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)

fotografz

Well-known member
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.
Personally, I can't disagree with what you are saying here because it is a wide open subject.

I think the viewing distance can come into play, but need not be the over-arching determiner of print size ... however, that can heavily depend on the artist's intent.

For example, Stieglitz printed his "Equivalents" gallery work quite small to force the viewer into a more intimate relationship with his art. Conversly, the show of Annie Leibovitz's work I saw at the International Center of Photography in NY featured huge prints from her RZ film shots, and people went right up to the ropes to view them, and so did I .... the effect was a "larger than life" psychological effect.

Reality based photography seems to beg for as much detail as can be had ... not that a realistic landscape image needs to be viewed from 6 inches away, but that even at a distance we precieve such detail as part of the impression of "tonal reality." The details turn into tonal gradations at a distance, and our eye-brain knows it. After all, God ain't working in digital, His stuff is continuous tone all the way. :D

As primarily a people shooter, I find a very similar thing happening with skin tones. While more resolution tends to be seen as too perfect for human skin ... that isn't necessarily true ... lighting is what makes that true. What more resolution gives you is smoother continuous tone transitions to mimic living skin that is lit well.

- Marc
 

turtle

New member
I don't think that's quite true, because calculations for 'normal viewing distance' give a single distance for a given print size. The point I am making is that people do and will (always) walk in much closer than that for some of the viewing experience.... therefore the NVD 'rules' and 'calculations' that 'show' more resolution is not needed are only part of the story.

Nobody did complain about the resolution of my large prints, but that's because I only make very large prints from images that can stand up to a closer look and still look reasonable. If I had enlarged many of my sharpest 35mm files to 40" I am sure some people would have commented about them not looking that sharp up close.

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'.
 

Ron Pfister

Member
In my opinion, there are two fundamentally distinct aspects to consider when printing:

- The psychological effect of image size (e.g. large images are awe-inspiring)
- Whether one want's to achieve a hyper-realistic effect

The latter requires extremely detailed images to be printed reasonably large. The larger the print, the more the image takes on a dual nature: you view it from a distance to enjoy the composition as a whole, and you enjoy particular areas of detail you can only see when viewing up-close (often from so close that you can't perceive the full composition at the same time). I personally am very fond of this aspect of hyper-realism, but it is an artistic choice and it certainly doesn't lend itself to every subject.

On the other hand I fully agree with the sentiment that images don't need to be very detailed to be effective. Viewing a wall-sized Monet up-close gives you perhaps an insight into the artist's technique, but I think his intent was for these images to be viewed from a distance.

What I love about the A7R is that it enables me to to create stitched panos that can be printed very large, yet the equipment I carry into the field is small and light-weight. Fun times, indeed!
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
I don't think that's quite true, because calculations for 'normal viewing distance' give a single distance for a given print size. The point I am making is that people do and will (always) walk in much closer than that for some of the viewing experience.... therefore the NVD 'rules' and 'calculations' that 'show' more resolution is not needed are only part of the story.
I print pretty large (40 inches) from 80mp files and I can't begin to tell you how many people will put their noses into those prints..... 9 out of 10 for sure. Just saying........

Victor
 

cunim

Well-known member
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.

QUOTE]

Tim, I think I am beginning to understand why I enjoy your posts.

I used to teach experimental design.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
While I do agree with most what is said here, I must put some oil into the fire - I have seen stunning 40 - 50 inch prints which also look pretty damn good from close watching distance coming from 12MP.

Sure, more MP are giving more flexibility and if used the right way also more IQ, but in many cases this is not the only healing med for large prints. It is far more important to have no AA filter and a great IS/IBIS or a solid tripod mount. Combined with that already 16MP can rock and result in stellar prints and images.

If the A7 had no AA filter it would be the natural choice for me :)
 

turtle

New member
I think it depends on the type of image. Scenes with lots of very fine detail look awful from 12 MP at 50" IMHO. They can look clearly weak at half that linear size. If its a more graphic subject (and this can include urban images), its amazing what you can do with low resolution originals.
 

kuau

Workshop Member
If the A7 had no AA filter it would be the natural choice for me :)
Peter, though the A7 does have an AA filter it is very weak.
I did some test shots the other day of a barn house which had some metal grid patterns and I see a moire pattern. So that tells me weak AA filter.
I highly doubt this would be the limiting factor of the A7
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
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.

QUOTE]

Tim, I think I am beginning to understand why I enjoy your posts.

I used to teach experimental design.
I'll take that as the last (and possibly first!) complement of the year :D:D:D
 

Shashin

Well-known member
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.
So do I. I guess we are just not going to agree.
 

douglasf13

New member
Peter, though the A7 does have an AA filter it is very weak.
I did some test shots the other day of a barn house which had some metal grid patterns and I see a moire pattern. So that tells me weak AA filter.
I highly doubt this would be the limiting factor of the A7
Yep, 24mp on FF just isn't enough pixel density to avoid artifacts and aliasing when removing the AA filter. In fact, 36mp is only marginally there, so I might prefer even the A7R to have some kind of high end AA filter.

In order to pare down sensor toppings for dealing with oblique light rays, Leica and MFDB have been forced to eliminate AA filters for a while, but people tend to forget that AA filters are generally a good thing on cameras that don't have these issues with sensor edges (they're expensive, too.) I wouldn't trade my RX1 for an RX1R straight up, unless removing the RX1's AA filter allowed for more consistent resolution across the frame, which it doesn't.

Sure, you're going to see more "detail" from an AA-less image, but much of that is false detail from artifacts, and, when sharpened appropriately for each, there isn't a resolution advantage to an AA-less camera. Now, as pixels get smaller and smaller, like with the D7100, it does make sense to remove the AA filter, but even the A7R and D800 aren't quite to that point, yet. Around 56mp FF is apparently the threshold, which will be here soon, I'd imagine.

To get back on topic, I'd go A7 over A7R, even though I wouldn't mind the extra resolution of the A7R, simply because the electronic first curtain shutter drastically improves shutter feel, IMO. Shutter vibration issues aside, the feel and response of an electronic first curtain shutter would make it hard for me to go back to the more laggy, double "clack" variety of the A7R's shutter. EFCS was a major improvement in feel for me when going from my NEX-5 to the NEX-5N and NEX-7. The RX1's shutter has even less lag than the NEX-7, so I wouldn't want to go back to chitty chitty bang bang. :)
 

kuau

Workshop Member
Douglas.
Thanks for your excellent explanation on this topic, and for me I am happy I went with the A7

Steven
 

bensonga

Well-known member
The A7's EFC is very appealing, the AA filter not so much… but the AA filter can be removed ;)
If the AA filter on the A7 is as weak is some have reported it to be, maybe it's not even worth the trouble. ;)

Not all AA filters are created equally.

Gary
 

douglasf13

New member
If the AA filter on the A7 is as weak is some have reported it to be, maybe it's not even worth the trouble. ;)

Not all AA filters are created equally.

Gary
The only reason I can think of to remove the A7's AA filter is if it somehow reduces astigmatism, but I'm sure the clear cover glass that is put in its place would still cause similar issues, so I doubt it would be worthwhile.
 
Top