pizzahut88
Well-known
I have just made some prints from my new R-D1s.
I think A3 is about the biggest size the R-D1 could do.
At A3, the print still holds enough detail for viewing.
That is, it's good enough for exhibition type showing off,
or entry into competitions.
And I have discovered shooting raw is very important.
Jpegs did not do so well after comparing several different prints.
Conclusion:
The R-D1 raw files are good enough for A3 prints.
A2 prints might just be okay . . . because as you go larger,
you have to take a step back to view the image.
But then my conclusion is pretty much subjective.
I think A3 is about the biggest size the R-D1 could do.
At A3, the print still holds enough detail for viewing.
That is, it's good enough for exhibition type showing off,
or entry into competitions.
And I have discovered shooting raw is very important.
Jpegs did not do so well after comparing several different prints.
Conclusion:
The R-D1 raw files are good enough for A3 prints.
A2 prints might just be okay . . . because as you go larger,
you have to take a step back to view the image.
But then my conclusion is pretty much subjective.
Attachments
Last edited:
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
As you've discovered, shooting raw helps, and viewing distance is the great equalizer.
I once made an 18x24-inch print (off an HP DesignJet printer) from an R-D 1 file for a display booth, and lots of people who saw it remarked on how great it looked. As you say, nobody preally wanted to put his/her nose up to it and scrutinize it at close range, so pixels-per-inch wasn't really an issue.
I seem to recall an old rule-of-thumb to the effect that people are most comfortable viewing any print from a distance of roughly one-and-a-half times the diagonal of the image; it has to do with the angle over which the eye and brain can absorb detail. It's just an approximation, of course, but if you watch people looking at pictures in a situation that places no constraints on their viewing distance, you'd be surprised how often they pick a distance that roughly conforms with this rule-of-thumb.
I once made an 18x24-inch print (off an HP DesignJet printer) from an R-D 1 file for a display booth, and lots of people who saw it remarked on how great it looked. As you say, nobody preally wanted to put his/her nose up to it and scrutinize it at close range, so pixels-per-inch wasn't really an issue.
I seem to recall an old rule-of-thumb to the effect that people are most comfortable viewing any print from a distance of roughly one-and-a-half times the diagonal of the image; it has to do with the angle over which the eye and brain can absorb detail. It's just an approximation, of course, but if you watch people looking at pictures in a situation that places no constraints on their viewing distance, you'd be surprised how often they pick a distance that roughly conforms with this rule-of-thumb.
Epimetheus
Well-known
I have made 50x70cm (which is near A2 I think) prints from a 2 megapixel p&s and it was fine. I think it depends much on the subject matter, interpolation and the purpose of how big can you go.
RichC
Well-known
I regularly print my R-D1 photos A3+ (20") and they look fine - at that size, I have to be careful with post-processing (sharpening, etc.) as any laxness will show.
Personally - at least for my tastes and comparing the prints with higher-res cameras (e.g. the Canon 5D) - A3+ is at the limit: I wouldn't be happy printing larger and hanging an R-D1 and a 5D print together!
Personally - at least for my tastes and comparing the prints with higher-res cameras (e.g. the Canon 5D) - A3+ is at the limit: I wouldn't be happy printing larger and hanging an R-D1 and a 5D print together!
R
RML
Guest
It's my opinion also that viewing distance is more important than anything when considering print size.