der.chris.tian
Established
Hey folks,
I think about getting an R-D1, but I have scruples because of the low resolution of 6mp.
Do you have any experiences if it would be able to nicely fill a double-page spread in a magazine? When you shoot a story, would a photo editor nowadays even accept shooting in this low resolution?
Regards,
Christian
I think about getting an R-D1, but I have scruples because of the low resolution of 6mp.
Do you have any experiences if it would be able to nicely fill a double-page spread in a magazine? When you shoot a story, would a photo editor nowadays even accept shooting in this low resolution?
Regards,
Christian
filmat
Member
Hello
It really depends on this magazine, what level of quality they expect and the kind of content you are going to capture...
The "pixel" quality of the R-D1 is excellent and its photoraw 13.5MP interpolated output is also of very high quality for enlargements; it does not introduce artifacts (obviously it does not create detail it just provides an optimized upsizing for printing). So I can generally go up to A3+ or sometimes A2 on my epson 3800 even after cropping.
Now the content is also a critical parameter: a street photo is more permissive as detail is less critical in general then say an architecture, a portrait or closeup shot. With these A3 is probably the max "acceptable" limit, without cropping.
In any case a rangefinder is the best tool for street photography especially when you don't want to be caught or interfere with what you are capturing (ie when you should not be seen as the photographer). So for this kind of work technical quality is not IMO the most critical parameter and shots from "grand masters" shows always detail lost in the grain (high iso), imperfect focus, motion blur, etc. But if you are to be seen as Mr. Photographer, you can go with a big 24MPO DSLR plus bazooka lenses ending up with better technical quality for enlargements.
It is worthy ot note that for high ISO the R-D1 is great and gives higher MP cameras a run for its money including the M8
Hope these help in your decision. But the best remains that you get a good RAW sample file from a R-D1, enlarge it with photoraw and then give it as a sample to the magazine for acceptance.
Philippe
www.flickr.com/photos/pmat
http://streetphoto.free.fr
It really depends on this magazine, what level of quality they expect and the kind of content you are going to capture...
The "pixel" quality of the R-D1 is excellent and its photoraw 13.5MP interpolated output is also of very high quality for enlargements; it does not introduce artifacts (obviously it does not create detail it just provides an optimized upsizing for printing). So I can generally go up to A3+ or sometimes A2 on my epson 3800 even after cropping.
Now the content is also a critical parameter: a street photo is more permissive as detail is less critical in general then say an architecture, a portrait or closeup shot. With these A3 is probably the max "acceptable" limit, without cropping.
In any case a rangefinder is the best tool for street photography especially when you don't want to be caught or interfere with what you are capturing (ie when you should not be seen as the photographer). So for this kind of work technical quality is not IMO the most critical parameter and shots from "grand masters" shows always detail lost in the grain (high iso), imperfect focus, motion blur, etc. But if you are to be seen as Mr. Photographer, you can go with a big 24MPO DSLR plus bazooka lenses ending up with better technical quality for enlargements.
It is worthy ot note that for high ISO the R-D1 is great and gives higher MP cameras a run for its money including the M8
Hope these help in your decision. But the best remains that you get a good RAW sample file from a R-D1, enlarge it with photoraw and then give it as a sample to the magazine for acceptance.
Philippe
www.flickr.com/photos/pmat
http://streetphoto.free.fr
hans voralberg
Veteran
What is the size of a double-spread page ? A3 I guess ? I mostly print A4, as long as you get the image as sharp as you could possibly get, it'll turn out great. A3 I think is stretching it a bit, I've only printed 50x70 once, from a ~0.5m distance it looks fine, but up close like a magazine, I dunno, depends on the viewer taste really.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
If you want to shoot professionally with a digital camera, you will be competing with photographers shooting the latest stuff. I would think shooting with a 6mp camera would put you at a disadvantage.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Epson's PhotoRAW software will permit you to process and output a raw file at a 3000x4512 pixel resolution (13.54 MP). You may also output this upsized image as a 16-bit Tiff.
der.chris.tian
Established
Thank you all. I'm sorry for responding so late.
Filmat,
I'm really with you on the things you say. Unfortunately I haven't managed to print out an RD-1 Raw file on bigger sizes. But, I'll do that. Yesterday I spoke with a picture editor who works for a big newspaper in Germany. She said that 6MP isn't enough for most magazines. But then she also considered that I should take photographs with a camera that fits to me. If the pictures are better then it's worth it. So now I'm really confused. ;-)
But also... it's really hard to find a proper one (or just any one) and I'm not sure if I should get it through private ads or ebay without any safety considering my money and the condition. I just lost 250€ on a deal like this. So... maybe, if I don't find a nice R-D1 in Germany then probably I'd be better off. : /
This upsizing seems quite interesting, though. Do I really need the Epson Software or would Camera RAW also do the job?
Filmat,
I'm really with you on the things you say. Unfortunately I haven't managed to print out an RD-1 Raw file on bigger sizes. But, I'll do that. Yesterday I spoke with a picture editor who works for a big newspaper in Germany. She said that 6MP isn't enough for most magazines. But then she also considered that I should take photographs with a camera that fits to me. If the pictures are better then it's worth it. So now I'm really confused. ;-)
But also... it's really hard to find a proper one (or just any one) and I'm not sure if I should get it through private ads or ebay without any safety considering my money and the condition. I just lost 250€ on a deal like this. So... maybe, if I don't find a nice R-D1 in Germany then probably I'd be better off. : /
This upsizing seems quite interesting, though. Do I really need the Epson Software or would Camera RAW also do the job?
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
As someone else pointed out, if you want to shoot professionally, you don't want to put yourself at a disadvantage. Those pros are shooting with 21mp cameras. An editor can crop deeply into one of those files without running out of resolution.
Without debating the ultimate quality of RD-1 photos, it just isn't competitive anymore. Obsolescence is a relative thing.
Without debating the ultimate quality of RD-1 photos, it just isn't competitive anymore. Obsolescence is a relative thing.
Sparrow
Veteran
I got the lower one of these two in a print swap, I had assumed the photographer had used his m8 and was both surprised and impressed to discover later it was in fact an RD1.
I understand he just scales the file up in Photoshop, that print is a little under 12x18
der.chris.tian
Established
On the other hand, shooting on 6MP would keep these editors from cropping the hell out of my pictures. ;-)
Anyway, I'm not that sure if I'd put myself at a disadvantage when shooting on 6MP. I mean, that would be the case if another photographer has captured kind of the same thing. But when I shoot a story, that usually isn't the case.
Let's presume for a moment my pictures, compared to the other ones, are more interesting.... better... then I think the editor would be quite dumb to choose the worse picture on high resolution over the good one on a lower one. And in fact that's what I'm trying to figure out. Are they like that? And would they hire me when they know I'd shoot on 6MP?
Last edited:
Tuolumne
Veteran
I think the only way to know for sure is: Try it and see. Everything else is sheer conjecture. I print 11x17 landscapes from my R-D1 jpgs with no trouble. I do uprez them first with GenuineFractals.
/T
/T
Last edited:
nelp
Newbie
Of course it depends on your reputation, but if your pictures are good enough I dont think a editor will turn them down because the "low" resolution of 6mp.
Look at Alex Majoli for example.
Used to shoot with Olympus 5050 & 5060 ps.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844
Then of course it depends on what you are shooting.
Fashionphotgs seems rather biased towards mediumformat and digital backs.
Btw, wasn´t it you who just statet the same thing before?
mn4367
Established
Well, 6 MP will be a problem if you wan't to publish a (clinical) centerfold in Vogue or Cosmopolitan. But with a little digital trickery you'll get decent prints in A3+ or even A2 (in my opinion). It simply depends on what you are shooting. Before printing on A3+ I normally resize my files with Photozoom Pro 2 to 6000x4000 px; that works pretty good. Adding digital grain with, for example, Alien Skin Exposure also can help to get a pretty good looking result (grain can make the image *look* sharper).
The R-D1 can't match a Kodachrome 25, but if you are working with ISO 400 or 800 I don't think that with film you'll get significantly better results in terms of resolution. At ISO 800 the R-D1 is still hard to beat. Some of the most favourite shots of HCB certainly wouldn't stand todays 'technical quality requirements'. So it is, as others said already, more about what your photos are telling and what kind of job you're going to do with it. I posted about this topic in another thread some time ago.
I'm reading the german magazines 'mare' and 'GEO' and sometimes they have photos that look like they have been made with film. Especially in 'mare' they occasionally have that sort of 'Tri-X-style-images'. MPs are quite irrelevant for these photos in my opinion.
The R-D1 can't match a Kodachrome 25, but if you are working with ISO 400 or 800 I don't think that with film you'll get significantly better results in terms of resolution. At ISO 800 the R-D1 is still hard to beat. Some of the most favourite shots of HCB certainly wouldn't stand todays 'technical quality requirements'. So it is, as others said already, more about what your photos are telling and what kind of job you're going to do with it. I posted about this topic in another thread some time ago.
I'm reading the german magazines 'mare' and 'GEO' and sometimes they have photos that look like they have been made with film. Especially in 'mare' they occasionally have that sort of 'Tri-X-style-images'. MPs are quite irrelevant for these photos in my opinion.