I just had 3 prints made by PhotoBox UK at 45"x30" (115x75cm) - one of
which was a 6Mpix image from my Nikon d70 taken in 2005.(the others
were 16Mpix from my D7000).
It's hard to tell them apart - they all look stunning.
Jez
ps -special offer was 4.99 UKP per picture + 3 for p&p !
On 27/03/2014, Bob Benson <bob.benson91@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
> no.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/121557118@N03/
>
>
>
> 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
> M5.
>
>
>
> 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/
|