Comments on: Subjective Observations on Print Size

By: BG photography

BG photography — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:51:08 +0000

Wow… outstanding image! Truly out of this world.

By: Rakesh Malik

Rakesh Malik — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:40:21 +0000

“one can make beauty and/or crap out of anything.”

I think that’s probably the best answer to the film vs digital debate in the end, but for some reason it’s also the one answer that gets the least positive response, because too many photographers focus so much on their gear that they forget about the art.

By: Guy Tal

Guy Tal — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:17:28 +0000

Thank you for these great responses!

I did want to emphasize that this is a subjective evaluation. I don’t believe there are universal metrics for better/worse when it comes to print quality. Unfortunately there is no practical means for me to offer a way of judging the results for yourself short of seeing the actual prints, and I do plan to solicit some input from friends.

I also agree wholeheartedly that the processes, tools, and operator skill play an immense role in the quality of the outcome.

Guy

By: D. Travis North

D. Travis North — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:42:24 +0000

I know you don’t want to start a film vs. digital debate, but as is the nature of those debates…this can feed into the debate for either side. I, of course, am of the belief that either could be made to be just as sharp if the interim process (from film/file to print) – a process riddled with human interaction – is handled with enough care, wisdom and patience. There is no exact science to doing scans or sizing up digital photos, but there is certainly a level of finesse that must be applied. I’m not saying your scanning process is wrong…I certainly don’t believe that’s the case…but as you experiment more, you may find some things help to improve the quality of the scans. Be it different scan settings, some post-processing filters or so on.

I guess the point comes down to process…one can make beauty and/or crap out of anything.

By: Rakesh Malik

Rakesh Malik — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:15:27 +0000

So far in my experience, the large format scans look a lot more detailed in larger prints than the digital images I can get with my D300. I’ve seen digital images prints large that look sharp from afar, but they get fuzzy when you approach to read the caption… the large format scans I have printed don’t.

I’m looking forward to getting some of those 4×5′s drum scanned…

By: Roberta

Roberta — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:36:07 +0000

I don’t have much experience with film scans, but I can say that I have printed as large as 42×60″ from a little Canon Rebel XT (can’t remember what the MP of that camera were). I thought the large print was equal to another copy printed at 16×24″. When comparing the two side by side I couldn’t see any difference.

By: Alan Majchrowicz

Alan Majchrowicz — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:50:33 +0000

Is there a site where I can see the comparisons? I shot 4×5 for 20 years before reluctantly switching to digital. So far my digital files can’t even come close to my 4×5 scans. I’m desperately trying to upgrade from my D200 ($ issues you know) and maybe your results can help me decide which camera to go with. Thanks.

By: Dan Baumbach

Dan Baumbach — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:06:02 +0000

This is nice to hear. I’m planning on making a 19×24 print from one of my D300 captures to see how it stand up.

BTW, I love that photo that you posted. It will be an awesome large pring.

- Dan.

By: G Dan Mitchell

G Dan Mitchell — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 05:22:06 +0000

Guy, great article – and thanks for taking on some dearly held beliefs about format and print size. Like you, I think things are a bit more complex that “in format A you can print at size X, but in format B you can print at size Y.”

To some extent I think that film and digital images “break down” in different ways as they get larger, perhaps creating different upper size boundaries from a given original size and perhaps also how rapidly the image “fails” above the “boundary” size. (Roughly, I’m thinking that digital images – from good captures – can go larger than you might expect but that once you get just beyond whatever the upper limit might be that they fail in more obvious and unpleasant ways… if that makes any sense.)

Dan

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:52:39 +0000

Great thoughts Guy. I recently printed several 40 x 60′s for a client from 20D files and even those look surprisingly detailed at that size. From two feet back they looked amazing but more surprising was that when I stuck my face up to the print, it didn’t look like crap either.