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!

Extremely large scale flower photograph

Ztacir

Member
Dear feollows,
I would like to take flower pictures and print at 180cmx220cm .
You can see an example of what I want at Marc Quinn - Flowers
This is a painting and scales of the flowers are enormous.
My equipment is Phase IQ180 with DF body and 120 mm macro lens.
I am kind of confused about how to shoot to get this same feeling.
Your suggestions are mostly appreciated.
Ziya
 
Last edited:
Don't really understand what you are looking for? To get the same feeling with a photo as a painting? You need some very advanced lighting to get something to look like that with a photo...

Dear feollows,
I would like to take flower pictures and print at 180cmx220cm .
You can see an example of what I want at Marc Quinn - Flowers
This is a painting and scales of the flowers are enormous.
My equipment is Phase IQ180 with DF body and 120 mm macro lens.
I am kind of confused about how to shoot to get this same feeling.
Your suggestions are mostly appreciated.
Ziya
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
good soft lighting, then perhaps a focus stack to get sharpness from front to back.
Should be fairly straightforward.
-bob
 

Ztacir

Member
Do you think one shot would be allright or I should take multiple shots and then stitch them
in order to have a higher resolution file for a large print?
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
no, one frame should be fine up to and perhaps beyond 24x32 How large do you want to go?
Very large prints usually need less resolution than you might think.
-bob
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
well, that large you will with one frame be printing in excess of 150 dpi which ought to be plenty at that size.
Only with a loupe at at nose length would you be able to detect any loss.
But, if it makes you happy, sure, stitch two vertical frames.
take a test shot of a detailed subject, up-res it to your final size, crop a small bit of it and print it out to see what you would get.
Do hold it out at arms length since it is very hard to take in a print that large even at that distance.
-bob
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
First - I looked at the link for Marc Quinn's "Flowers". Beautiful.

I have a DF and 120mm macro lens as well however I have an IQ160. I also use a Cambo WRS for most my landscape work. That said - if I were going to do this at the same scale you suggest (78x90) I'd....

Opt to use the WRS. My first thought would be getting a finished file large enough and good enough to support the size. Thinking that more is sometimes better, I'd plan on doing at least 2 flat stitches and several captures at various focal lengths in order to stitch the image as well as stack the focus.

We're at the point where I differ with Bob. I routinely print 60x30 and never go below 360 dpi so why start with this? Sure the file will be frikking huge and you best have a heck of a lot of memory but the finished image should be something you're proud of.

Which brings me to a question. What's the end result? Is this a wall hanger or are you thinking some other purpose for /of display? What media are you planning on printing on? Paper can go less that 60 dpi and still hold quite well. If on canvas on the other hand (I do 95% of my printing on canvas) then you should think closer to the 360 mark. Likewise what is your intended printing process as this may help you figure out the media.

Now you have me thinking of doing something similar.....

Don
 

PeterA

Well-known member
This type of shot is classic archival/documenary/curator stuff - if you visit some larger libraries/museums/public galleries that actually do this type of work - you will find that best practice is a multishot back if you are after the kind of colour fidelity and maximum three dimensionality at close observation distances it appears you are chasing - then forget single shot toy backs at any megapixel size.

Yes you can focus stack as mentioned above - but you won't get the depth of colour or fidelity you get from a true multishot.

Usually you want to use a repro studio camera | a very heavy stable mounting base eg FOBO studio stand sitting on a vibration free floor and | the type of lighting set-up you need to get the look you want...


All depends on the absolute best quality benchmark standards you want.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
Peter is right.

I forgot to add the question of just what it is you'll be photographing. Nature it self or is it a piece of art that you hope to reproduce? Either way you'll need a rock solid support system for both the subject and camera system.

I'd estimate several days in the capture - setting it up, testing, resetting, testing before final acceptance and the shot itself. Then there's the post and printing. All in all not a easy project but one that should be fruitful.

Please keep us posted on the outcome.

Don
 

EH21

Member
The issue with flowers is they tend to react to the lights and change shape a bit more quickly than one would like. There are lights that have the IR filtered out, but I haven't tried them. With regular strobes sometimes mulitshot works and sometimes it doesn't since they flowers move. But yes definitely multishot has an advantage for stuff like flowers. Also of relevance is multishot backs can be stopped down more without apparent diffraction affects - probably since a number of files contribute to the final data and some wavelengths of light have less diffraction for a given aperture. Anyhow, I'd stop down to f/13 on my AFi-ii 12, but go to f/18 or even f/20 with the CF-528.
The extra DOF can be handy for macro work. Some movements might also help with DOF so the recommendation for a tech camera also makes sense.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
Which printer would folks recommend for a print this large? I've done a 2.7m square print with some HP beast, but wasn't happy with the output, despite feeding it with a 30,000 x 30,000 pixel file.

Regards,

Gerald.
 

Ztacir

Member
I have a Cambo W-RS as well but my lenses are 23,40 and 70 mm and I thought I may need a 120 mm to zoom in for a close up feeling.What do you think the best lens for the Cambo would be for this particular project?
I do not have a multi shot back unfortunately :((
I will use my IQ180.
I will use the LightJet 550 printer and its paper for my prints .
I am planning to hang the final print at the wall of my dining room to feed my appetite:watch:
Ziya
 
On one of the images you can clearly see the oil paint splashes are significantly sharper than the underlying photo, plus it seems he prints onto canvas so again you'll lose detail. My gut feeling is that a single shot from your IQ180 will be much sharper than those images at similar sizes.

In the end it depends on the image size versus how far the viewer is from the image.

As a rule of thumb, at normal viewing distances - where the viewing distance equals the diagonal of the image size - a good 12 MP file will look sharp at any size.
 

Geoff

Well-known member
EH21 is on target here - the kind of flower will matter. Will it move while you are shooting it? That will drive many of the decisions - is focus stacking or MS even possible? How steady is the flower, and how will it react to longer light shining (heat)?

Once you know that, then you will know the lattitude you have, and which of the different approaches are even feasible.
 
Top