Anyone making large prints with XP1 or XE1?

N

nanthor

Well-known
Local time
3:30 PM
Joined
Jun 14, 2008
Messages
239
I've only recently gotten the Fuji X bug and I''m very pleased with what I see on the monitor. Before I start selling off all my 35mm gear I'd like to find out how these digital images end up looking as prints (don't have the time to print any myself yet). Has anyone made large Color or B&W prints from these cameras and can comment on the results? How do they compare to film prints and M8/M9 prints? Thanks in advance, Bob Nancarrow
 
11x14 or even 8x10, I'm just trying to see if the excellent IQ that I see on the monitor translates to equally outstanding prints. I wanna know if folks are going "wow" when they see 'em, like I do when I see them on the monitor. Thanks, Bob.
 
It's a lot more complicated than just print size if what you want to do is make a print that matches what you see on screen.

I believe most people think of large prints as 13x19 and larger.
 
Print size is only limited by viewing distance. People don't take in 20x24s from half a foot away.

I really wish the maximum print size myth would just go away.
 
I shot some portraiture for a fellow photographer friend of mine. She had one of the images enlarged to 16x20" and is very pleased with the results. As I've been out of town since receiving the X Pro, I haven't had a chance to make any enlargements, nor have I seen hers.
 
Well then, let's pick 13x19 or A3 size I believe. The reason I'm asking is because I'm familiar with M9 and M8 prints and MF and 35mm film prints. The X series is an aps-c sized sensor but with a different pattern than the normal bayer pattern. It also has no anti alias glass AFAIK. The images rival M9 images on my monitor. When I look at them I think wow in my head, I think they pop. But I'm concerned that this might not transfer to the printed image, either because of the smaller sensor, or the newer design of the sensor. So I ask...

Do they look that good on paper? Prints?
 
Ok, so here's the thing. The smallest prints I have done are 20x30. I've also had prints done 24x36 and 30x40. The cameras I use however are not the 16 megapixel XE1 or X-Pro1. I use a 12.4 megapixel Pentax K-r and a 10.0 megapixel Oly E410. The 30x40 was done with the Oly and looks as sharp from 2" as it does from 20'. So I guess what I'm getting at is that I would expect even better quality from a higher quality camera than what I'm using. (just as a side note. I only have b/w prints done)
 
Michael Da Re said:
Ok, so here's the thing. The smallest prints I have done are 20x30. I've also had prints done 24x36 and 30x40. The cameras I use however are not the 16 megapixel XE1 or X-Pro1. I use a 12.4 megapixel Pentax K-r and a 10.0 megapixel Oly E410. The 30x40 was done with the Oly and looks as sharp from 2" as it does from 20'. So I guess what I'm getting at is that I would expect even better quality from a higher quality camera than what I'm using. (just as a side note. I only have b/w prints done)
Click to expand...

No...it doesnt look as sharp from 2" as 20 feet. Sorry, but that's nonsense.
 
I had a small exhibition with B&W prints up to A3+ (the largest my Canon 9500 Mark II can print). All images were shot with the X100. The visitors, amongst which many photographers, specifically complimented me on the quality and sharpness of the prints.

These were from RAW files though. The Xe-1 raw files were not to my liking because of the "painting effect". It seems to improve though. I sold the camera, but still use the X100. I printed a JPG from the XE-1 on A3+ though, seemed good enough, lacking some depth I thought, but that was just one image and mainly caused by my editing (just a test after all).

I have been testing different camera's prints on my Canon Printer. For me, decently shot RAW files starting at 12MP, up to 800 ISO, from recent cameras, are no problem for A3+.
And I hold the print in front of my face, and have perfect vision.

Smaller files, or higher ISO's, could work too, depending on individual situations. But I have set my minimum requirement at 12MP for all my work.

One interesting thing that I noticed, was that while printing I would notice more grain in higher ISOs (including 800), but when at the exhibition, I completely forgot about that, and didn't notice any difference between the mages ranging from 200 to 800 ISO (probably even 1600, simply didn't remember or care).

If you are okay with the RAW files, then you will also be okay with very large prints, beyond A3, I think.
 
I've made 24x36 and 20x30s, they look very nice I think. I cannot compare to leica M8/M9 prints, as I have never owned one. However, they look much better than my prints from slides (Velvia/Provia). But then, maybe my scanning technique was far from being perfect.
 
At print sizes up to 20x30", the Fujis hold up well to the M9. I haven't gone larger. Of course this all depends on what ISO you used, etc.
 
While the OP's specific question is interesting, it is essentially impossible to answer.

There are so many variables involved I don't see how a meaningful comparison is possible.

The answer is to take the time to make some large prints. A quick way to get a few prints is to upload them to a competent printer. I use MPIX because they use human operators to maximize the image to their printing process. I am sure other commercial firms are equally good and some ar probably better.
 
17"x26" no problem!!!

17"x26" no problem!!!

I own an M8 and print 17" x 26" with no loss in quality. The X Pro 1 is the same. Excellent large prints on Exhibition Fiber from my Epson 3800!!!!
 
If there is one thing people should not be concerned with these days is if a current digital camera can print traditional small format prints sizes of 11x14" and below. They all do that well these days... and more.
 
Michael Da Re said:
Sorry, but I'm afraid it does. Perhaps your using the wrong lab.
Click to expand...

Tell you what, you pick the image that looks the same at 2" as it does from many feet, and we'll set up a challenge for a few thousand dollars. Still feel confident? Sorry, but that is he most ludicrous thing I've seen here in a while. I use some of the best labs around, Eiger Studios for example. No image looks the same from a few inches as it does a many feet. That, is complete garbage.
 
Faintandfuzzy said:
Tell you what, you pick the image that looks the same at 2" as it does from many feet, and we'll set up a challenge for a few thousand dollars. Still feel confident? Sorry, but that is he most ludicrous thing I've seen here in a while. I use some of the best labs around, Eiger Studios for example. No image looks the same from a few inches as it does a many feet. That, is complete garbage.
Click to expand...

I don't believe he said "looks the same" - but instead said "looks as sharp" - totally different and the latter is subjective.

Either way, his point wasn't really meant to be read so literally - and I read it as "it's very sharp from up close to out far." No need to get so asperger about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom