Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 46 of 46

Thread: New MF considerations when printing large

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,136
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    New MF considerations when printing large

    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?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    543
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    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.
    www.friedmanphoto.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    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.
    Too much to list, let's just say I have a bad case of GAS.........

    My stuff: www.pradeepbansal.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    101
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    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
    Thanks 3 Member(s) thanked for this post

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    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 by D&A; 13th September 2019 at 10:50.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,562
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    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
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    101
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by vjbelle View Post
    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.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,562
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by JimKasson View Post
    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. 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
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Atlanta Ga
    Posts
    2,602
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    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 ?
    Roger Dunham
    http://rogerdunham.com/
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    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.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,562
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    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
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    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.
    Too much to list, let's just say I have a bad case of GAS.........

    My stuff: www.pradeepbansal.com
    Thanks 3 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    101
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by vjbelle View Post
    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
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,773
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    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...
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    on a mountain
    Posts
    99
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    .........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
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,562
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by JimKasson View Post
    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
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  17. #17
    Senior Member alajuela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Shanghai / Miami
    Posts
    609
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    147

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    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
    Philip
    www.pg-pg.com
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #18
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,439
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    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.
    Pradeep, I found this on the QImage website:

    Yes, Qimage Ultimate is Windows 7, 8, 8.1 and Windows 10 compatible (both x86 and x64)!
    No, we do not offer a Mac version but QU runs well under Fusion and Parallels.
    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 Colson Photography

  19. #19
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    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)
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,136
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerd View Post
    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 by algrove; 14th September 2019 at 08:00.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Colson View Post
    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.
    Too much to list, let's just say I have a bad case of GAS.........

    My stuff: www.pradeepbansal.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  22. #22
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,439
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Thanks Pradeep. I just downloaded and installed the demo version of QImage One. I'll give it a try. I don't print that often either and can't justify the purchase of Colorbyte's Imageprint RIP.

    UPDATE: I just printed my first print using QImage One. I need to get the paper profile tuned, but so far so good. Thanks again Pradeep.

    Joe
    Last edited by Joe Colson; 14th September 2019 at 07:39.
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by vjbelle View Post
    Of course..... I am printing on a 44 inch Canon. 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.
    Too much to list, let's just say I have a bad case of GAS.........

    My stuff: www.pradeepbansal.com

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,562
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerd View Post
    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

  25. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    on a mountain
    Posts
    99
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    Have you used both systems with auto focus stacking?
    Yes, the GFX50s and the Phase One XF. I have not got my GFX100 yet. But I assume that the Focuststacking function is equal to the GFX50s.

    Greeting Gerd

  26. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    on a mountain
    Posts
    99
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by vjbelle View Post
    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
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,136
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    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.

  28. #28
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,773
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    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.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by JimKasson View Post
    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.
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post

  30. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    101
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by narikin View Post
    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?
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  31. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    293
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    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).
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,562
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    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
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,136
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by JeRuFo View Post
    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?

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    293
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    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.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  35. #35
    Workshop Member Wayne Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Draper, Utah
    Posts
    998
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    135

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by narikin View Post
    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 by Wayne Fox; 17th September 2019 at 15:37.
    wayne
    My gallery
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  36. #36
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    6,520
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    630

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    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.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    The World is a book, and those that do not travel read only one page ...
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  37. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,562
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerd View Post
    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

    Victor

  38. #38
    Workshop Member Wayne Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Draper, Utah
    Posts
    998
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    135

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Fox View Post
    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 by Wayne Fox; 3rd October 2019 at 08:12.
    wayne
    My gallery
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  39. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    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.
    My photos are here: http://www.stuartrichardson.com Please have a look at my book!
    My lab is here: http://www.customphotolab.is and on facebook
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  40. #40
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,551
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Richardson View Post
    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! ) 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
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  41. #41
    Senior Member dchew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    1,441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Fox View Post
    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
    How glorious a greeting the sun gives the mountains! - John Muir

    davechewphotography.com

  42. #42
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,773
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by MGrayson View Post
    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).
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    238
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    The interesting thing about detail in a print is that people are intrigued when it is there, not when it is not.

    I have noticed that people comment about detail in my prints, without suggestion from me. The example below is 90x60 cm from a Leica Monochrom 246. I share this example because it is not medium format, but contains much detail. The feathers in the swan are clearly seen, which people regularly marvel at.

    I guess they would like the image if the feathers were not precise, however they would not have the same response to the print.
    Best regards,
    Jesse
    djessemay.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  44. #44
    Workshop Member Wayne Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Draper, Utah
    Posts
    998
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    135

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by MGrayson View Post
    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.
    How are you wasting paper with an Epson? I have no issues with that,
    wayne
    My gallery

  45. #45
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,551
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne Fox View Post
    How are you wasting paper with an Epson? I have no issues with that,
    Hi Wayne,

    About half the time that I changed paper size, it would take many tries (and wasted sheets) resetting the new size in many places before it would stick. It may have had nothing to do with the printer and everything to do with the OS. I don't know, but I've had no problems since switching. Quite possibly QImage One would have solved all my issues. Dunno.

    Best,

    Matt

  46. #46
    Workshop Member Wayne Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Draper, Utah
    Posts
    998
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    135

    Re: New MF considerations when printing large

    Quote Originally Posted by MGrayson View Post
    Hi Wayne,

    About half the time that I changed paper size, it would take many tries (and wasted sheets) resetting the new size in many places before it would stick. It may have had nothing to do with the printer and everything to do with the OS. I don't know, but I've had no problems since switching. Quite possibly QImage One would have solved all my issues. Dunno.

    Best,

    Matt
    Interesting. So you’re saying you wouldn’t know it’s a problem until it prints something on the paper, and what it prints is wrong? Mac or Windows?
    wayne
    My gallery

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •