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!

A7S Printing Size recommendations

jfirneno

Member
So anyway, Imaging Resource has rolled out the Image Quality segment of their A7S review.

Sony A7S Review: Now Shooting! - Image Quality

In the print quality section of the review I'll paraphrase their recommendations as:
24 x 36 inches from base until ISO 400
20 x 30 at ISO 800
4 x 6 all the way up to ISO 51,200.

I was curious if anyone printing with the A7S would care to comment on these guidelines. Specifically the maximum size at base ISO.

Thanks,
John
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Pixel resolution is not a limit to print size, neither is ISO. So, sure, a 36" print from a a7s would work nicely.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
So anyway, Imaging Resource has rolled out the Image Quality segment of their A7S review.

Sony A7S Review: Now Shooting! - Image Quality

In the print quality section of the review I'll paraphrase their recommendations as:
24 x 36 inches from base until ISO 400
20 x 30 at ISO 800
4 x 6 all the way up to ISO 51,200.

I was curious if anyone printing with the A7S would care to comment on these guidelines. Specifically the maximum size at base ISO.

Thanks,
John
I think recommendations are going to be subjective thing. I generally output all my files at 360dpi and I'm comfortable printing most images 18-24 megapixels (Leica M9/ Sony A77/ Sony A7) from 16" x 24" up to 18x27. There are some color images that I've been comfortable printing at 20" x 30". Most B&W images do fine up to 24" x 36" from that resolution. I don't usually go smaller than 18" x 27 with my A7r... most get printed at 24" x 36" and some get a little larger than that - but that's all according to my tastes.

I've never liked printing images larger than 15" x 20" personally from my 12 megapixel Micro 4/3 cameras but it's possible that the A7s may make enlarged sizes a bit better than they did. Viewing distance and the room they'll be placed in play a bit of a role in that too... Some people like to output at 240dpi or 300dpi. I suppose you could get a bit larger at those outputs.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Moreover, the sillyness of that "review" is exposed in the discussion that ensues.

They shot at f/22 at high ISOs.
 

jfirneno

Member
I think recommendations are going to be subjective thing.

I've never liked printing images larger than 15" x 20" personally from my 12 megapixel Micro 4/3 cameras but it's possible that the A7s may make enlarged sizes a bit better than they did.
Thanks, I've been using 24 megapixel cameras since the A850 and before that 16 meg so I wasn't too sure whether 12 meg was too low for 24" x 36"






Shashin said "Pixel resolution is not a limit to print size, neither is ISO. So, sure, a 36" print from a a7s would work nicely."

Shashin:
What would you say does limit print size?


Regards,
John
 

Viramati

Member
Moreover, the sillyness of that "review" is exposed in the discussion that ensues.

They shot at f/22 at high ISOs.
Probably they did this to be able to achieve the high iso. Anyway for me print size depends on so many other factors other than pixel size that the article is somewhat irrelevant
 
V

Vivek

Guest
That is very dumb way to do it. Color noise can be selectively reduced (without affecting the contrast noise and the details) in the post. That is a key aspect to get meaningful outputs at high ISOs.

Probably they did this to be able to achieve the high iso.
 

turtle

New member
IMO resolution has a very important influence on print size if you want to see lots of fine detail in very large prints.... If you don't, then it doesn't.

Personally, I think that 12MP is good for A3+ if you want loads of detail, but not A2. If you enjoy grain or shoot large blocks of colour and straight lines, you can do wonders with 6MP and billboards.

Its all a matter of application and taste.
 

Viramati

Member
IMO resolution has a very important influence on print size if you want to see lots of fine detail in very large prints.... If you don't, then it doesn't.

Personally, I think that 12MP is good for A3+ if you want loads of detail, but not A2. If you enjoy grain or shoot large blocks of colour and straight lines, you can do wonders with 6MP and billboards.

Its all a matter of application and taste.
Couldn't agree more
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Just wondering. Is huge printing really Eco-friendly?
Is any printing? Or film or digital or...
 

biglouis

Well-known member
When I was shooting film, scanning it and worrying about printing I did a lot of research. I was not using a drum scanner and the majority of my scans were in the 3500x3500 size, so I began to worry.

What I learned is that size and viewing distance are key and iirc correctly you can get away with lower dpi if you take account of this (which is why the poster above talks about 6mp shots and billboards).

If you are going to put your nose up to a photograph you are likely to be disappointed. In fact, when I put my nose up to my 30x20 inch prints from my DP2M or DP3M I am not. If I do the same with my 24mpx A7, well it is not as a good. But when I step back from both photographs, at 30x20 there is no perceivable difference.

I suggest you worry more about whether anyone will actually want to see your 30x20 prints rather than whether it is possible.

I've spent an afternoon recently at the V&A looking at their photographic collection. The antique shots and even the more recent work, nose to glass even if they are 'soft' are remarkable photographs - because content is king.

LouisB
 

jfirneno

Member
Just wondering. Is huge printing really Eco-friendly?
Is any printing? Or film or digital or...
Well since we all bought these expensive machines to use them I vote to throw caution to the wind and take some pictures. Besides if every few million years we get an ice age and every 100 million years we're gonna get hammered with an asteroid the least we can do is have some fun while we're here.
 
What I learned is that size and viewing distance are key and iirc correctly you can get away with lower dpi if you take account of this (which is why the poster above talks about 6mp shots and billboards).

If you are going to put your nose up to a photograph you are likely to be disappointed.
Exactly!

I've made 24 x 36 prints from my Digilux 2, which look fantastic at any reasonable viewing distance. That camera only had 5 megapixels and tended to be pretty noisy, but the images still look great.

Out of curiousity, I just made a 13 x 19 print from an a7S shot at ISO 25,600. It looks just fine at that size. Sure, there is grain/noise if you look close, but imho that doesn't detract from the image.

It's just a guess, but I think the reviewer may be averse to seeing any grain or noise at all. Which in my opinion is silly.
 
Last edited:

jfirneno

Member
Sounds to me like the answer to my question is that 12 mp is plenty for most print requirements. Thanks for the answers.

Regards,
John
 

CharlesK

New member
I have both the A7r and A7s. I have made numerous prints with the Epson 3880 printer A2 size. The prints with the A7r and WATE have amazed me at the detail and nuances in the final prints.

Just recently after my trip to Spain, I did a number of prints with the A7s and FE 55, A2 size prints using ImagePrint 9 as the driver, and the final print quality from the Spain trip are superb, even when viewed close up.

I really think the quality of final print, will not only depend on whether you are using a A7r or A7s, but the lens, how it renders and of course the drivers to the final printing stage.

The content and composition is everything of course :)
 

jfirneno

Member
I have both the A7r and A7s. I have made numerous prints with the Epson 3880 printer A2 size. The prints with the A7r and WATE have amazed me at the detail and nuances in the final prints.

Just recently after my trip to Spain, I did a number of prints with the A7s and FE 55, A2 size prints using ImagePrint 9 as the driver, and the final print quality from the Spain trip are superb, even when viewed close up.

I really think the quality of final print, will not only depend on whether you are using a A7r or A7s, but the lens, how it renders and of course the drivers to the final printing stage.

The content and composition is everything of course :)
Thanks Charles. I've been thinking of a couple of A1 size prints and comments here have helped to clarify the factors I need to consider. The comments have been quite helpful.

Regards,
John
 

msadat

Member
if you guys use windows system, i highly recommend qimage (google it) for printing. it does amazing things including handling profiles, paper sizes, excellent sharpening and smart interpolation. this tool is better than any rip i have used and it uses the native print drivers
 

turtle

New member
There are a lot of very poor images being shot on MF due to people forgetting what matters in an image. I'd actually say the standard is lower, on average, than with smaller cameras (with notable exceptions of course).

People shooting with far too much resolution for the print effect they are trying to achieve is also a very real problem.... yeah, 36 MP printed with no grain and lots of sharpening at A2 is never going to look like 35mm TriX....

... on the flip side, when detail is important, viewing distance is very useful to understand, but it cannot be relied upon entirely because some print buyers want to know how good a large print looks like at 30cm, not just 130cm. The key, IMO, is to prime the expectation via how you are shooting. The expectation lies in your style.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
People shooting with far too much resolution for the print effect they are trying to achieve is also a very real problem.... yeah, 36 MP printed with no grain and lots of sharpening at A2 is never going to look like 35mm TriX....
Absolutely right. Brought home to me having the opportunity to see Don McCullin's UK photographs displayed at the Tate London and Chris Killips at the Photographers Studio. Close up they are smudgy - which has its own charm - step back a foot or two and they are sublime with atmospheric tones and startling intensity.

Just my opinion.

LouisB
 
Top