General photography thread [img heavy]

What you see is what you get, including photography, displays, and video equipment.

Moderators: Dposcorp, SpotTheCat

Postposted on Sat Jul 17, 2004 5:16 pm

Hello, All,

I'm a professional photographer and have been lurking a bit on this forum to see what would be posted.

I'm very impressed with much of the work...the macro and low light stuff in particular! I don't make judgments or critical observations on composition....or at least, try to shy away from doing so because I'm a technical photographer, not an artist, and because I know how impossible it is to read the mind of a photographer exercising their artistic muscles.

Of all the photos on this thread, I'd like to especially salute Snapper's dusk image of the Jefferson Memorial. Snapper...don't beat me up for this, please, but I pulled the image and (For Educational Purposes Only):

    Took some contrails, background lights, and reflections of those background lights out.

    Changed the color balance of the sky, water, and monument

    Reformatted and sharpened the image.


This shows what can be done within the digital format, especially given a very pretty original.

Hat's off to you!


Image
You can make the rules when you get up from the dead.
lgeis
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:48 am
Location: Boise, Idaho

Postposted on Sat Jul 17, 2004 6:10 pm

lgeis wrote:Snapper...don't beat me up for this, please, but I pulled the image and (For Educational Purposes Only)

Took some contrails, background lights, and reflections of those background lights out.

Changed the color balance of the sky, water, and monument

Reformatted and sharpened the image

This shows what can be done within the digital format, especially given a very pretty original.

Hat's off to you!


lgeis, I am not at all offended that you modified my picture. I appreciate constructive criticism, and I am impressed with what you were able to do with the picture. The original, although pretty, just doesn't look realistic. I was never able to satisfactorly get the results you did. Perhaps I didn't work at it long enough, or I just need some more post-processing practice. Also, thank you for the kind comments.
Snapper
Gerbil
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 7:05 am

Postposted on Sat Jul 17, 2004 6:46 pm

Sony DSC-V1 (Auto-Set) - Detroit Zoo

Image
Image
"Give me a scotch. I'm starving" ~ Tony Stark
PRIME1
Darth Gerbil
 
Posts: 7561
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 4:07 pm
Location: , location

Postposted on Sat Jul 17, 2004 7:38 pm

Nikon Coolpix 5000. The one of the beach bugs me cause the tress left of the wave look so cloudy. Any ideas on how to avoid this? Maybe it's just mist from the wave? Doubt that though...

Image


Image

One, if not the most amazing place I've ever been
Image

Image

This dusty footed thing is on my monitor and about 3cm tall.
Image
This forum owns.
Chaseme
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:21 am
Location: Lachine

Postposted on Sat Jul 17, 2004 8:17 pm

Snapper:
Perhaps I didn't work at it long enough, or I just need some more post-processing practice


You know, I think that there should be a Masters Degree in Photoshops...it's so "deep," and I don't think anyone has global mastery of the program. I specialize in a part (the part used in forensic deconstruction of images, in particular), other folks deal with the "art" side.

Here are some simple conversions (technically, of course, they are corruptions of the image) that look kinda' cool:

Image

That's just a "glowing edge" filter, faded to about 40% (Edit>Fade).

Image

Classic monochrome conversion, although accomplished by applying a gradient map instead of just converting the image to an 8-bit file. If you have Photoshop, it's Image>Adjustments>Gradient Map...gives phenomenal control over the hot spots in the image...in this case, I accentuated the glow around the rotunda.

Image

Brush strokes filter, again faded after application. The filter is picking up some of the .jpg artifacting...that's what is making the blocks of color in the sky...I should have blurred the image first.

Image

This too is a gradient map...just foolin' around.

OK...I'll stop messing with your image...Ha! :wink:

If you are using Photoshop, you can download some pretty cool "Actions" (pre-reocorded administrative & manipulative techniques) from adobe.com.

aphasia has some great shots posted...share a bit of the technique? LJ...wonderful macro work. Y'all rock!
You can make the rules when you get up from the dead.
lgeis
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:48 am
Location: Boise, Idaho

Postposted on Sat Jul 17, 2004 11:28 pm

LJ...wonderful macro work.

Thanks, lgeis. I've only had an SRL for about three weeks now and my inexperience still really shows. I have a lot of difficulty shooting at high zoom yet.
LJ
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 883
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 1:24 am

Postposted on Sun Jul 18, 2004 3:07 am

Woke up early this morning and i just realized the sky look pretty much beautiful than normal day :D

Time: 7:12am
Location: View from my apartment





Image


Closer look at the cloud

Image
zapgirl
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:06 pm
Location: TR, so?

Postposted on Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:43 am

Chaseme wrote:Nikon Coolpix 5000. The one of the beach bugs me cause the tress left of the wave look so cloudy. Any ideas on how to avoid this? Maybe it's just mist from the wave? Doubt that though...


I think this is haze from the ultra-violet light. If I'm correct, this can be reduced or eliminated with a UV filter. It could also be mist as you said, which can't be corrected for at all other than to wait for a time where there isn't as much of it, timing is everything.

The timing comment made me think of one of the biggest reasons for some lower quality pictures made by amateurs IMO. I have seen many pictures that would have been good or great if the picture had been taken at a better time of day. A shot made when the sun is overhead will produce a very bright looking and washed out picture. The picture will be dramatically improved by waiting for a better time of day, such as late afternoon or morning. We don't always have this luxury, so a polarizing filter can help reduce some of the glare, increase contrast, and color saturation. I have seen pictures from pros suffering from this on pictures that are matted and framed for sale which is surprising to me.

The picture of the chick cracks me up.

There are a lot of good pictures that have been posted. I especially like many of the pictures Apashia's pictures. (sorry if I mispelled).

Nice to see the amount of contributions by everyone.

LJ, your pictures make me miss Madison a little bit. I lived there for 8 years.
Snapper
Gerbil
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 7:05 am

Postposted on Sun Jul 18, 2004 10:22 am

Thank you :D
Aphasia
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3354
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Solna/Sweden

Postposted on Sun Jul 18, 2004 12:04 pm

Image

last weekend trip up north pic ^ ... lol i definately need to purchase a 5mp
camera dont i? this Sony DCR-TRV320 doesnt cut it, does it?
Image
thegleek
Darth Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Postposted on Sun Jul 18, 2004 1:54 pm

Here's a pretty cool toy: It's a 53' tall pneumatic pod that I use to raise cameras. The tilt/pan/zoom/shutter functions are all wireless, and I do have an image preview on the ground prior to image capture. It's only about 45' up in this picture (that's a friend, not me, standing by my truck):

Image

As an example of its commercial viability, here is a $600K home in Boise, Idaho with some limited "curb appeal":

Image

Here's an image of that house from about 45' up (in fact, the image of the pod above is during its setup to shoot the house...the very shoot!):

Image

You can not only see the structure and landscaping, but the view to the rear.

I also have a 71' pod that is being configured over the next few weeks (no small feat, adapting that to the truck).

Occasionally, I do try "art" (no laughing here...it's simply not my "bag"). :D

Here's an early morning image of a canyon in Idaho...it just sold a 34' print on Friday, so it is convenient to post here:

Image

Here's a night image (true night image...note that there is no sun)...it is a very long exposure and is in fact a quad (4) exposure image which I produced for a commercial Real Estate company:

Image
You can make the rules when you get up from the dead.
lgeis
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:48 am
Location: Boise, Idaho

Postposted on Sun Jul 18, 2004 2:03 pm

Here's a night image (true night image...note that there is no sun)...it is a very long exposure and is in fact a quad (4) exposure image which I produced for a commercial Real Estate company:

How exactly do multiple exposures work? Why the need for four exposures? Generally I've seen situations where two exposures have been used-- one to show a properly exposed background and one to show a properly exposed subject. Were the extra exposures for color?
LJ
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 883
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 1:24 am

Postposted on Sun Jul 18, 2004 2:32 pm

How exactly do multiple exposures work? Why the need for four exposures? Generally I've seen situations where two exposures have been used-- one to show a properly exposed background and one to show a properly exposed subject. Were the extra exposures for color?


Film has a rather limited range of exposure...in most negative films, that range is somewhere in the 9 f-stop value. To shoot an image like this one, which has an extremely broad range (from the black sky to the bright lights, perhaps 16-18 f-stops) in a single frame is impossible. The lights will either be "blown out" or the remainder of the image will be grossly underexposed.

Therefore, most folks shoot in one of two ways: They either close the aperture to produce a 15-20 minute exposure during with they artificially light elements of the image ("painting with light"), or they multi-expose the various elements.

In this image, the lights themselves were imaged when the first came on and it was still quite light outside. Note that the metalwork in the light frames is visible.

The sign itself was imaged at about sunset, when it was in shadow. I wanted a "golden" and "ghostly" feel to it, so painted it with a strobe and yellow filter...

The remainder of the strudture was imaged in yet another exposure so that it would have some detail, and the sky was yet another exposure...8 seconds, if I remember.

I have shot many night subjects and at about 4 seconds you will find all sorts of latent colors you couldn't see with your eyes. It's really interesting to see what develops (bad pun), but especially around intersections I've found reds and greens from signals and taillights reflecting on water subjects, and of course as in this image, the horizon glow starts to show.

Some night images require 20+ minutes to get nice star trails (arcs of star travel) and provide time to run around the subject flashing it with a strobe. In such a case, just stop down to f-32 or so and experiment around. Sometimes it does help the shoot move along if the police already know who you are! :wink:

I make many more mistakes than correct exposures.
You can make the rules when you get up from the dead.
lgeis
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:48 am
Location: Boise, Idaho

Postposted on Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:34 am

A little flavor of madison tonight. The babcock house:

Image

The lens flare is disappointing but correctable. I should have used a higher ISO as well (shot @ 100). It was slightly windy so the flag is a bit blurry.

The intersection where University Avenue forks into Old University and Campus Drive:

Image

The street light at University and Breese. This isn't a great shot but, damnit, it was hard to time (i don't have a remote so I had to use 30 second exposures and there was about a 1 second window).

Image

And the university foundation from the east:

Image

300D. Taken in RAW. The white balance and gamma levels were modified.

Film has a rather limited range of exposure...in most negative films, that range is somewhere in the 9 f-stop value.

Do you know how this compares with CCD or CMOS sensors?
LJ
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 883
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 1:24 am

Postposted on Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:47 am

LJ wrote:
Film has a rather limited range of exposure...in most negative films, that range is somewhere in the 9 f-stop value.

Do you know how this compares with CCD or CMOS sensors?

That's the first time I've seen anyone claim 9-stop exposure latitude for color negative film, most I've typically read is 7. Digital sensors are commonly quoted to have about the same range as what is usually stated for slide, i.e. about 5 stops.
"A man whose only tool is a hammer sees the world as nails to be pounded."
HiggsBoson
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 12:27 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Postposted on Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:18 am

That intersection pic is just great, LJ - good stuff!
FroBozz_Inc
Darth Gerbil
 
Posts: 7287
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 8:35 am
Location: Hockeytown, MI

Postposted on Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:16 am

I also typically hear 7 stops for color film, but I think b&w film is closer to 9 if I remember correctly. I also have never gotten 5 stops from my D100 before. I obviously can't comment on other sensors though. I have always gotten more dynamic range from slide film than I have from my D100. I would say my camera is closer to 4 stops than 5.

LJ, I don't think I have ever taken an exposure longer than 5 seconds on my D100, so I can't comment on how my CCD compares to your CMOS sensor. I did read in a forum about a guy with all Nikon equipment buying a 10D for really low light work. I also think it is commonly said that Canon CMOS sensors typically have less noise than CCDs for long exposures, and that Nikon CCDs typically have less noise with higher ISOs.
Snapper
Gerbil
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 7:05 am

Postposted on Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:21 am

Film has a rather limited range of exposure...in most negative films, that range is somewhere in the 9 f-stop value.

Do you know how this compares with CCD or CMOS sensors?

That's the first time I've seen anyone claim 9-stop exposure latitude for color negative film, most I've typically read is 7. Digital sensors are commonly quoted to have about the same range as what is usually stated for slide, i.e. about 5 stops.



My apologies, but I'm short on time..you might Google Kodak's site, and the Rochester Institute of Technology.

I've noticed the wildly variant claims and don't think anybody's off their rocker. A lot of the issue is what folks are willing to tolerate...in other words, they're describing a latitude of acceptable exposure, not the ability of the film to produce a modulation transfer or grain characteristic, etc. If they were, I think the numbers would soar simply because you can get a chemical response with very little light, but of course, it would be nearly worthless aesthetically.

On the night end of things I (and a number of other photographers) are quite comfortable with underexposure in some areas and gross overexposure in others, particularly with lights. See the lights in my image above...in a standard photo, that sort of thing would be objectionable and certainly an issue of overexposure, but in the night image it works quite well. At least, to my way of thinking. There still is "some" detail in the hot spots...

Also, the film's performance is heavily dependent upon a number of factors including but not limited to the film's condition (sitting on a hot dashboard for a couple of days?), the condition of the chemicals used in processing, the processing itself (do not push or pull)...even the very nature of the film (there are more contrasty "saturative" films...I use Portra NC for this very reason when I shoot my aerials).

Also, scanning...PhotoMultiplier Tubes and multi-sample, enhanced bit depth scanning can produce a usable shadow detail well beyond a few stops down. I offer as an example:

Image

This was multisampled 16x and there is extremely little, in fact, insignificant grain in the periphery, in spite of being shot on ASA800 and technically "underexposed".

Then, of course, there is the empirical acceptance of extreme contrast image which suggests that people may be willing to tolerate (inside of "artistic latitude") even more under- and over- exposure than film can produce significant detail in!

On the CCD/CMOS issue, We'd have to treat those more carefully. It's very complicated...for example, CCD sensitivity is weighted in the near-infrared...pretty heavily. Signal to noise in the blue is hostile, and then you cannibalize the green sensor to provide total luminance and run calculations to produce an image (Bayer Array antialiasing, et. al.)...I believe that the electronic sensors are actually more tolerant than film, and in spite of all the digital manipulations (curves, etc.) that cameras will apply, you can do the same to a scanned film image in Photoshop, with respect to generational loss...but it is much more tedious.

I'll try to dig up some data when I come up for air. I do recommend: dpreview.com, and Googling "Bayer Array Antialiasing."

Oh...and on the night stuff, my observations are that reciprocity can actually work both ways, depending on the colors being imaged (increase or decrease range). Very sloppy observation, I know...sorry.
You can make the rules when you get up from the dead.
lgeis
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:48 am
Location: Boise, Idaho

Postposted on Mon Jul 19, 2004 9:30 am

Snapper wrote:LJ, I don't think I have ever taken an exposure longer than 5 seconds on my D100, so I can't comment on how my CCD compares to your CMOS sensor. I did read in a forum about a guy with all Nikon equipment buying a 10D for really low light work. I also think it is commonly said that Canon CMOS sensors typically have less noise than CCDs for long exposures, and that Nikon CCDs typically have less noise with higher ISOs.

Well, the CMOS that Canon makes is capable of shooting at a lower ISO than the CCD that comes with the D70 (made by Sony I think). Other than that, however, they're very close as far as I can tell. I have limited experience with the D70, but I would consider their sensors pretty close to equivalent although I'd consider the D70 a nicer camera if only for a better body, larger buffer and much nicer kit lens. dpreview does a D70 vs 300D comparison in its D70 review.
all the people talking about film vs ccd/cmos wrote:lots of good stuff...

All very interesting. I'm sort of surprised that the dynamic range advantage of film isn't mentioned more in the film vs digital debate.
LJ
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 883
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 1:24 am

Postposted on Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:28 am

LJ wrote:Well, the CMOS that Canon makes is capable of shooting at a lower ISO than the CCD that comes with the D70 (made by Sony I think). Other than that, however, they're very close as far as I can tell. I have limited experience with the D70, but I would consider their sensors pretty close to equivalent although I'd consider the D70 a nicer camera if only for a better body, larger buffer and much nicer kit lens. dpreview does a D70 vs 300D comparison in its D70 review.


In typical daylight shooting conditions, I don't think anyone would notice that a D100 or D70 is at 200 ISO rather than 100 ISO. My D100 images can get a little noisy in low light situations, but nothing that would be noticeable when viewing at anything much less than full resolution. However, I would prefer the 100 ISO in some instances where I want slower shutter speeds, don't have a ND filter on hand, and can't decrease the aperature for artistic reasons.

Here is a picture that has a significant amount of noise IMO when viewed at full resolution, but isn't as noticeable in this smaller crop or when printed on a 4x6 or 5x7. The noise can mostly be seen in the shadow areas.

Image

I also hear programs like Noise Ninja do wonderful things, but I have yet to try them.
Snapper
Gerbil
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 7:05 am

Postposted on Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:31 am

Here are some examples where the noise is very low, and I think anyone would be hard pressed to determine if this was 100 or 200 ISO.

Image
Image
Image
Snapper
Gerbil
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 7:05 am

Postposted on Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:55 pm

Very nice stuff!

You know, I don't know that a more limited "dynamic range" is necessarily a liability or comparative flaw...unless it's very limiting or has some other terrible character. Folks on the art side use shadows to keep the focus (another bad pun) on the subject, much as they do with depth of field. Of course, you can always simulate a more limited range using Curves and/or Levels...

I almost always shoot at hyperfocal and when the lighting is flush and/or balanced, but then, I'm really strange.

Incidentally, noise can actually enhance the cognitive experience when viewing an image...Google Nyquist Frequency. Interesting stuff.

Please allow me to submit that in nearly every manner photography is an extension of human visual perception, yet, a photograph cannot replicate the human visual experience in all but the most rudimentary manner.

Here's an example of film's capability (taken with a $2700 Pentax 645 using a $1600 80-160mm zoom...much less expensive than an $8000 Canon 1DS using a $1700 70-200 zoom, although it was necessary to scan the film on a $16000 Imacon scanner...so I guess that the digital production chain was actually quite a bit cheaper, and certainly much faster...but results in only about 1/3 the "resolution"-33MEG for the 1DS, 109MEG for the scanned negative):



Image

Now, here is an inset of the small area identified by the arrow...in fact, just the top half of that small light colored area:

Image

The original image is 50" wide at 150dpi, or about 108.5MEG (23" tall). The inset is about an inch wide on the print, so when we are enlarging it to 5" wide here, you are seeing the quality of the original printed to 250" or so...about 20 feet wide. Please note that I have disabled a bit of the antialias so that you can get an idea of the intrinsic sharpness.

Film rocks.

With that said, note that there is no detail in the shadows! Ha! Although...I did set the Curve heel rather aggressively to produce contrast...this is an aerial shot through a couple of thousand feet of atmosphere....and even here in Boise, the atmosphere is not truly transparent.

Fabulous shots, Snapper. The lily is just spectacular. LJ, the signal light is unbelievable...amazing....you nailed it.
You can make the rules when you get up from the dead.
lgeis
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:48 am
Location: Boise, Idaho

Postposted on Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:18 pm

Snapper wrote:Here are some examples where the noise is very low, and I think anyone would be hard pressed to determine if this was 100 or 200 ISO.

Nice shots. Yes, for very short exposures noise isn't bad -- my friend accidentally captured a lot of shots at 1600 ISO on his 300D and the noise wasn't bad at all. I've seen some club shots at 3200 ISO (using either the 10D or the 300D with the hack) and they were surprisingly good as well. To some degree noise is extremely correctable (certainly the kind of noise you'll seen on a D70 or 300D); it is a better idea, in my mind, to get a proper depth of field or a shake-less shot than to have a little less noise before post processing. I don't know of any photoshop filters that can increase depth of field or reverse the effects of camera shake!

lgeis: Film certainly won't be topped for resolution anytime soon (even by medium format digital backs). However, digital is just so damn convenient =) I enjoy having someone point out the finer points of the film vs digital debate, however, because I'm fairly unaware of most arguments. The resolution differences, however, I am very aware of.
LJ
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 883
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 1:24 am

Postposted on Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:14 pm

digital is just so damn convenient =)


So painfully, bitterly true. I shot a single roll today, spent 30 minutes of travel and 30 minutes of waiting, plus lunch while the film developed...and am now scanning in the images...spending almost 3 hours getting 12 images prepared.

Don't rub it in! :cry:

Unfortunately, I can't afford to make the switch with my current investment in 4 scanners and several medium format systems....ouch. I wish someone would make a back for my Pentax 645's, but that ain't gonna happen.

I'm springing for a new Epson 4000 next week. God only knows when it'll get delivered. Will be interesting to see a 16x20 at 300dpi. Actually, I'd love to see Snapper's lilly at 34"!
You can make the rules when you get up from the dead.
lgeis
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:48 am
Location: Boise, Idaho

Postposted on Tue Jul 20, 2004 3:09 am

Medium format film still has quite an edge for resolution, but 135 format is quite pooched for that crown. And as it stands today, there isnt that much uses for that ultra resolution a finely grained medium format film has. Aerial is one, bilboards that cover a house is another. But for normal commercial pillars, many uses the 1Ds or a medium format back thanks to the fast digital workflow. The good thing with the 1Ds is that it offers for the normal shooter, the "same" res(unless you have one of those imacon or drum scanners) as medium format, but in a tiny easy to use pakage.

The problem with film is digitalization. Its there it looses to the 1Ds and medium format backs. A magazine here did a comparison between medium format(scanned on an imacon) and 1Ds. 1Ds was actually so close it didnt really matter, for that particular film at least.

I have gorgous shots on both slide and negative film, but unless i get it scanned in a shop or at a better scanner, it just even wont come close to what even a 10D produces. and with the 1D mk2 and 1Ds, normal 135 format is all but dead, as expensive scanners or getting a shop to scan it, gets pretty expensive in the long run. And with the other advances from digital, nice clean high iso images. I feel digital is the way of the future. At least for 135 format.

That said, it's either money for a 1D mk2, but i hope the follower to the 10D will have a bit more then the currant one, as the mk2 is so damn expensive. Until that ill continue with film. even though i just HATE scanning.

Snapper - Great flowers. Love the second one.
Aphasia
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3354
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Solna/Sweden

Postposted on Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:57 am

there isnt that much uses for that ultra resolution a finely grained medium format film


Agreed to a great part...but I serve a couple of markets in which I enlarge to 34" wide, and occasionally to 54" wide, and I'm somewhat controlled by that demand. The images I prepare for billboards (I have about 20 up in the Boise/Treasure Valley presently) are only 30MEG in size, while my own 34" prints are about 50MEG (life is strange that way).

dpreview.com has a review where they conclude that an 11MPixel 1DS produces a sharper image than a medium format (645, in this case) film image. My experiences differ from theirs, but I haven't reviewed their test methodology, and they may have been using a "prosumer" scanner on the film.

I am just praying for the day when we can get a 22MPixel back for Pentax 645's...with a burst rate of 2fps...wishful thinking, eh?
You can make the rules when you get up from the dead.
lgeis
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:48 am
Location: Boise, Idaho

Postposted on Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:11 am

lgeis wrote:Actually, I'd love to see Snapper's lilly at 34"!


I would love to see that too. I have an Epson 2200, and I haven't even printed anything larger than 8x10 yet. I haven't even considered printing as large as 34". I believe that would be less than 100 pixels per inch unless an interpolation program was used. Because of that, I just assumed that 6mp would already be pushing the 13x19 size of my 2200.

What opinions do people have on using interpolation programs? Have you used any like Genuine Fractals, and what were your results? What is the largest print you have made without interpolation, and how big was the original? What was the largest that you made with interpolation? Something tells me that Lgeis will have the biggest. :)

I suddenly have the urge to do some large prints today.
Snapper
Gerbil
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 7:05 am

Postposted on Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:31 am

Snapper wrote:
lgeis wrote:Actually, I'd love to see Snapper's lilly at 34"!
I haven't even considered printing as large as 34". I believe that would be less than 100 pixels per inch unless an interpolation program was used. Because of that, I just assumed that 6mp would already be pushing the 13x19 size of my 2200.

I made a 30" x 20" (100 dpi) print from one of my shots and it came out really nice.
LJ
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 883
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 1:24 am

Postposted on Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:51 am

dpreview.com has a review where they conclude that an 11MPixel 1DS produces a sharper image than a medium format (645, in this case)
Could it be Luminous Landscape you're thinking of?
Reichmann did a comparison just like that. 1Ds against Medium format. He used Fuji Velvia , scanned both with his imacon flextight(only the cheap $10 000 one) at 3200dpi/16bits and also had a $300 drumscan made.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... tout.shtml
Aphasia
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3354
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Solna/Sweden

Postposted on Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:35 am

Since we are on the topic of printing. Has anyone tried the Nik effects plugins that sharpen the picture based on the output device, ink jet or dye sub, size, etc. I have heard good things from some other photographers, but it didn't seem that great when I tried to use the web option.
Snapper
Gerbil
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 7:05 am

PreviousNext

Return to Visual Haven

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests