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!

New MF considerations when printing large

algrove

Well-known member
I like to print and that is why I own a Phase DB. If I want to crop then it has never been an impediment to printing out to 17x22". I cannot currently print on paper of 24x36" or 24x48" or 44x88", but I have been considering getting a 44" printer. So let's say that costs $5k excluding new inks and paper. Can I print 44x88 with an uncropped image with either a 33x44 or 54x40 sensor? Not sure and just thinking out loud.

After reading all of this input and thoughts, which has got me soul searching about my gear choices, at some point many of us non-Cambo users will have another alternative to consider and that is moving to the Fuji 100MP if its images can print very large. Heck, the $ savings could be enormous switching to it, not to mention getting all the advantages built into the GFX 100, like auto focus stacking for landscpe use which the XT and my Alpa STC do not have. OK, I know Alpa has alternative devices for that, but it is not an elegant solution for me. IBIS and all the other features might not be of value to many of us, but I found that just two features, AF and weather sealing, on my 50R were highly welcomed when shooting the Steam Engines in Winter article and in the end made the shoot enjoyable. Thus, for me, reducing my gear down to the Fuji alternative just might pay dividends. Heck all 9 GF lenses plus the GFX100 costs $20k less than an IQ4150 DB alone. Yikes!

Help and comments?
 

stevenfr

Active member
From the IQ4 150 full frame print no cropping gives me a very detailed 43” x 57” print. To get to 88” you will need to stitch or crop the image to fit the longer length. We just sold some very detailed 28 ft prints that had incredible detail from stitched images. When I moved from the Iq3 100 to the Iq4 150 I noticed the prints at the 43” x 57” size were more detailed. I call it sharp but smooth. I didn’t feel like i had to push the file or worry that the print would not meet my expectations. Of course this is my opinion and others will have different experiences. I am very picky on how my prints look, they are sold in fine art galleries and I want them to look as good as possible. FYI, I print on Hahnemühle Photo Rag Baryta.

I think you should test print some images. Feel free to email me to chat.
 

Pradeep

Member
I love printing large and have a 44" printer at home. In the past I've used the Phase-1 and the Pentax 645Z MF cameras but now only have FF bodies, my current ones being the Sony a9 and the a7R3.

Everything depends upon the normal viewing distance and of course your desire to come even closer to the print. We've all seen billboard size prints from iPhone images that look pretty darned good from the street.

On a recent trip I shot some bird images with the a9 and as usual ended up cropping them almost 50% to make the bird fill up the frame. I printed these in vertical format at 24X36 and have them in my office.

To my eyes they look pretty good and most people who see them also like the detail and quality.

I am not a pro and so my requirements may be different, but I think with most FF sensors you could print a 44X88 as long as you are not going to be looking at it from 3 ft away, having the option to stitch would make it easier. Then there is the technique of 'super resolution' photography which is said to give a much higher density of pixels, have not tried it myself.

I just printed a landscape panorama at 24X72 that I took with the a9 that is a stitch of 3 frames. Waiting to be framed as a gallery wrap, looks very good even from a foot away.

With the a7R4 (I have one on order), it should get easier still. For those of us who like printing large, this is a good time.
 

JimKasson

Well-known member
I like to print and that is why I own a Phase DB. If I want to crop then it has never been an impediment to printing out to 17x22". I cannot currently print on paper of 24x36" or 24x48" or 44x88", but I have been considering getting a 44" printer. So let's say that costs $5k excluding new inks and paper. Can I print 44x88 with an uncropped image with either a 33x44 or 54x40 sensor? Not sure and just thinking out loud.
That's a coincidence. In between my GFX 100 testing and the upcoming a7RIV testing, I've just done a little study on printing from high-megapixel cameras.

https://blog.kasson.com/category/printers/

It's best to start at the earliest posts and work forward.

Jim
 

D&A

Well-known member
I've often printed large (although there are many others here who have far more extensive experience and knowledge than I do in this arena).

Although this is an over-simplification and most obvious to some who are dedicated large format printers, I have found in my years of printing, often from file sizes far smaller than one would find ideal for the print sizes I needed (going back to the 1.3 MP days of the earliest Coolpix cameras)....there are still some constants that never change, in my opinion.

1. As just mentioned in a previous post, viewing distance to the actual print.

2. Techniques used in post processing/adjusting the files, especially sharpening and upscaling (if necessary). This and #3 (below) can make as significant a difference to the quality of the final print as most anything else.

3. Printing software and it's associated algorithms and profiles used in final preparation of the file for printing.

4. Of course what file size and its quality needed for a printed portrait of a given size, often is considerably smaller than that needed for a highly detailed landscape. So often one can get away with using a smaller than ideal files size for a printed portrait than they could for a printed landscape of the same size.

Obviously performance of the optics used to capture the file, the camera and associated sensor and its resolution are of importance but the four comments I listed above can often play just as important a role in the final print and how large is deemed acceptable.

Lastly most of us are critical when viewing an image, especially a print, but the general audience often has a different level of acceptance, especially when the subject matter is more compelling than the technical details that most of us agonize over.

All I've expressed though are generalities and its not to imply that the techniques and specifics of file preparation and printing techniques always play a secondary role. All factors outlined contribute in a significant way to the final print and be taken into consideration.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

vjbelle

Well-known member
Lou..... I have printed large on 44 inch printers for years and there is a learning curve especially with regards to upsampling and when/how to use it. I'm extremely picky but have found that a 33X44 sensor can produce an extremely nice 40 inch print. This is upsizing the file to 600ppi so as to bypass all other upsampling in the chain. Even a 4150 file at 600ppi is going to need upsampling at 40 inches and beyond just not as much as a 33X44 sensor. 44X88, to me, is really pushing the 4150 for extreme detail. I don't print that large so I have no practical experience but I know how a 4150 file looks like when printed to 48 inches and upsized to 600ppi. There is extremely fine detail that even the 3100 didn't have.

Go for it..... you'll not only be amazed at how it looks but you'll have a lot of fun.

Victor
 

JimKasson

Well-known member
Lou..... I have printed large on 44 inch printers for years and there is a learning curve especially with regards to upsampling and when/how to use it. I'm extremely picky but have found that a 33X44 sensor can produce an extremely nice 40 inch print. This is upsizing the file to 600ppi so as to bypass all other upsampling in the chain. Even a 4150 file at 600ppi is going to need upsampling at 40 inches and beyond just not as much as a 33X44 sensor. 44X88, to me, is really pushing the 4150 for extreme detail. I don't print that large so I have no practical experience but I know how a 4150 file looks like when printed to 48 inches and upsized to 600ppi. There is extremely fine detail that even the 3100 didn't have.

Go for it..... you'll not only be amazed at how it looks but you'll have a lot of fun.

Victor
If you're using an Epson printer, 600 ppi is not a good pitch to use for the file sent to the driver. Either 360 ppi or 720 ppi is a better choice.
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
If you're using an Epson printer, 600 ppi is not a good pitch to use for the file sent to the driver. Either 360 ppi or 720 ppi is a better choice.
Of course..... I am printing on a 44 inch Canon.:D An Epson will require even more upsampling at 720ppi and won't from my experiences give you a better print but certainly just as good. And yes..... I have owned large format Epson printers.

Victor
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Hope this isn t off topic . When comparing the image quality aspects of files from the Fuji GFX 100 and the Phase IQ4 150 .....doesn t pixel size matter ? One of the advantages of a larger physical sensor should be larger pixels ..resulting in better color saturation and dynamic range ? Do I understand this correctly ?
 

buildbot

Well-known member
Hope this isn t off topic . When comparing the image quality aspects of files from the Fuji GFX 100 and the Phase IQ4 150 .....doesn t pixel size matter ? One of the advantages of a larger physical sensor should be larger pixels ..resulting in better color saturation and dynamic range ? Do I understand this correctly ?
Better perhaps - pixel size is one component as well as sensor tech from the perspective of how well a sensor absorbs and records light. Some people for example really love the look of the 22MP 9um back, since it has much larger pixels than anything else currently on the market.
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Hope this isn t off topic . When comparing the image quality aspects of files from the Fuji GFX 100 and the Phase IQ4 150 .....doesn t pixel size matter ? One of the advantages of a larger physical sensor should be larger pixels ..resulting in better color saturation and dynamic range ? Do I understand this correctly ?
The pixel dimensions of the 4150 are the same as the Fuji 100. The sensor dimensions are the only difference.

Victor
 

Pradeep

Member
I am sure this has been discussed here before, but one very inexpensive piece of software that upscales automatically for you and produces IMHO the best results is QImage. It is now available for Mac as well, which is great news for all of us who've been running Windows in a shell just for this purpose.

www.ddisoftware.com

Check it out. I have compared it directly with LR and PS, even at 5X7 the difference in sharpness, detail, color is obvious. At larger sizes it gets better.
 

JimKasson

Well-known member
An Epson will require even more upsampling at 720ppi and won't from my experiences give you a better print but certainly just as good.
In my testing, 720 ppi doesn't buy you much over 360 ppi, and you lose the variable drop size.



Jim
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I would not worry about print size with a 44" printer. I have printed many images from many formats from APS-C to 35mm to MFD. All print very well. I have even printed 35mm film scans at that size. Is is really do to your skill as a printer and it is not really that difficult. There are just a few extra steps you may need to do at the printing stage.

BTW, print size is really limited by viewing distance not pixel number. It is a persistent myth. Print big and be happy. The largest print I ever made was 165"x165" of a microscope image for an exhibition. I have often printed 42"x180" panoramas.

The biggest problem you may face is finding enough wall space...
 

Gerd

Active member
.........not to mention getting all the advantages built into the GFX 100, like auto focus stacking for landscpe use which the XT and my Alpa STC do not have. .......
Something OT:

Just focusstacking would be a point not to use the GFX. The implementation of Focusstacking in the XF is much better - in my opinion.

Greeting Gerd
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
In my testing, 720 ppi doesn't buy you much over 360 ppi, and you lose the variable drop size.


Jim
I can't speak to losing the variable drop size and it's effect on the final print outcome. Epson could have come to the conclusion that variable drop size wasn't necessary at 720ppi resolution. I do know that I see a difference between 600ppi and 300ppi. Canon's print plugin automatically prints at 600ppi for finest resolution. I suggest that anyone considering upsampling to the maximum printer capabilities print an image with lower and maximum ppi resolutions and come to their own conclusions. I won't print at anything less than 600ppi.

Victor
 

alajuela

Active member
This is a nice informative and civil thread :)

You might want to contact John at Colorbyte software. They are the makers of the RIP Image Print. The software upsizes with their proprietary algorism.

They have up to date profiles and focus on both Epson and Canon and all papers under the sun.

They make life simple and yet the software is flexiable

I would check it out

https://www.colorbytesoftware.com/

I have used Image Print since the Epson 4800 when they had a solution to the crazy Epson idea of swapping out matte and photo black ink tanks.

We live in good days


Thanks

Phil
 

D&A

Well-known member
Like Phil, I used Imageprint RIP for years with Epson printers and in testing it against Epson's own RIP and Qimage (which I tried a number of times, especially in its earlier incarnations), Imageprint was superior in terms of quality of print ouput. Q image though was superior in being intuitive to use and its uprezing and resizing for print size was extremely good. Qimage is/was constantly being refined and I have not tried it in a long time and would love to hear feedback from those that currently use it with regards to its current state, especially in use with Epson printers. Thanks.

Dave (D&A)
 

algrove

Well-known member
Something OT:

Just focusstacking would be a point not to use the GFX. The implementation of Focusstacking in the XF is much better - in my opinion.

Greeting Gerd
Have you used both systems with auto focus stacking?
 
Last edited:

Pradeep

Member
Pradeep, I found this on the QImage website:



They provide a link to a "lite" version with a different author. Which version do you use?

Back in the day, I used QImage exclusively to print but became frustrated with having to run Parallels on my Mac.

Joe
Joe, I too found it frustrating to run Fusion for this, but it was worth all the trouble simply because of the excellent prints that it produced and the ease of layouts etc.

Mike Chaney was kind enough to involve me in the beta testing of the Mac product, it is called QImage One. He partnered with Binaterm for the development and release of this product, here is the website:

https://www.binartem.com/qimageone/

It is the same link that you posted and it is the same program that I am using. It is a 'lite' version in the sense that it does not do any RAW processing or image manipulation that the original Windows version is capable of, however, it has all the printing capabilities of the original and that is really all I ever used it for. I only use LR and PS for image optimization, then import into Q Image for printing.

In my own testing it works very well. There is a very subtle difference in the color profile on the prints, but I believe it may be due to how MacOS works with color profiling compared to Windows 7 (which is what I am running the Win version under).

There is one other feature of QI one that I find very useful and although the Win version also has this, it never worked because the Windows shell goes into sleep mode and the program does not launch itself. The Mac version, even if the computer is asleep, wakes up and runs this on a pre-scheduled time.

This is the 'unclog' pattern option where the program will print a half page (or any user defined size) of a pattern that is said to utilize every nozzle in the print head and force the ink out, keeping the head from clogging. On my Epson printers it has been very useful, as I do not print that often.
 
Top