300 and a D3 that were blown up to 20x30 that were a heck of alot better that what I posted.pehaps I should not have posted the image at all. In addition all professionals use post processing and results may and do vary.<div></div>

[www.flickr.comphotostone]

the Image that I just Posted was shot with a Nikon D-200 a Nikon 60mm

macro with an SB-800. I have this On my wall It was printed by Darkroom imaging a local Lab it is printed 16x20.I pesonally think that If I had my choice I would be using the D-3 But I like the 1.5 crop factor. for Better examples of Professional wildlife Images pleas check out some images from Eric Dresser.

[douglas_greenberg]

It seems that a stumbling block in this discussion is that each person has his/her own criteria for what is optimal (or acceptable) sharpness. I have no doubt that through excellent technique and post-processing skill people can produce pleasing 16x20 or larger prints from DSLR files. But these simply will NOT be as detailed and sharp as a similar-sized print made from a carefully prepared large-format film negative, e.g., 4x5 or larger. It's simply no contest.

 

Again, the reality is that when most people look at a poster-sized print in a gallery or elsewhere, they generally don't walk up so close that their noses are inches away from the photo. There is a certain distance from which people tend to view such pictures, and from a few feet away a slight loss of fine detail is not going to be a big deal.

 

I recall viewing (repeatedly!) an exhibit of photos of African landscapes and wildlife that was posted in one of those long corridors in Hartsfield Airport in Atlanta. These photos appeared fabulous as I walked past each image from several feet away. But when I would stop to take a very close look one could see that the actual sharpness was compromised by the size of the enlargements. Only by stepping up quite close was this apparent, however.

[andrew_sacco]

OK, for the drum scan/scan issue. I have a Fuji rangefinder 6x7 camera I was thinking of selling. Mostly for landscapes, but I don't get images scanned due to cost, but toyed with the idea of a Nikon 9000 scanner. From some of the comments made, more than one, it seems a 6x7 scanned well will outperform (tonality? resolution?) a 12.1mpx D300?