jim_buchanan
Established
During my recent short experience with the RD-1 (returned due to the rangefinder) I had a problem judging exposure or any other trait for that matter, by previewing the photo on the LCD. The brightness level was so variable depending on vertical angle of view that it was hard to judge.
Anyone have that problem or was it specific to the camera I used? and if so, how do you deal with it?
Also, the new version of Epson PC software has a upsampling feature to increase the file size from 6MP to about 13MP, for the purposes of larger print sizes. Anyone have experience in upsampling files for larger prints, using Epson software or other software. This procedure partially deals with the smaller 6MP file size compared to say the new M8, Canon 5D file size.
I guess I'd be printing photos with a vertical 13 inch dimension, and an occasional 16x20 or rare 20x30 print. Any comments from you print makers out there?
Thanks.
Anyone have that problem or was it specific to the camera I used? and if so, how do you deal with it?
Also, the new version of Epson PC software has a upsampling feature to increase the file size from 6MP to about 13MP, for the purposes of larger print sizes. Anyone have experience in upsampling files for larger prints, using Epson software or other software. This procedure partially deals with the smaller 6MP file size compared to say the new M8, Canon 5D file size.
I guess I'd be printing photos with a vertical 13 inch dimension, and an occasional 16x20 or rare 20x30 print. Any comments from you print makers out there?
Thanks.
Gid
Well-known
Use the histogram to judge exposure. Shoot RAW so you have some exposure latitude post capture. The meter is bottom weighted, so has a tendency to underexpose outdoors in daylight. I often use +2/3 of a stop when shooting outside, but as I shoot Raw its no big deal.
I regulary print to A3 and A3+ (16 x 11 and 19 x 13)) with no problems - using both the Epson uprezzing and PS bicubic. I would have no concerns about printing larger, but then I don't look at the results through a 10x loupe. I'm not a pixel peeper
I regulary print to A3 and A3+ (16 x 11 and 19 x 13)) with no problems - using both the Epson uprezzing and PS bicubic. I would have no concerns about printing larger, but then I don't look at the results through a 10x loupe. I'm not a pixel peeper
nksyoon
Well-known
When in review mode, pull up the top left knob (what looks like a film rewind knob). If you turn this knob you will see the different information overlays you can have in review mode.
You can set the picture review to show either a histogram or blinking overexposed areas. Either of these will help you get better exposure.
If you have the R-D1s or have installed the firmware update on an R-D1, you will get the same overlay you last used whenever you go into review mode.
You can set the picture review to show either a histogram or blinking overexposed areas. Either of these will help you get better exposure.
If you have the R-D1s or have installed the firmware update on an R-D1, you will get the same overlay you last used whenever you go into review mode.
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I have not noticed the problem you mention with the LCD. I generally keep it on the setting for blinking overexposed areas.
I used the Epson uprezzing software to make prints for a group show I was in. I was satisfied; and the viewers indicated they were too. I think the prints were only up to 15" though; I haven't tried 16x20.
I used the Epson uprezzing software to make prints for a group show I was in. I was satisfied; and the viewers indicated they were too. I think the prints were only up to 15" though; I haven't tried 16x20.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
The Epson software produces a slightly more detailed result than upsampling by the same amount with Photoshop CS2, in my casual tests. You're still not putting any more actual detail into the image, of course, but the Epson software seems to do a slightly better job of preserving edge sharpness.
Frankly, I'm not sold on the benefits of upsampling images just to make a larger print -- it depends on the type of printer you're using and your individual tastes. Inkjet printers don't run dot-for-dot with the original image pixels anyway, so there's always a certain amount of "sampling" going on in the ink-spraying process, and this seems to mask differences in the file size. When I've tried upsampling and running test prints, I really didn't see any improvement vs. just printing the original file at the larger size. (Of course other people may have different opinions.)
As to how large a print you can make, again, it depends more on the individual circumstances than anything else. My own view is that right around 8 x 10 is the most critical print size, because it's the largest print that the viewer is likely to hold in the hand and examine at reading distance. Larger prints usually are hung on the wall and viewed at longer distances, where fine detail isn't as visible and viewing is less critical.
I once printed one of my R-D 1 files, a group portrait, at 18 x 24 inches (with no upsampling) on an HP DesignJet 5500, mounted it, and hung it on a wall, and everyone who saw it thought it looked fantastic with lots of detail. People just aren't as critical viewing a large print at a distance of several feet -- they look more for overall impact than tiny details. This isn't new to digital photography, either: Years ago I had an opportunity to examine a collection of original Ansel Adams prints close-up, and it interested me to see that in many cases the fine details just weren't all that sharp!
I've also noticed that the brightness of the Epson's LCD varies with viewing angle, but this is true of most LCDs and Epson's is no worse than most. As others have posted, you shouldn't be trying to judge exposure visually off the LCD anyway -- when I used to try to do this, I'd usually find the highlights looked "clipped," so I'd reduce exposure. Then when I got home and viewed the images on a computer monitor, I'd discover that the highlights were fine and that I should have left well enough alone.
Frankly, I'm not sold on the benefits of upsampling images just to make a larger print -- it depends on the type of printer you're using and your individual tastes. Inkjet printers don't run dot-for-dot with the original image pixels anyway, so there's always a certain amount of "sampling" going on in the ink-spraying process, and this seems to mask differences in the file size. When I've tried upsampling and running test prints, I really didn't see any improvement vs. just printing the original file at the larger size. (Of course other people may have different opinions.)
As to how large a print you can make, again, it depends more on the individual circumstances than anything else. My own view is that right around 8 x 10 is the most critical print size, because it's the largest print that the viewer is likely to hold in the hand and examine at reading distance. Larger prints usually are hung on the wall and viewed at longer distances, where fine detail isn't as visible and viewing is less critical.
I once printed one of my R-D 1 files, a group portrait, at 18 x 24 inches (with no upsampling) on an HP DesignJet 5500, mounted it, and hung it on a wall, and everyone who saw it thought it looked fantastic with lots of detail. People just aren't as critical viewing a large print at a distance of several feet -- they look more for overall impact than tiny details. This isn't new to digital photography, either: Years ago I had an opportunity to examine a collection of original Ansel Adams prints close-up, and it interested me to see that in many cases the fine details just weren't all that sharp!
I've also noticed that the brightness of the Epson's LCD varies with viewing angle, but this is true of most LCDs and Epson's is no worse than most. As others have posted, you shouldn't be trying to judge exposure visually off the LCD anyway -- when I used to try to do this, I'd usually find the highlights looked "clipped," so I'd reduce exposure. Then when I got home and viewed the images on a computer monitor, I'd discover that the highlights were fine and that I should have left well enough alone.
Last edited:
jim_buchanan
Established
Thank you all for your replies. As soon as I liquidate one more camera, I am going to try another RD-1. That camera going on the selling block, however reluctantly, is the Panasonic LC-1.
Bob Parsons
Established
Actually there's a neat trick you can do with the Epson display. As others have said you can use the blinking highlights or the histogram to decide if the highlights are over exposed.
If you want to know if the highlights are really blown out without using the blinking or histogram do this: while looking at the display tilt it away from you. If the highlights aren't blown you'll see detail appear in them as the display is tilted. Tilting changes the display's gamma to favor tonal detail the highlights.
Bob.
If you want to know if the highlights are really blown out without using the blinking or histogram do this: while looking at the display tilt it away from you. If the highlights aren't blown you'll see detail appear in them as the display is tilted. Tilting changes the display's gamma to favor tonal detail the highlights.
Bob.
Lynn Ross
Member
I was wondering where you guy's got this upsizing in Epson photoraw software? I use the standalone software don't like the ps plugin
Lynn
Lynn