Big Beautiful Prints (from R-D1 RAW files)

[DwF]

Thank you! I was thinking I would go for the Ultron 1.9 first partly so I wouldn't have to use a finder. I do prefer wider focal length though.
David

 

[Sailor Ted]

DwF,
If you're a wide angle shooter the 28mm is just not wide enough on the RD-1. You've got to get the 21mm and for that it's the Zeiss. IMO the best 21mm on the market regardless of price again IMO.

 

[DwF]

Yes I know that but I have been doing okay (I don't say great) with the Ist DS using a 28 f2 (very hard to find in Pentax land) lens. So I am familiar with 43mm 🙂

I also like to work fast and the idea of using a finder on the RD1 is....well a trade off. I know I will need a 21 so that will be the one! Thanks for the lead to popflash.

 

[Sailor Ted]

DwF,
Two words for you where fast work is concerned- Zone Focus. Nothing faster and the wider the lens, the more effective this method of photography.

 

[DwF]

I know about zone focusing. I also make use of the lens tab to do that and shoot low......but I still get distracted when I have a finder. And I also like to shoot fast lenses to isolate subject and get that subtle bokeh. I guess as long as I can focus I won't need a finder for that work.

 

[pfogle]

I've been mostly printing b/w 11x14's from the R-D1 recently.

very basic technique that works really well - I print on an old Epson 1290 using black only (!) - but get much deeper blacks by upping the print res in the Epson driver to 1440 dpi instead of 720 - it makes no difference to the visible sharpness, but puts about 50% more ink on the paper, so you get really nice tones.

I print on Epson matt paper, and I can say without doubt that I get better prints than I used to in the darkroom (and I was a professional printer) - and that's putting them side by side.

I've read about using RIPs and quadtone inks etc, but IMHO it isn't worth the trouble for my casual use.

 

[ZorkiKat]

I have yet to see prints let alone 11x14 prints from this camera but the JPEGs look really good to me and I would concur they have warmth that I don't see much if ever with other digital cameras.
DwF
http://www.pbase.com/bitonal/mostly_rangefinder_pics/html

I've NEVER shot RAW with the R-D1s (in fact, mine has been set to RAW only twice, and that was only to check if the 3rd party RAW converter I am using would work with Epson RAW files). The jpegs I get with are really good, one outstanding quality I've seen is the film-like warmth the R-D1s makes. I've never seen such qualities with captures from other d-cams. Perhaps the use of vintage lenses contribute significantly to this.

As far as large prints are concerned, A4 prints are easy to make. I could see that even larger ones wouldn't be a fuss to make.

Jay

 

[crusius]

very basic technique that works really well - I print on an old Epson 1290 using black only (!) - but get much deeper blacks by upping the print res in the Epson driver to 1440 dpi instead of 720 - it makes no difference to the visible sharpness, but puts about 50% more ink on the paper, so you get really nice tones.

You could also try at 2880dpi... See for example

http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints4.html

That's what I do for B&W printing (black only, 2880dpi) on glossy paper, I never even tried 1440. I never tried matte either, because of its lower dmax, but perhaps I should (much cheaper for one...).

- Cesar

 

[AusDLK]

If you want the best prints possible with an inkjet, run, don't walk, to buy Qimage software.

The difference in sharpness between the same print made from Qimage vs. one printed directly from PS is hard to believe.

It takes all of the mystery out of output sharpening.

 

[crusius]

If you want the best prints possible with an inkjet, run, don't walk, to buy Qimage software.

I looked at some of the reviews. From what I can gather, it is simply "solving" the problem of resizing the image before sending to the printer. Correct?

But if that's the case I don't see the point. About the first thing I do when I want to print is to resize the file so that no resizing by the printer needs to take place. All I need to know are the native resolutions of my printer. I can then resize the file using whatever method I want (Lanczos, Bicubic, Sinc with variable window, etc).

For example, I do the RAW conversion with Bibble. All I have to do there is to tell Bibble to resize the file accordingly. If I want to print at a different size, I tell Bibble to resize to the different size, keeping the older RAW conversion parameters. That includes sharpening, noise reduction, etc. Bibble even has the "multiple pictures in a page" feature if you want to print from it directly, color management support, etc.

Is there something I'm missing? I'm a sucker for better quality, but I can't see anything QImage can do that Bibble can't (apart from selecting which filters to use when resizing, but that I can do outside of Bibble)... So if I'm wrong I'd like to know!

- Cesar

BTW, a free resampler for Windows:

http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/zoom.html

I believe ImageMagick uses functions from that tool. There also seems to be a photoshop plug-in available somewhere.

 

[pfogle]

You could also try at 2880dpi... See for example

http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints4.html

That's what I do for B&W printing (black only, 2880dpi) on glossy paper, I never even tried 1440. I never tried matte either, because of its lower dmax, but perhaps I should (much cheaper for one...).

- Cesar

yeah, I checked this out. I use the 1440 because I'm printing on matt archival, and the difference is minimal, while the saving in ink is considerable. On semi-matt or glossy I'd go higher.

You get a lovely velvet black on the matt. It is lower dmax, but I can live with that. It's also much more forgiving with the sharpness! 😉

 

[morgan]

There's a certain quality to the sensor in the RD. I made 12 x 18's and they are really nice...up against my 5D stuff..well there's surely a difference but and this is a very STRONG butt...the rd appears more photographic and the 5D is much more digital....I tested it against my D60 and with the same pixel size....the RD shines above....maybe it's cause of good glass...even the best Canon L glass doesn't compare even close to Leica glass....

I'm happy........and still glad I sold the M8's....

I agree with that glass statement, even comparing L to some of the nicer CV stuff. I recently bought a 30D with some L (and non-L glass) and while they're capable of great images (and varies lens to lens), I don't know if I see much improvement over my bessa-r and my various cv and FSU lenses. I get flexibility, good IQ, and immediate feedback, but I don't think it's any better. And there's definitely a "look" to the canon images, one I'm not sure I entirely love. Perhaps I'd like a 5D more.

I've been trying to figure out how to justify an rd-1 when I just dropped a bunch on the canon rig. It's more like a nice to have, although maybe once I got it, my bessa-r would sit. But then I'm also dreaming of an M5 or 6, an M8, and a mamiya 645af.

 

[irq506]

Well i think its one of the best cameras I have ever used. I own and have owned quite a number of cameras to date... I love the build and that flip screen (hey look Im no longer a digital camera), that wind arm is such a nice idea, machanically charging the shutter, such very smart thinking, makes that tiny battery last a lot longer.
its so quiet, and extremely easy to aquire -extremely- good images. Ive never used any of the options I shoot it jpeg H, print at 4x6, standard B+W and the images are at 1600 like shooting Neopan 400. I have absolutley no complaints about it.

 

[M4streetshooter]

I agree with that glass statement, even comparing L to some of the nicer CV stuff. I recently bought a 30D with some L (and non-L glass) and while they're capable of great images (and varies lens to lens), I don't know if I see much improvement over my bessa-r and my various cv and FSU lenses. I get flexibility, good IQ, and immediate feedback, but I don't think it's any better. And there's definitely a "look" to the canon images, one I'm not sure I entirely love. Perhaps I'd like a 5D more.

I've been trying to figure out how to justify an rd-1 when I just dropped a bunch on the canon rig. It's more like a nice to have, although maybe once I got it, my bessa-r would sit. But then I'm also dreaming of an M5 or 6, an M8, and a mamiya 645af.

The 5D is about the same as the 30D.....just a larger file size....but there is a certain kinda DEAD look to the DSLR images. I mean look at a portrait...it almost looks like DEATH...I'm not talking esthetically either....I mean it looks PLASTIC for lack of a better word....the RD has a film appearance to it...more PHOTOGRAPHIC........meaning, maybe more fluid in eye travel....

let's face it, the romance of viewing photographs has always been about the translation of 3 dimensions into 2 dimensions thru GRAIN...that grain has a very special warmth and alive feeling to it...

digital images from the Canon series for me, lacks that warmth....I'm not talking about noise...it's really not the same......

The R-D1s does a great job at translating without KILLING the image.....
one of the above post mentioned..."The Epson Glow"...very well put and extremely profound......

anyway...enough rambling...but the truth is .....the truth

 

[tajart]

print size

print size

it sounds like people are printing to 11x17 / 12x18 with good results.
anyone printing larger, say 16x20 or 20 x 24? iis there a point when the image changes, and if so, what are the characteristics?