DGA
Well-known
Someone told me once that there is nothing like a decent and well sized print
to tell you the true quality of digital equipment.
Has anyone already printed photos from the XP1 and want to share the experience?
(p.s, two days ago I held an X-Pro1 for the first time. Now the urge for it
starts to be physically painful :bang:. Have to have a cure...)
to tell you the true quality of digital equipment.
Has anyone already printed photos from the XP1 and want to share the experience?
(p.s, two days ago I held an X-Pro1 for the first time. Now the urge for it
starts to be physically painful :bang:. Have to have a cure...)
JHutchins
Well-known
As a matter of fact, yes. In addition to the Fuji, I just bought a new eizo monitor (looking at pictures on someone else's monitor, I realized just how many flaws I wasn't seeing because of the crappiness of my own screen). Curious about how the whole system was working, I ordered a few 16x24 prints.
They came, I was very pleased -- I don't think reviewing prints is going to cause anyone to reassess downward their impressions of what the Fuji sensor & lenses are capable of doing.
intheviewfinder
Street
I haven't printed anything because I would like to have Lightroom raw capability. Word on the street is we'll see something towards the end of the month.
I might try printing a jpg for the RFF Postcard Project if I pull something that seems worthy. But it will be small 4x6 so not a real good test of a print.
--Rich
I might try printing a jpg for the RFF Postcard Project if I pull something that seems worthy. But it will be small 4x6 so not a real good test of a print.
--Rich
zwarte_kat
Well-known
I don't know how big you want to print, but I recently started printing myself, and one of the cameras that I use is the 12MP X100 (XPRO is 16mp, I believe)
In terms of resolution, A3+ size should be no problem (I can't print bigger then A3+).
In terms of resolution, A3+ size should be no problem (I can't print bigger then A3+).
Audii-Dudii
Established
Well, I've been making prints from my XP1 files since the first day I got it, which was nearly a month ago. I print using an Epson 3880, so my maximum print size is 15x20 on a 17x22 sheet of paper. I am surprised by how good the resulting prints look.
Not as good as those from my Contax / P30+ combo, to be sure, but noticeably better than those from any of my m4/3 cameras (G1, GF1, GX1, E-P1) ... on the whole, I am very favorably impressed. So much so, in fact, that I have started to wonder if the XP1's performance is good enough, its files are large enough, and it's physically small enough to cover all of my photographic needs, which is really saying something.
Not as good as those from my Contax / P30+ combo, to be sure, but noticeably better than those from any of my m4/3 cameras (G1, GF1, GX1, E-P1) ... on the whole, I am very favorably impressed. So much so, in fact, that I have started to wonder if the XP1's performance is good enough, its files are large enough, and it's physically small enough to cover all of my photographic needs, which is really saying something.
DGA
Well-known
My thoughts as well.
Will the X-Pro1 be capable of delivering the quality for newspaper/magazines/websites as well as 30"X40" gallery-standards prints? (Edit: That is with the correct extrapolation, of course)
(If so, I will have a lot of gear on sale
)
Since the X-Pro1 files are not supported by lightroom yet, I haven't been able to. However, I've printed 20x30" prints from the X100 and they looked great. There is nothing to worry about with this camera... it's that good.
willie_901
Veteran
Depending on the detail in the subject and the viewing distance, I suspect 30 X 40 would be stretch for any APS-C camera.
Newspapers, magazines and websites should not be a challenge. I used the word "should" because I won't be able to make a proper conparison until Adobe Camera Raw support is released.
Newspapers, magazines and websites should not be a challenge. I used the word "should" because I won't be able to make a proper conparison until Adobe Camera Raw support is released.
Audii-Dudii
Established
Of course, this all depends upon both your quality standards and choice of subject matter. But since I can't print even the 31MP files from my P30+ at 30x40 to my satisfaction, I would be very surprised if one can make a print that size that is acceptable (to me, with my quality standards) from an XP1 file. YMMV...
That said, I do recall seeing some very impressive 30x40 prints made from cropped M8 files, which are quite a bit smaller still, but the subject matter of those photos didn't require a lot of detail to render well...
Yes, I guess MMV.
A few RFF members (calzone, juju) have seen a 20x30"print from the X100 (made for RFF member calzone) and can confirm that it looked right. I would imagine the X-Pro1 will be just as capable. There's a big difference between 20x30" and 30x40" IMO. That extra size seperates cameras quickly.david.elliott
Well-known
You can print the jpeg files from lightroom I believe. Hopefully raw support shows up soon...
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/05/havent-digital-cameras-just-gotten-good.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...grapher/2012/04/print-offer-small-sensor.html
It is true that 17 x 22 is not 30 x 40, but I think this is largely a matter of skill and viewing distance... and what one actually means by "quality." I have 20 x 24 Cibachrome prints from 35mm Kodachrome 64 that look fantastic, and I've little doubt that bigger prints from the expro will look at least as good.
Audii-Dudii
Established
Indeed! Using the XP1's native resolution, a 30" wide print will deliver 163.2 ppi and a 40" wide print will deliver just 122.4 ppi.
It has been my experience (using Epson printers) that for most subject matter, one generally needs at least 240 ppi for a print to look good-to-very good, and when printed at 20" wide, the XP1's 4896 x 3264 file delivers -- voila! -- 244.8 ppi.
viboons
Established
I also just have my X-Pro1+35mm photo printed 20x30. It is as good as the photo taken with Leica system.
Audii-Dudii
Established
Not to slag on Ctein's print -- mine arrived yesterday -- but to my eyes, it's merely a very good print, not a great one. Personally, I rarely am satisfied with printing m4/3 files any larger than 12x16 and if this photo was mine, I would probably limit my prints of it to that size. Ctein and I have had several conversations around this issue and we both generally agree that it ultimately comes down to one's personal taste-and-preference as to which flaws can be tolerated and which ones cannot. To that end, I think it will be interesting to see how TOP's readers react to the print...
Of course, all of this is very subjective. I have a friend who was quite happy making 20x30 prints with his Epson 7600 from Canon D30 3MP and D60 6MP files, whereas I personally drew the line at 6x9, so as I said, YMMV!
And as for Cibrachrome prints, I have a 16" square print on hanging on the wall of my office (as an aside, it's the very last print I ever made in a wet chemical darkroom) that was taken with a Minolta Autocord on Fuji Velvia and it looks very, very nice at that size. But I don't think I would print it very much larger, so obviously my quality standards are probably higher than most people's, which is no doubt a bias that one acquires after shooting 8x10 color transparencies for a decade!
Gazzah
RF newbie
Just today I got a couple of 20X30s printed by a local firm - one was a B&W straight out of the camera and i am very impressed..
majority of my stuff ends up either on the web or printed a lot smaller - so Im more than happy...
majority of my stuff ends up either on the web or printed a lot smaller - so Im more than happy...
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Totally reasonable perspective, A-D. Of course, most bigger prints are not made to be peered at through a loupe, and one's tolerance for grain and blur makes a big difference. I've always liked the 35mm aesthetic and that colors my views. But I also have a Brett Weston contact print of one of EW's nautilus shell negs, and that is something else entirely...
Ah, I should have clarified that for the 20x30" prints I used Adoramapix, and not my inkjet (which only does 13x19"). Adorama, must a use a different process, because they did some magic with my 12 mp files. Scroll down for the res they quote for each size... traditional and adoramas.
http://forums.adoramapix.com/entries/228318-resolution-and-image-quality
But I don't think I would print it very much larger, so obviously my quality standards are probably higher than most people's, which is no doubt a bias that one acquires after shooting 8x10 color transparencies for a decade!
That's the difference... I've been a small format man for most of my photography. The largest format I've used was 4x5 and didn't enjoy it much.
Audii-Dudii
Established
And for me, within reason, the bigger the format, the better! I would still be shooting 8x10 transparencies, but the economics of doing so -- $15 per shot film & processing costs, $100 drum scans, etc. -- finally caught up with me.
Besides, for most of what I photograph and the size prints I actually make, medium-format digital actually does a better job, so it was hardly a burden to spend less money (over time, anyway!), carry around less weight, get the same DoF at more open apertures with higher shutter speeds, instant feedback in the field, faster turnaround on my digital files, and the same or better image quality...