D810 and huge prints...looking for advice

[dwood]

The largest prints I've made for customers have been 24x36. They look great. No problem.

I have a customer who wants to commission some work and wants 48x72 prints...probably metal. The work will be hung such that viewers won't be able to get within nose length distance but still...

Have any of you D810 shooters here printed this large? Fools errand? I welcome any and all feedback.

-Doug

 

[tcdeveau]

If it's to-be-commissioned work, I'm assuming it hasn't been shot yet? If so, can you stitch when you shoot?

 

[Jack]

Yes, I have printed that big and it looks surprisingly good, especially if good taking technique was used; meaning tripod and mirror-up delayed triggering. (No, it does not look as good as the same image from an 80 or 100 MP digital back, but it still looks pretty darn good and most non-photographer viewers will not notice the differences at normal viewing distances.)

The D810 native raw can be printed at roughly 180 DPI and render a 24x36 inch print, and 180 DPI looks fine at anything over about a 3-foot viewing distance -- uprez to 240 DPI and it looks good at 1 foot So a 48x72 would require at minimum a 200% uprez on the native file to get to 180 DPI in the final print -- which is relatively easy to accomplish -- and the final print will still look pretty darn good at 3 feet. It further benefits from proper uprezzing technique, meaning good interpolation steps combined with a few careful sharpening steps in-between. Done well, the final uprez can actually look very close in net resolution to the native base file, so you may actually get a superior look with a large print :bugeyes: So in a nutshell, the answer is yes

Just to put this in another perspective that may help ratchet this for you: even if your uprezzing protocols are not perfect, all else being equal in the raw image, a 48x72 inch print viewed at 12 feet (a reasonably "close" viewing distance for a print that large) will look identical to the same image printed at 24x36 inches and viewed at 6 feet.

PS: Stitching is for sure a good option *IF* the viewing distances are going to be nose-in-print, but for normal uses, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[TRSmith]

I recently made a triptych out of a single frame from the D810. The two outside panels were approx. 30.5" x 43.5" and the center panel was 43" x 50". I used ON1 Resize to make the uprezzed image and had it printed on an Epson 9900. At the crrect viewing distance it was wonderful. Surprising even. The shot itself was taken handheld in nasty factory lighting at around ISO 1200 (not the D810's sweet spot by any means). The client was thrilled and I was proud to have it hanging in their retail store.

 

[stngoldberg]

I do a lot of printing...I urge you to rent a Nikon D850 when available for this job...
You will see the difference
Stanley

 

[DougDolde]

I don't get the uprezzing. This really doesn't add any detail. Let the printer software handle it

 

[vjbelle]

I don't get the uprezzing. This really doesn't add any detail. Let the printer software handle it

And the printer driver uprezzing does???

 

[DougDolde]

And the printer driver uprezzing does???

Of course it doesn’t add detail

 

[Jack]

I've done numerous comparisons, and careful uprezzing properly in Photoshop or using one of the excellent uprezzing programs does a clearly better job than the print driver. Can you see the difference at "normal" viewing distances? Probably not. Can you see it on canvas? No, canvas itself dumbs resolution down to about 90 or 120 DPI. But you absolutely can see the benefits on any smooth print paper -- or in this case aluminum -- at critical viewing distances.

 

[Paul2660]

I sure would not let the printer driver from Epson make any major uprez work, as it's still using nearest neighbor and does not do the best job.

Over 4 years ago, I started using LR for all printing and allowing it to make the uprez. I still use ON1 or Photozoom pro at time for very large uprez work, but most of the time just let LR do it. LR print module is now long in the tooth, and I had hoped to see Adobe would use their normal "one and done" approach, but so far it's really the same as it was from day one (still gets the job done).

As for the camera etc. Jack's comments are right on. I still stitch most times I shoot anyway even with P1 backs, just because I still want the overall best detail possible and because the modern software out there from Kolor, Ptgui and LR make a single row stitch so easy to do most of the time.

The D810 can go a very long way in the print world for sure. Single image shots 4:3 or 3:2 ratio, but for a panorama I still prefer the stitch, most times moving the camera to vertical and then stitching 5 to 7 frames. Before the D800 sensor, most times this would require exposure bracketing, which added a lot of work, not true with the D800, 810, etc.

Paul Caldwell

 

[Shashin]

The largest prints I've made for customers have been 24x36. They look great. No problem.

I have a customer who wants to commission some work and wants 48x72 prints...probably metal. The work will be hung such that viewers won't be able to get within nose length distance but still...

Have any of you D810 shooters here printed this large? Fools errand? I welcome any and all feedback.

-Doug

I have routinely done 40"x60" prints from a D600 and D800E. The size is no problem even with the extra 12". Not all those prints were uprezed--there are certain details that need it and others that don't, so it depend on the image. But there are a few extra steps you need to do when printing large, like sharpening.

 

[paulraphael]

I print and exhibit many images at 40x60 and 27x40 from a d800. I always uprez in Photoshop, for a few reasons. I haven't tested whether there's a visible difference between the photoshop algorithm and print driver's, but doing it in photoshop allows me precise control over both sharpening and noise.

I use a layer-based sharpening workflow for prints, and I want to be able to see what I'm doing on the actual print file. So I sharpen after uprezing.

I also find that in most cases, adding a barely perceptible amount of noise, especially to the highlights, helps make very large prints look more natural. Film grain and camera noise tricks the eye into seeing detail and texture even when there isn't any. These Nikons are so noise-free that there can be small patches of nothing, which can make surfaces look like a kind of Barbie Doll version of reality. At least if you're looking very closely. I like to add enough noise to counteract this, but not enough to draw any attention to itself. I don't know how to do it reliably without working on a file that's been rezed up to final print size.

A few people have asked me if these prints were from 8x10 negatives, which made me feel like I was doing at least something right.

Edited to add: Yes to all Jack says about technique. If you're planning to print big, treat the little camera like a large format camera. Burly tripod, carefully selected aperture, live-view focus at 100%, mirror lockup, etc. etc..

 

[Jack]

I also find that in most cases, adding a barely perceptible amount of noise, especially to the highlights, helps make very large prints look more natural. Film grain and camera noise tricks the eye into seeing detail and texture even when there isn't any. These Nikons are so noise-free that there can be small patches of nothing, which can make surfaces look like a kind of Barbie Doll version of reality.

Excellent point -- absolutely a little noise, especially in large clear areas is a benefit.

FTR, all my print workflow sharpening is layer based; and in fact I have a sharpening layer, a secondary noise removal layer, and a clarity layer. I apply all these BEFORE the uprez and depending on the total amount, will do the uprez in steps with sharpening, smoothing and/or noise control in-between as needed. Lastly, I do a bastardized form of "fractal" sharpening --- I size 30% beyond the target size I want, then downrez back to target size (in Photoshop) using "bicubic sharper." For whatever reason this step adds a tiny bit of pop the final and looks very clean. I now save this as a working copy; then flatten it, add a print curve for the output media type and do final color tweaks in the output profile, then here is where I'll add the size-based "add noise" layer if needed, then save this as my print copy for that size and media.

 

[paulraphael]

I'm curious if other people have see things similarly ... I often find that a really big prints (like 50+ inches wide) are less demanding than medium-big prints (30 inches or so). Once they get huge, not only do we tend to step back from them, but our expectations change in ways that aren't entirely conscious.

When I print an 8.5 x 11 slice of a 60" print, it sometimes looks quite unimpressive. But in the context of the whole print, even when I stick my nose into it, the impression can be of something eye-poppingly sharp and detailed.

I think we see similar phenomena with movie theater projections and billboards.

 

[Jack]

Maybe, but it could also be a function of how and where those larger prints are hung

 

[paulraphael]

If anyone's going to be in NYC this month, I have a show opening on the 8th that includes a bunch of 40" and 60" prints from d800 images. It will be up through January 14. PM if you're interested.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I did some interesting experiment doing a downsize to 50% linear, followed by an upsize to 200% linear. I started with a 42 MP image, so it was converted to 10.5 MP and back to 42MP. Just used Adobe Photoshop. Printed both images at C-size/A2-size. Interestingly, the image that has passed trough downsize/upsize was "sharper". My guess is that Photoshop adds some sharpening on resizing. Although the resize image was "sharper" it looked more "brittle" or "less natural".

Interestingly, it didn't seem that downscaled image did not have much less detail.

So, I would think that Photoshop does have a few tricks of it's own.

In the end, I would be pretty sure that perceived contrast at low frequencies would dominate visual impression. It is quite possible that say Photoshop does a better interpolation than printer drivers. Jeff Schewe used to say that Epson printer drivers used nearest neighbour while Photoshop uses some version of bicubic.

The last step is that the output sent to the printer needs some special sharpening, taking the diffusion of the inkjet dots into account.

So, it is a bit of a complex issue.

Best regards
Erik

Of course it doesn’t add detail