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!

Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I'm spoiled by the tonal gradations and color separation ...
+1 -- IMHO this is the most significant difference that more pixels gives you. You can uprez to gain size, but you cannot create believable color or tonal separation where there was n0one originally.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jono,

Just for the sake of this discussion, here's perhaps an even better way to compare them. However to my eyes, this makes the actual difference even more apparent than the corners overlap above:

 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Jono,

Just for the sake of this discussion, here's perhaps an even better way to compare them. However to my eyes, this makes the actual difference even more apparent than the corners overlap above:

I want the white one :D
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono,

Just for the sake of this discussion, here's perhaps an even better way to compare them. However to my eyes, this makes the actual difference even more apparent than the corners overlap above:
HI Jack
No arguments with that comparison - and thank you for refocusing the post - it was designed to start exactly this sort of discussion, and had wandered rather vaguely!

I consciously didn't try and make any value judgements - simply that if you want to look at comparisons . . . and you're talking of print sizes in linear terms, you should understand what that means . . .
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Jono,

Just for the sake of this discussion, here's perhaps an even better way to compare them. However to my eyes, this makes the actual difference even more apparent than the corners overlap above:

Agree that this is the way to show it. It's interesting to notice that only 16 to 36 MP show significant difference, 16 to 24 and 24 to 36 not so much. Still, I have a 16MP (GH2) photo of a factory interior that has been used as a back wall for exhibition booths at trade fairs sized 3 x 2 meters several times the last year, and people do go "ooooh" and "aaah" over it. Resolution is only one part of the equation, and although more is usually better, only having access to 16 Mp doesn't keep me awake at night. If anything does, my own inability to take photos that make a difference is it.

How many painters became famous because of the size of their paintings?
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jorgen, well said. As I said in my front page article a few weeks back, some of my best images were made with 8MP cams. End of day, content always wins out. But that doesn't alter the fact that more MP usually offers gains in not only size, but tonality. Combine that latter with content, and you've hit the grand slam.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Sorry. I don't agree: if people can get near a print they will, regardless of size. With the exception of prints that are large precisely because they will be viewed from distance, like a billboard, people will tend to stand at about the same viewing distances. At countless exhibitions, gallery shows and auctions with prints from 10x8" to a couple of metres wide or larger, I have seen people getting as close as the ropes allow. And there are usually no ropes.

Sure, with a large print people might also step back back I see no signs of their not stepping close, too.

SO I think resolution and the print size of fine art print making go hand in hand and that there is a generally linear relationship between resolution and sensible print size. However, fat, well exposed pixels make better prints, ceteris paribus, than weedy, starved ones. So assuming good optics, I would make a larger print from a 20mp crop of an IQ180 than I would from an RX100 frame. I happily print 180dpi from the former but feel more comfortable well north of 200DPI for the latter.
Sorry, I don't agree. I have printed for and seen too many folks at exhibitions to know that the basic photo science around this just works.

Naturally, you need some reference. To view the focus plane as sharp with a 24MP sensor, that would be 1/4 viewing distance. For a 4 foot print, you are about at 12". Most people have a hard time looking that close. The other problem with you hypothesis is the you are assuming a viewer will think that getting closer will not affect perceived quality--people don't think that way.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
HI Jack
No arguments with that comparison - and thank you for refocusing the post - it was designed to start exactly this sort of discussion, and had wandered rather vaguely!

I consciously didn't try and make any value judgements - simply that if you want to look at comparisons . . . and you're talking of print sizes in linear terms, you should understand what that means . . .
It was me I went sideways in a good way. LOL
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I am firmly in agreement with those who think small linear increases for prints make substantial differences to how large the print 'feels' on the wall. A 20x24 print is, to me, considerably larger than a 16x20, when viewed in a frame. Its the relationship the framed image has with the space around it, as much as the numbers behind the 'print size'.

At my last exhibition, which mixed print sizes, I grew frustrated that some people insisted on viewing my 40" prints from a couple of feet away and would often be the exact same distance as they had been for the 20x16s. I'd never had such size variation in a space before and I doubt I will do it again unless I can break them down into specific, homogenous and segregated zones.

Unless you are Moriyama (or have a specific aesthetic that coexists with low res), the traditional concept of normal viewing distances is null and void. The notion that a print from the same file/neg can be made twice as big because people will view it from further away just isn't borne out by my experiences and never has been. Even experienced viewers/collectors etc will walk in and out of a print to get a feel for how it works at various levels. Now, the resolution does not always have to be there for people to love the image, but in some cases its essential.
Viewing distance does affect not the the resolution of the original image, just like the size of the image does not change the image. Which is why this is not a linear resolution problem.

Looking at a 40" print from a couple of feet is fine, if you understand the concepts of viewing distance. I doubt anyone came up to you and said the big prints were of less quality than the small ones. Nothing you have said actually contradicts the concept of viewing distance. Just sayin'.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
what i find, shooting urban landscapes, is that you can go deep into the details with 60mpx, for example. then when printed, say 24 x 30, i want to get right up close and examine that incredible detail. panoramas even more.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Sorry, I don't agree. I have printed for and seen too many folks at exhibitions to know that the basic photo science around this just works.

Naturally, you need some reference. To view the focus plane as sharp with a 24MP sensor, that would be 1/4 viewing distance. For a 4 foot print, you are about at 12". Most people have a hard time looking that close. The other problem with you hypothesis is the you are assuming a viewer will think that getting closer will not affect perceived quality--people don't think that way.
I used to think this way. But about 12 years ago I went to a Burtynsky exhibit at MOMA. He prints BIG. And back then he shot LF film. Anyway, I digress -- point is his images have so much fine detail they scream at you to get in close and grab a magnifying glass. I never viewed (sic) the print-size/viewing-distance formulae the same after that exhibit, and in fact it's when I started printing larger myself.

I currently have a pano print in my office, an 8-frame P65+ stitch from Glacier National park, printed out to 24"x96". I have a lighted print loupe under it and folks use it without suggestion on that print. I fall on the side of this debate that nowadays print detail matters -- if a person can get close and dive in, many will.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I have my nose in prints if I can get close. But also photographers tend to do that and guess what we are all shooters. I know my wife would not do what I do. So coming from us folks its sort of a given we will peak up front and personal.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I used to think this way. But about 12 years ago I went to a Burtynsky exhibit at MOMA. He prints BIG. And back then he shot LF film. Anyway, I digress -- point is his images have so much fine detail they scream at you to get in close and grab a magnifying glass. I never viewed (sic) the print-size/viewing-distance formulae the same after that exhibit, and in fact it's when I started printing larger myself.

I currently have a pano print in my office, an 8-frame P65+ stitch from Glacier National park, printed out to 24"x96". I have a lighted print loupe under it and folks use it without suggestion on that print. I fall on the side of this debate that nowadays print detail matters -- if a person can get close and dive in, many will.
Jack, you are mixing what you personally enjoy in a print and the underlying concept of viewing distance. You like a print with lots of detail and have the fun of looking into that. And because of the concepts behind viewing distance, you can achieve that. And if you really understand the concepts of viewing distance, you can really manipulate the viewers experience. Not all photographers are interested in that. To say what I like in a photography is X and then X is the only way photographs can be made is just going too far.

BTW, I never said the detail is not important or irrelevant. This conversation always gets into a polarized points of view. Neither of which I am subscribing to--detail is everything or detail is irrelevant. My point is that image size does not change an image and print size is not limited to pixel resolution. That is it. I am not saying you should not have any particular number of pixels in an image. If you want to limit your print sizes, that is a personal choice. It is not a limit in photography.
 

kuau

Workshop Member
I just wanted to make two observations.
First off, I did decide to go with the A7, and love it. I did a print today at 20X30 on my HP printer, looks great.

Now the reality, I keep reading these statistics 99% of all photos are taken with an iPhone and out of those 99% of images taken only 1% ever get printed. I guess we are those dreaded 1 percenters I keep hearing about on the news.

Its kind of sad to me, to be apart of this great online community and all of us get to share our best images only online and at the end of the day, we can all probably get by with 16mp and that's assuming we all eventually go to a 4K monitor.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
My point is that image size does not change an image and print size is not limited to pixel resolution. That is it. I am not saying you should not have any particular number of pixels in an image. If you want to limit your print sizes, that is a personal choice. It is not a limit in photography.
Shashin, I agree with you on this.

But I also agree with Tim on this:

At countless exhibitions, gallery shows and auctions with prints from 10x8" to a couple of metres wide or larger, I have seen people getting as close as the ropes allow. And there are usually no ropes.

Sure, with a large print people might also step back back I see no signs of their not stepping close, too.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
I just wanted to make two observations.
First off, I did decide to go with the A7, and love it. I did a print today at 20X30 on my HP printer, looks great.

Now the reality, I keep reading these statistics 99% of all photos are taken with an iPhone and out of those 99% of images taken only 1% ever get printed. I guess we are those dreaded 1 percenters I keep hearing about on the news.

Its kind of sad to me, to be apart of this great online community and all of us get to share our best images only online and at the end of the day, we can all probably get by with 16mp and that's assuming we all eventually go to a 4K monitor.
I would be happy to coordinate a GetDPI print exchange, if anyone is truly interested.
13x19 prints would be good.

Unfortunately, if the past is any guide to the future, this offer will get few if any takers.

Gary
 

Georg Baumann

Subscriber Member
In my world, being accustomed to the printsize of my 11880, content wins.

In the real world, I came to think, there are more homes that do not have the space for a 64 inch wide print than homes that can display it.

Whatever the size of your home, if you call one your own that is, wishing all of you folks a very happy and healthy new year.

Pax tecum
G

Selected from 11,000 images shot in 158 countries and submitted by nearly 1,500 photographers, The Other Hundred celebrates those who will never find themselves on the world’s rich lists or celebrity websites.
The Other Hundred | Home
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Agree that this is the way to show it. It's interesting to notice that only 16 to 36 MP show significant difference, 16 to 24 and 24 to 36 not so much. Still, I have a 16MP (GH2) photo of a factory interior that has been used as a back wall for exhibition booths at trade fairs sized 3 x 2 meters several times the last year, and people do go "ooooh" and "aaah" over it. Resolution is only one part of the equation, and although more is usually better, only having access to 16 Mp doesn't keep me awake at night. If anything does, my own inability to take photos that make a difference is it.

How many painters became famous because of the size of their paintings?
Rubens.

His models were big also ;)

-Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
If no one noticed ... the print comparison charts are empty.

It is up to us to fill them with something worth looking at.

Resolution means something different to different people depending on what the end use may be. As Guy mentioned, commercial clients can surprise you with some extended use beyond the original understanding of an assignment.

The typical initial assignment starts with downplaying everything to minimize pricing during negotiations. You produce a killer shot. Suddenly, they say "Hey, let's put that in the lobby". It ends up 8' wide right where people get off the elevator 7' away. It is a dramatic industrial shot so every engineer walks right up to it and inspects it with a magnifying glass. That has happened to me more than once.

I did a shoot for my Horse Riding weather gear client. They never once mentioned that the shots would be printed wall sized inside a trade booth where you can't step back 10' to view it. But I never assumed anything less. Been there done that.

Did a high end Hindu/Sikh wedding where the groom was a techo-nerd and wanted ceremony files display printed large, AND to be to project on a movie theater sized screen at their reception the next evening. I shot almost everything MFD ... and guests came up to me and said it looked like a NatGeo event :)

Granted, 18 to 24 meg is usually enough for most applications ... probably more than enough. Unless it isn't.

- Marc
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Sorry, I don't agree. I have printed for and seen too many folks at exhibitions to know that the basic photo science around this just works.

Naturally, you need some reference. To view the focus plane as sharp with a 24MP sensor, that would be 1/4 viewing distance. For a 4 foot print, you are about at 12". Most people have a hard time looking that close. The other problem with you hypothesis is the you are assuming a viewer will think that getting closer will not affect perceived quality--people don't think that way.
It's not a hypothesis, it's an observation of how people actually behave. A hypothesis would be a theory as to why they behave in this way. And it assumes nothing about what a viewer will think.

I spend a lot of time at my own and other people's shows and where the physical layout of the space allows, which it usually does, this is how I observe them behaving. I shoot and print accordingly.
 
Top