[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Image Size and M43

Subject: Re: [OM] Image Size and M43
From: "Bill Pearce" <billcpearce@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:45:22 -0500
A year or so ago, The Online Photographer had one of their print sales where 
they offered a 13x19 print made by Ctein from one of his own photos, sot 
with a (micro?) four thirds camera. I bought it, and I must say that I 
couldn't see anything that identified it as something less than 35. I have 
only printed one shot from my first M43 camera, a GF3 bigger, bit I took an 
image to 11x17 and was quite pleased. Also, I saw Bob Benson's exhibition of 
photos from and m43 camera, and they were printed even larger without any 
ill effects. Science and technology marches on.

-----Original Message----- 
From: Bob Benson
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 9:40 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Image Size and M43

Noticed some discussion on the list about image size,  sensor size, and
related issues.  Such as,  can an acceptable print be produced larger than
8x10 with an M4/3 camera based sensor.  As I recall, the answer seemed to be

Perhaps you'd be interested in another perspective.

It depends, of course, on the expected use of the print, e.g., something
destined for a billboard probably isn't printed at 300 DPI.  And, of course,
physical capabilities of the print device have something to do with it.

Consider this example.


These five images show 16 canvas-printed images, selected by the client and
shown here as they are hanging in a commercial space.  Thirteen are 2'x3'
images;  image 2 and 4 show 3'x5' images.

Most have some cropping.  In particular, the three 3' x 5' images are
significantly cropped, perhaps to 1/3 of original image size.

Of the 16 images,  9 are from an E3,  1 is from an E620, and 6 are from an

I have to admit I was hesitant about producing several of them.  What
surprised me is that they all work well in the spaces in which they're
displayed.  The client is pleased and has received very positive responses
from their clients.  (As an aside, these images are in spaces with large oil
and watercolors;  many viewers think these images are paintings;  the client
says they compete extremely well.)

What's my point?    Image size and quality really depends on the expected
use and the kind of things being pictured.  Something destined for display
as an art object (which is what this client wanted) has considerably
different requirements than something destined, for example, for a print
medium or magazine.  And things like technical or architectural images, for
example, have significantly different requirements.    My own experience
suggests that M43 has been very practical (for me) for large-image art
displays,  with prints in the 30x40 and (in the example here) at least 3' x
5', where the image is viewed from distances of several feet to more.
Would other platforms/sensors be "better" for this use?  Certainly a 4x5 or
Hasselblad or big Mamiya would produce something with different
characteristics.  And perhaps "better."  But when I hear conversations about
sensor size and expressed imperatives that "bigger is better" I wonder two
things:  the first is whether as a universal truth this is true (experience
suggests otherwise), and second --- if this is indeed true,  why stop at FF?
Surely a 2x2 or 4x5 sensor would be even better.

Anyway, food for thought.  (As another aside, as another exhibition
demonstrated, the limiting factor on image quality is at least based on
glass quality, focus, and lack of camera movement;  the latter two have been
challenging for me.)

Bob Benson

Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/ 

Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz