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

Pradeep

Member
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
At the risk of causing thread drift :)

I was always a Canon fan having used their cameras for years, so naturally had a Canon printer for my large prints - at the time maximum of 13X19. I was extremely frustrated at the lack of color fidelity with 3rd party media, the colors changing over time and the constant problems with the inks. Then bought the HP B9180 until it kept breaking down - was the best for B&W and even color but had to get several replacements under warranty because the mechanics were severely flawed.

Finally bought the Epson large format 44" version and was thrilled with the ease of color management with most media. The only problem being the head clogging problem. Had to replace it after five years because the head could not be cleaned. Bought another one.

For me at the time the Epson was the clear winner because of its pigment inks, but since then I am hearing great things about Canon.

So in a long winded way, my question is, while I am very happy with my Epson, it is out of warranty and when (only a question of time) it needs to be replaced, would a Canon Prograf be a better option, considering that my main aim is print quality, especially B&W which I love. Of course having a system where the head is easy to replace (as with Canon) would be an added bonus.

IOW, is the Canon capable of producing sharper and better prints overall? The reviews I have looked at are split on this.
 

vjbelle

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
Gerd.... Although I have never used an XF I always thought that being able to pick and start and end points for the stack was clever. No other camera I know of is able to do that. However I have used the GFX version of focus stacking and can attest to its capabilities. It works extremely well even though it wants to march on to either infinity or the end of image information when stacking.

Victor
 

Gerd

Active member
Gerd.... Although I have never used an XF I always thought that being able to pick and start and end points for the stack was clever. No other camera I know of is able to do that. However I have used the GFX version of focus stacking and can attest to its capabilities. It works extremely well even though it wants to march on to either infinity or the end of image information when stacking.

Victor
That's a long story - I'm trying to make it short.

When the GFX starts an FS sequence, it stops at infinity. Infinity is not really sharp in relation to a landscape. It works much better manually/more precise.

The GFX takes a different number of pictures when repeating a sequence - from time to time. Sometimes in difficult lighting conditions, the sequence simply dies. You can simulate that, just put a lens cap on the lens and start a sequence. For me, the GFX often crashes and I have to remove the battrie.

Focus by Wire is sometimes a problem for me. If I have to wait for light, it can happen that the camera turns off. When switched on, the camera moves the focus motor to a new position (also in MF mode). This is not a broken leg, but it annoys considerably because you have to control it again.

The GFX does not write sequence ID's in the metadata. You have to wait between the sequences or photograph your hand or something similar. to keep your sequences reasonably close to each other later in the RAW converter.

All this makes the XF much better. You can accurately determine and save the near and far points. You get MCU values ​​for both points. MCU values ​​are nothing more than precise focus motor positions that can be reused and recalled at any time. You can also write them down because you can see them. You can have the steps calculated automatically or you can manually configure it as you wish. The XF writes sequence IDs into the metadata for all sequences. Automatically stacking or sorting these in the RAW converter is no problem at all.

I have described it as briefly as possible.

Greeting Gerd
 

algrove

Well-known member
Other than writing sequence data to the file indicating the image is in a focus stack, they both work equally well for me. The big difference now that Frame Averaging is available will benefit Phase use, but I have a tech cam now for that instead of a heavy XF and associated lenses.

My tech cam 5 lens bag (210mm longest) is about 15kg lighter than my XF 5 lens bag (240mm longest and more batteries) was.

OK, can we get back to large printing now.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
The other thing to consider is whether you have a good view area/conditions. That is a piece that can make a big difference in output and consistency. The usual conditions is having D5000 viewing lights and D6500 monitor calibration (I have not found a good reason why that mismatch works best, but oddly it does). Also, have your printing software interface set to a white or high key work space, the dark gray work space in Photoshop, for example, will have you printing dark. All this should be in a room with neutral color--be careful of UV brighteners in paint. I would recommend Real World Color Management by Fraser, et al as a good reference work in setting this up.
 

narikin

New 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.
Actually the newest generation of Epson printers - P10000 and P20000 - now have heads that print at 150/300/600dpi.
It seems they have followed Canon in this respect.
 

JimKasson

Well-known member
Actually the newest generation of Epson printers - P10000 and P20000 - now have heads that print at 150/300/600dpi.
It seems they have followed Canon in this respect.
You are correct. And they've dropped the resolution of the marking engine to 2400 x 1200 dpi. Will we ever see 1 pl drops?
 

JeRuFo

Active member
The judgement of print quality is highly subjective. Best way to test this without the big printer would be to print test strips on a smaller printer and then decide if you can live with the files from the GFX. The 44 inch printers behave just like the 24 inch ones, they are just a bit wider.
If you want to get the most from the GFX I'd stay away from the 32-64 and stick with the primes on the wide side, which somewhat negates the weather sealing argument, unless you can live with a fixed focal length (and don't need a lens of around 30mm).
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
At the risk of causing thread drift :)


IOW, is the Canon capable of producing sharper and better prints overall? The reviews I have looked at are split on this.
NO..... I think Epson and Canon and HP are all capable of producing extremely fine prints. Preference comes with handling and maintenance.

Victor
 

algrove

Well-known member
If you want to get the most from the GFX I'd stay away from the 32-64 and stick with the primes on the wide side, which somewhat negates the weather sealing argument, unless you can live with a fixed focal length (and don't need a lens of around 30mm).
Confused about the weather sealing comment. I always thought the 23 and 45 were weather sealed, but I could be wrong. Or do you mean by their nature, zoom lenses have less weather sealing unless internal zooming. like the 100-200?
 

JeRuFo

Active member
Confused about the weather sealing comment. I always thought the 23 and 45 were weather sealed, but I could be wrong. Or do you mean by their nature, zoom lenses have less weather sealing unless internal zooming. like the 100-200?
No, I meant that with primes you are forced to swap lenses from time to time. In really bad weather and without shelter that could be risky, but if you can stick with one focal length there is no problem.
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
Actually the newest generation of Epson printers - P10000 and P20000 - now have heads that print at 150/300/600dpi.
It seems they have followed Canon in this respect.
These are the high end high speed printers. I don’t think it had anything to do with following Canon ( or HP for that matter), but purely for speed. The heads in these printers are much too large to fit in the other epson wide format printers, I don’t think the 300dpi will migrate into the other printers. new large format printers could be a long way in the future since there doesn’t seem to be a lot of technology improvements to be had.

I think all 3 brands are producing pretty amazing output, quality of output is more about the operator than the printer at this point.
 
Last edited:

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Confused about the weather sealing comment. I always thought the 23 and 45 were weather sealed, but I could be wrong. Or do you mean by their nature, zoom lenses have less weather sealing unless internal zooming. like the 100-200?
They are.
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
That's a long story - I'm trying to make it short.

When the GFX starts an FS sequence, it stops at infinity. Infinity is not really sharp in relation to a landscape. It works much better manually/more precise.

The GFX takes a different number of pictures when repeating a sequence - from time to time. Sometimes in difficult lighting conditions, the sequence simply dies. You can simulate that, just put a lens cap on the lens and start a sequence. For me, the GFX often crashes and I have to remove the battrie.

Focus by Wire is sometimes a problem for me. If I have to wait for light, it can happen that the camera turns off. When switched on, the camera moves the focus motor to a new position (also in MF mode). This is not a broken leg, but it annoys considerably because you have to control it again.

The GFX does not write sequence ID's in the metadata. You have to wait between the sequences or photograph your hand or something similar. to keep your sequences reasonably close to each other later in the RAW converter.

All this makes the XF much better. You can accurately determine and save the near and far points. You get MCU values ​​for both points. MCU values ​​are nothing more than precise focus motor positions that can be reused and recalled at any time. You can also write them down because you can see them. You can have the steps calculated automatically or you can manually configure it as you wish. The XF writes sequence IDs into the metadata for all sequences. Automatically stacking or sorting these in the RAW converter is no problem at all.

I have described it as briefly as possible.

Greeting Gerd
Gerd..... I'm a little late getting back to this thread but, as I said, I always thought the XF was very clever with regards to focus stacking.

Appreciate your explanation as to how it works:thumbup:

Victor
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
The heads in these printers are much too large to fit in the other epson wide format printers, I don’t think the 300dpi will migrate into the other printers. new large format printers could be a long way in the future since there doesn’t seem to be a lot of technology improvements to be had.
lol.

Don’t ask me to predict the future. Now these don’t replace the 9000 and 7000 (yet) but it seems they managed to strap the dual row 2.6 inch long nozzle design from the 10/20000 head into a chassis similar to the current 7000/9000 printers, and did move to 300/600/1200 dpi to to leverage the head for speed.

And finally, no swapping between mk and pk
Epson introduces P7570 and P9570 printers.
 
Last edited:

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Whew, that looks interesting. Love the marketing speak though: "dramatically wider color gamut"...6% wider...I am curious whether it is even visible. I just got the P9000 in 2016, so I doubt I will make the switch right away, but the speed, some of the new features and the lack of ink swapping are all really compelling. The idea of adding even more ink cartridges, however, is not quite so compelling. I have also learned not to be an early adopter with new printers/print heads. My early 9900 was a nightmare to deal with, while the P9000 has been a dream by comparison...at least in terms of clogs etc.

As for the original thread, I think anyone shooting a 100mp plus camera with good lenses and good techniques has very little to worry about printing in nearly any size. For extremely large prints, even 120 dpi will be very convincing from half a meter away. I have 37.5mp Leica S prints at 100x150 (40x60 inches) that look stunning at 120dpi. If you have 100-150mp and comparably good lenses, you will be hard pressed to find much to criticize, as long as your technique and workflow are up to snuff.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
As for the original thread, I think anyone shooting a 100mp plus camera with good lenses and good techniques has very little to worry about printing in nearly any size. For extremely large prints, even 120 dpi will be very convincing from half a meter away. I have 37.5mp Leica S prints at 100x150 (40x60 inches) that look stunning at 120dpi. If you have 100-150mp and comparably good lenses, you will be hard pressed to find much to criticize, as long as your technique and workflow are up to snuff.
I compared the S(007) and the extremely sharp S120/2.5 with a similar 64MP camera. Prints of small crops showed no differences at six inch viewing distance until just about 40x60 inches. I'm talking cables and ladders on construction cranes two miles away type detail. Very fine. At 84" wide, the differences were clear.

Regrading QImage, I only made one comparison print, but QImage One (Mac user here) and Canon's Print Studio Pro plugin produced indistinguishable results viewed with a 12x loupe. This depends, of course, on the sharpening level set in QImage. And it requires a Canon printer (I have the Pro-1000). This is high praise, as the Canon plugin is far better than the usual drivers. When I print large, I borrow a friend's 44" Canon Pro-4000. (Getting it in the cab is a real pain! :ROTFL:) Large, to me, is 30x40 inches, so feel free to shake your head at my jejune opinions.

As far as Canon vs. Epson, I found no print quality difference between them, but the amount of wasted paper dropped to zero with the Canon - mostly due to the dedicated plugin.

Disclaimer: I'm not a "get the last shred of detail from the print" person. Probably just laziness.

FWIW,

Matt
 

dchew

Well-known member
lol.

Don’t ask me to predict the future. Now these don’t replace the 9000 and 700 (yet) but it seems they managed to strap the dual row 2.6 inch long nozzle design from the 10/20000 head into a chassis similar to the current 7000/9000 printers, and did move to 300/600/1200 dpi to to leverage the head for speed.

And finally, no swapping between mk and pk
Epson introduces P7570 and P9570 printers.
I'm still nursing a 10-year old 7900. This may push me over the edge to the 9570. I've asked Shades of Paper for dimensions. If I can't get it to fit, then I will just wait until the 7900 gives up the ghost.

Dave
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I compared the S(007) and the extremely sharp S120/2.5 with a similar 64MP camera. Prints of small crops showed no differences at six inch viewing distance until just about 40x60 inches. I'm talking cables and ladders on construction cranes two miles away type detail. Very fine. At 84" wide, the differences were clear.

...Disclaimer: I'm not a "get the last shred of detail from the print" person. Probably just laziness.

FWIW,

Matt
I simply go to the DMV to test my eyesight. I prefer to enjoy the experience when viewing someone's work. And if I have to get to 6" to tell if the "quality" is there, then there are greater problems with the image.

I routinely made 40" prints from 40MP files. I could not see the detail in the file in the print. But the media I was using was also impacting those results. Unless you are using metal prints with high-gloss surfaces, not my particular cup of tea, the media is going to reduce the detail in the image even further--Hannemuhle (sp?) makes some really rich papers that give depth to a printed image like their fine art series.

And for me, this is really is the question: what is the "detail" that makes the image pleasing? Resolving power in and of itself is not the factor that actually creates the perception of "detail." Contrast and the subject qualities are a far better predictor of whether an image looks "detailed." Naturally, "lots of pixels" and "sharp at 100%" are easy metrics to judge and measure, there is also evidence to suggest those are not all that important in the final analysis. More pixels do not mean the image is bigger, but simply contains higher-frequency detail (it is like adding decimal places to a number, it gives more information, but its is less significant). Our vision limits the impact of high-frequency detail, by either filtering it or not perceiving it. We ourselves as viewers require less information to perceive an image is rich and detailed than the information presented a file.

Personally, from my experience, print big and enjoy the results. With every artist I worked with, the only reason a larger version of an image was rejected was because of framing costs, not a perceived loss in quality (including 40" prints from an iPhone).
 
Top