The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

tashley

Subscriber Member
At native (360ppi) the A7 is 16.66 long side and the A7r is 20.44 long side. That may not seem like much difference but it is when upsampling. My experience has shown that more pixels always makes for smoother upsampling and every image I choose to print needs to be upsampled (including 80mp). I'm not talking about upsampling to the same size but rather to the same percentage amount. Of course content is important but my rule of thumb is 1.5X native size. Again, content matters and some images can withstand close scrutiny at 2.0X native size.

Victor
Why do you choose 360 as 'native'?
 

Ron Pfister

Member
Well, there are 'native' printer resolutions. Epson drivers, e.g. up-res images to 360ppi if you're using standard settings, or to 720ppi if you're using 'finest detail'. Best to up-res yourself, and don't let the driver do it - the results are superior.

Edit - here some rules that work well for me:
- if your image is <360ppi, up-res to 360ppi and use standard settings (but not 'high speed')
- if you image is between 360 and 720ppi, up-res to 720ppi and use 'finest detail' (again not 'high speed')

LR makes this up-ressing very easy (just check the box in the print module)
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
LR makes this up-ressing very easy (just check the box in the print module)
Ron.... don't get sensitive - please.:) I would never, ever use lightroom to upsize anything!:eek:

I print 36 to 40 inches all day long with IQ180 files and D800e files on my 9900...... I know what works and it sure ain't lightroom.:thumbdown:

Victor
 

Ron Pfister

Member
I've been happy with it so far. What do you use? ImagePrint? Mirage? I've tried a number of things and came to the conclusion that the combination of print quality and workflow efficiency LR offers is hard to beat...
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Why do you choose 360 as 'native'?
Because I print with an Epson 9900. My usual print is minimum 36 inches in the long direction and more than likely 40 inches. I am very fortunate to have done well in life and have a large home designed for gallery space..... so I print for my own enjoyment. 40 inches is a large print on a wall and yet you'd be surprised at how many people want to get six inches away to 'peep'.:shocked:

I should add that I won't allow the printer driver to do any upsampling....... I do all upsampling in PS and send the file to my 9900 at 360ppi.

Victor
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
I've been happy with it so far. What do you use? ImagePrint? Mirage? I've tried a number of things and came to the conclusion that the combination of print quality and workflow efficiency LR offers is hard to beat...
I use my own methods....... I've been doing this for more than 40 years so please understand that I've really been around the block. When I was a kid I was learning color printing on a Kodak drum..... now that really dates me.:shocked: Image print is a rip off:thumbdown:..... for upsampling I have found through the years that nothing beats Fractals - now owned by OnOne. Experience is the teacher...... you can't just click away. Little finesse touches make a difference in the print. No matter what...... more pixels means better prints.:thumbup:

Victor
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Well, there are 'native' printer resolutions. Epson drivers, e.g. up-res images to 360ppi if you're using standard settings, or to 720ppi if you're using 'finest detail'. Best to up-res yourself, and don't let the driver do it - the results are superior.

Edit - here some rules that work well for me:
- if your image is <360ppi, up-res to 360ppi and use standard settings (but not 'high speed')
- if you image is between 360 and 720ppi, up-res to 720ppi and use 'finest detail' (again not 'high speed')

LR makes this up-ressing very easy (just check the box in the print module)
I have read so many studies that say the exact opposite: always allow the printer to do the up-resing. Truly this is Juju land!
 

Ron Pfister

Member
All I have ever read says the opposite (at least as far as Epson printer drivers are concerned). Their up-sampling is clearly sub-par. Compare it with the up-sampling in LR. Definitely an improvement...
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
I never had a large format Epson - I hate the ink switching. On HP and Canon 36" printers from all my cameras up to IQ180 I have always let the printer upres - i wish I could find the definitive article I read on it by some master printer dude but it backed up what I learned from a bunch of other places including LuLa videos and Schewe books. But like I say, it's Juju land and the only rule is that whatever works for the individual is right, as long as they have a good eye! However, I never print at home larger than 36" long side and when I send out for larger, never more than 50".

I did try genuine fractals for a year and I really thought the results were nasty. We all see differently.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Do you print directly from LR, Tim?
Hi Ron. And Victor. I'm not equips to get involved in this argument. But I dd d a pretty comprehensive comparison between LR and Aperture for printing, and much prefer the results from Aperture (which also seems to do a nice job with the A7r files. )
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, jump. C1 shows that the files don't have to look 'reticulated' (not suggesting that you use it, just so's you know that it's down to decoding not hard-coding) and the 35 and 55 are both very good (if you can get a good copy).

The water's lovely, come on in!
Hi Tim
Aperture does a good job as far as I can see, so that's one obstacle down. Next problem is which camera. (And where to get the 55 from!)
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Do you print directly from LR, Tim?
For ages I didn't but for about a year now, I do. I use one printer (these days an iPF6300 Canon) and mostly just two papers (Canson Platine and Hanny German Etching) and I just got into the groove with them after endless decking about. Exactly what I do depends on the way the subject of the image itself relates to the resolution of the file and the intended output size and paper but I did send some stuff out to a very expensive, classy print shop (they print for the Tate, for example, and many serious London galleries) and then compared the results to my own home brew and there was little difference and no clear winner.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Hi Tim
Aperture does a good job as far as I can see, so that's one obstacle down. Next problem is which camera. (And where to get the 55 from!)
I haven't tried Aperture with A7R files but I am in deep correspondence with a chap who has tried every permutation of sharpening and NR in LR, Ap and C1 and the best results he has had so far seem to be from C1, which is a bummer because, err, it's C1… LR clearly isn't doing a good job.
 

hcubell

Well-known member
I haven't tried Aperture with A7R files but I am in deep correspondence with a chap who has tried every permutation of sharpening and NR in LR, Ap and C1 and the best results he has had so far seem to be from C1, which is a bummer because, err, it's C1… LR clearly isn't doing a good job.
It's a scary thought, Tim, but I wonder if anyone has had a look at how Sony's own software handles the A7R files.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
It's a scary thought, Tim, but I wonder if anyone has had a look at how Sony's own software handles the A7R files.
Image Data Converter (Sony's understanding of what the acronym IDC stands for, I have other ideas :D ) crashes all the time on my main machine. On my Retina laptop it works, but the screen res is too high for fine work. However I have managed, painfully, to ascertain that there is no apparent logic to the sharpening sliders and that Zero does not mean Zero - so I gave it a mess. Sorry, miss.
 
Top