/p/ - Photography » Thread #3344964

[6 / 2 / ?]

247KiB, 575x330, printer1.png

Anonymous Sat 25 Aug 2018 01:00:08 No.3344964 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3345022 >>3345023 >>3345030

The maximum resolution for these things is 900 DPI according to the manufacturer. Does anyone print at that high of a resolution or is that just a meme? I've actually never seen anyone do the full 900 DPI on huge posters. It would always look blurry up close, even expensive canvases with photographs. Is printing technology just too far ahead?

I've got some 42MP shots that would probably look blurry up close on huge posters. Supposedly there were cameras 50 years ago with extremely high quality lenses that would surpass 40MP but that they cost more than a car.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Aug 2018 03:00:59 No.3345010 Report

Quoted By:

images on billboards dont need to use any more than like 5MP of info to print a photo that large, when youre 200-500ft away going 70mph that low MP count is more than enough detail for your eyes to take in

high DPI tends to be used in smaller prints, like business cards, or fine art you stare at on a wall up close, because like i just mentioned, you need to be really close to really appreciate all the details

and yes, to an exent, large format film, or even tin-plate stuff, can surpass digital in terms of raw detail captured, but thats on chemicals reacting to light, not pixels. Thats why the only true way to appreciate large format for its worth is to see a print in person, and not pixelated on a computer screen (if youre that deep into pixel peeping)

MP's and image size gets to a point where a printer would appreciate more than any of us would

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Aug 2018 03:25:09 No.3345022 Report

Quoted By:

>>3344964
I think you mean ppi. Most epsons print up to 2880dpi with a supposed optimum of 360 ppi.

>42MP shots
Depends on how they're shot and what they are of. You can probably pretty safely do 24x36 and 40x60 with the right subject matter and assuming you actually know how to use a camera.

There's no real reason to print over 300 dpi and you can pretty safely do 150% size of the original image for most shots.

>and yes, to an exent, large format film, or even tin-plate stuff, can surpass digital in terms of raw detail captured, but thats on chemicals reacting to light, not pixels. Thats why the only true way to appreciate large format for its worth is to see a print in person, and not pixelated on a computer screen (if youre that deep into pixel peeping)

Large format film is the key phrase but it also requires worthwhile lenses and good technique. You do cap out grain size at some point which varies from film to film and how it was processed. Do not over estimated film and earlier processes resolutions. Also people raving over old lenses for their resolving power is mostly snake oil.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Aug 2018 03:34:04 No.3345023 Report

Quoted By:

>>3344964
Those “old cameras” are still around and cheap for the smaller ones. A 4x5 negative is comparable to a medium format digital if not better and more natural looking. An 8x10 greatly beats that. They don’t cost a car unless you want to buy a really nice wooden field 8x10 with a fresh out of the factory Schneider Apo XXXL ultra wide lens

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC06207.jpg, 294KiB, 800x1200

Anonymous Sat 25 Aug 2018 04:54:58 No.3345030 Report

Quoted By: >>3345042

>>3344964
this is a 20x24 shot I wet printed from a 4x5 neg, I could print this much bigger if I had a taller ceiling and larger tray, with very little loss in detail.
camera was a crown graphic $200, and a Schneider Symmar S 180mm 5.6 lens $400
I have spent less on cars so yes you are correct, but you don't have to spend a fortune to surpass most digital cameras, the higher end digital MF cameras are pretty close to LF in resolution.

one thing I will say though, it is much much MUCH harder to go big on film. I have printed this neg many times 8x10 and 11x14 but am still not happy with my 20x24 print even after about 10 attempts, and these attempts get expensive, very expensive.

I can spit out a 8.5x11 from my epson and get the exact print scaled up to a 17x22 in the first shot.

I did an assignment that required a 144"x96" print intended a wall of a building. it was at grade so it had to be as close to 300dpi as I could get.I shot it with a Fuji GFX and stitched it. Had a lot of problems with the file being fuckhuge and actually had to down res it to keep it under 4GB (I still don't know how to transfer images bigger than that), I think we printed it around 100dpi and it still looked great from 3 or more feet away

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Aug 2018 05:47:50 No.3345042 Report

Quoted By:

>>3345030
>Had a lot of problems with the file being fuckhuge and actually had to down res it to keep it under 4GB (I still don't know how to transfer images bigger than that)

You're probably using FAT32. All other newer file systems such as NTFS or ext2 support larger than 4GB transfers.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches