Pablito
coco frío
it's a gradual thing. You can also use photoshop to interpolate. But I was making really big prints where it really makes a difference. You can read about it on their website.
http://www.alienskin.com/blowup/
amateriat
We're all light!
This is a rather tough one, because, in the purely digital realm, it's not necessarily easier than the analog-digital mix that involves scanning film. There is a difference between really good and "good enough."
Like a lot of things in photography, it depends on one's standards, especially minimal standards. If you're talking anything from 4x6" to 8x10", it's astounding how much you can get away with and still come up with at least "okay" images: we could've stopped at about 3-4mp and simply stayed there. But people (apparently, according to the recent e-mail offer I got from Calumet) still pay 25k for the latest Phase One MF back, or 6-9k for the latest high-spec FF Nikon/Canon body for pro work. Are all these guys/gals "full of it" in terms of desiring all those megapixels?
A small part of why I've stuck with film throughout all this is that I didn't want to get caught in that Not Good Enough/Wasteful Overkill matrix. When I vetoed digital in favor of my current Hexar system eight years back, the dSLR SOTA was around 3 megapixels or so; Certain Pundits were telling me to toss my film burners overboard, that these digital juggernauts blew the best my then-current cameras had to offer into the aether. Call it clenched-teeth stubbornness (it was that, to a degree), but I wasn't biting.
Fast-forward to now: dSLR-wise (not counting Leica's S2. basically a new format), we're cruising just south of 30MP and still people are arguing: too much? Not enough? And, for what? Magazines are dying by degrees (VIBE magazine just bit the dust, which is shaking more than a few people in the business up) where, purportedly, such pixel-fortified images might make some sense, but the near-future...?
(Attempts to snap out of Morrissey-level depression.)
For "general purposes", some say 6MP is plenty; others say 8MP. (I'd say that, but it's largely because the two digital jobs I have on hand just happen to have that spec.) Where's this stuff going to end up? What if, however lofty our plans and credentials, our only future medium is a living-room wall at a freaking 72dpi...and that becomes the "new" standard?
(Fred knocks on the door, with a Chill Pill and Bacardi & Coke.)
Sorry...I'll knock it off this time. Really.
Thing is, we're dealing with a medium which, at this point in time, is elastic in some ways, and somewhat brittle in others. We're also a bunch of hard-copy guys and gals in a world that's becoming at least somewhat less so, and where the notion of "quality" moves very much on a sliding scale, and past references fade from consciousness. Is this where the megapixel race hits the ugly brick wall?
- Barrett
Like a lot of things in photography, it depends on one's standards, especially minimal standards. If you're talking anything from 4x6" to 8x10", it's astounding how much you can get away with and still come up with at least "okay" images: we could've stopped at about 3-4mp and simply stayed there. But people (apparently, according to the recent e-mail offer I got from Calumet) still pay 25k for the latest Phase One MF back, or 6-9k for the latest high-spec FF Nikon/Canon body for pro work. Are all these guys/gals "full of it" in terms of desiring all those megapixels?
A small part of why I've stuck with film throughout all this is that I didn't want to get caught in that Not Good Enough/Wasteful Overkill matrix. When I vetoed digital in favor of my current Hexar system eight years back, the dSLR SOTA was around 3 megapixels or so; Certain Pundits were telling me to toss my film burners overboard, that these digital juggernauts blew the best my then-current cameras had to offer into the aether. Call it clenched-teeth stubbornness (it was that, to a degree), but I wasn't biting.
Fast-forward to now: dSLR-wise (not counting Leica's S2. basically a new format), we're cruising just south of 30MP and still people are arguing: too much? Not enough? And, for what? Magazines are dying by degrees (VIBE magazine just bit the dust, which is shaking more than a few people in the business up) where, purportedly, such pixel-fortified images might make some sense, but the near-future...?
(Attempts to snap out of Morrissey-level depression.)
For "general purposes", some say 6MP is plenty; others say 8MP. (I'd say that, but it's largely because the two digital jobs I have on hand just happen to have that spec.) Where's this stuff going to end up? What if, however lofty our plans and credentials, our only future medium is a living-room wall at a freaking 72dpi...and that becomes the "new" standard?
(Fred knocks on the door, with a Chill Pill and Bacardi & Coke.)
Sorry...I'll knock it off this time. Really.
Thing is, we're dealing with a medium which, at this point in time, is elastic in some ways, and somewhat brittle in others. We're also a bunch of hard-copy guys and gals in a world that's becoming at least somewhat less so, and where the notion of "quality" moves very much on a sliding scale, and past references fade from consciousness. Is this where the megapixel race hits the ugly brick wall?
- Barrett
Last edited:
MCTuomey
Veteran
if you're doing fine art copy work or commercial product work or architectural/real estate or landscapes, and will produce large prints, you'll want maximum megapixels for detail, for the best tonal gradations, etc. if you're shooting people (candids, straight portraits, enviro, etc), and you're printing 8x10 or 11x14, you can up-rez a 6 mpx file and still be very happy with your print output, i'd say.
the only way to answer your 6 mpx question is with a question: is it large enough for what? what most folks do with the R-D1 is shoot people, casual stuff, travel, and so on rather than other "serious" work. 6 mpx is more than enough for most of that kind of shooting. and as was said earlier, those small files just rip right along in post-process.
barrett has a good point. it all depends on the standard. 6 mpx can be plenty. or it can be completely inadequate.
the only way to answer your 6 mpx question is with a question: is it large enough for what? what most folks do with the R-D1 is shoot people, casual stuff, travel, and so on rather than other "serious" work. 6 mpx is more than enough for most of that kind of shooting. and as was said earlier, those small files just rip right along in post-process.
barrett has a good point. it all depends on the standard. 6 mpx can be plenty. or it can be completely inadequate.
Last edited:
LCT
ex-newbie
And less natural as well. The R-D1 is my favourite camera so far but i prefer the 5D (with Leica lenses) for larger prints than A4.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Some Basics
Some Basics
"Printer dpi" divided by "print dpi" all square is the shades of gray that can be reproduced.
For example, if your printer can handle 1200 dpi; and you want to print at 150dpi, then 1200/150 is 8 and the square of 8 is 64...64 shades of gray is it, not quite continuous tone equivalent.
If you want better results, use a printer with a higher native dpi...say 2400, then 2400/150 is 16, 16 square is 256...much better in tonality.
Or, use a 2400 dpi printer, select 300dpi...2400/300 is 8; 8 square is 64...better in resolution but same in shades of gray.
There is no free lunch.
Some Basics
"Printer dpi" divided by "print dpi" all square is the shades of gray that can be reproduced.
For example, if your printer can handle 1200 dpi; and you want to print at 150dpi, then 1200/150 is 8 and the square of 8 is 64...64 shades of gray is it, not quite continuous tone equivalent.
If you want better results, use a printer with a higher native dpi...say 2400, then 2400/150 is 16, 16 square is 256...much better in tonality.
Or, use a 2400 dpi printer, select 300dpi...2400/300 is 8; 8 square is 64...better in resolution but same in shades of gray.
There is no free lunch.
Matus
Well-known
It was said all above - it very much depends what you like and what you find acceptable. I did print cca 10x16" (about A3) size form my 6 Mpix DLSR (Minolta 7D) but was not too impressed by the detail (and `i used a very good prime lens) - but the photo is hanging on the wall above the bed so it is not viewed form close - so it looks quite nice.
For me - I consider resizing up a digital photo as no-no, because I like to look close to my photos and like to see fine detail there. This is also a reason why I use my DLSR so little these days. If I could afford a camera like Canon 5D-II it might be different (maybe, I just prefer the look of film although more effort is needed there). I am really waiting for the Foveon chips - they pack much more detail into the same pixels as there is no Bayer interpolation involved (see the review of the sigma DP1 HERE) as this eats into the fine details ...
You may want to borrow the camera from someone or just ask kindly some owner to provide you a few full size photos that you could print yourself and judge. Maybe you will be happy, maybe not.
For me - I consider resizing up a digital photo as no-no, because I like to look close to my photos and like to see fine detail there. This is also a reason why I use my DLSR so little these days. If I could afford a camera like Canon 5D-II it might be different (maybe, I just prefer the look of film although more effort is needed there). I am really waiting for the Foveon chips - they pack much more detail into the same pixels as there is no Bayer interpolation involved (see the review of the sigma DP1 HERE) as this eats into the fine details ...
You may want to borrow the camera from someone or just ask kindly some owner to provide you a few full size photos that you could print yourself and judge. Maybe you will be happy, maybe not.