Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Getting you stuff in Galleries  (Read 10771 times)
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2009, 12:14:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi, all.

Do you find that you need 5*4 or 50 Megapixels to sell big (e.g, 24" * 36") prints? I am thinking I will not print at lower res than 240 camera pixels per print inch, using a Hasselblad 50Mpx DCU, mostly on a Sinar P3 with Apo-Digitars.

There is a really awful over-enlarged picture in a Gallery I know, and it has been there for months. (but they have sold smaller versions of it)
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
luong
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 208



WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2009, 01:39:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
Do you find that you need 5*4 or 50 Megapixels to sell big (e.g, 24" * 36") prints? I am thinking I will not print at lower res than 240 camera pixels per print inch, using a Hasselblad 50Mpx DCU, mostly on a Sinar P3 with Apo-Digitars.

There are plenty of prints that size or larger from 35mm captures that are sold in galleries, some of them very prestigious, although for landscapes larger formats would be preferred. I don't know about digital, but from 6x7 film you can certainly make an excellent 24x36 print.
Logged

jasonrandolph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 554


WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 20, 2009, 04:16:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: luong
There are plenty of prints that size or larger from 35mm captures that are sold in galleries, some of them very prestigious, although for landscapes larger formats would be preferred. I don't know about digital, but from 6x7 film you can certainly make an excellent 24x36 print.

I've sold multiple prints from cropped images that came from a 10 MP camera at 16x20.  The only reason I don't go larger is because I have a 17" wide printer.  You don't need large format or mega-MP cameras or backs to make successful prints.  The important thing is to have an original RAW file that is properly exposed and composed.  From there, the sky is the limit.  I've seen a D700 (12 MP) image blown up to about 50 ft high with excellent image quality, so don't let your camera gear limit you.
Logged

Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2009, 04:29:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: luong
from 6x7 film you can certainly make an excellent 24x36 print.

If 10* film size was OK for film, and 240 to 360 PPI is OK for digital, 50 Mpx is equivalent to 6*9.

I have a 50mpx back that I intend to use on a Sinar P3 with apo-digitars, and I have a 24" printer (11 colour) so if I cannot produce some saleable pictures, I will not blame my camera!
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
jasonrandolph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 554


WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 21, 2009, 11:18:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
If 10* film size was OK for film, and 240 to 360 PPI is OK for digital, 50 Mpx is equivalent to 6*9.

I have a 50mpx back that I intend to use on a Sinar P3 with apo-digitars, and I have a 24" printer (11 colour) so if I cannot produce some saleable pictures, I will not blame my camera!


I'd say you're good to go.  Up-rezzing 200% or more with modern software produces pretty good results, as long as your initial capture is good.
Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 21, 2009, 12:21:25 PM »
ReplyReply

You don't need anywhere near 360ppi of original image data (from a DSLR, film scans are different) to make excellent inkjet prints. Assuming a technically excellent image (no cheap glass or sloppy shooting technique), 200ppi should be plenty, and anything beyond 240ppi will require a loupe to truly appreciate.
Logged

Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #26 on: April 28, 2009, 11:06:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
You don't need anywhere near 360ppi of original image data (from a DSLR, film scans are different) to make excellent inkjet prints. Assuming a technically excellent image (no cheap glass or sloppy shooting technique), 200ppi should be plenty, and anything beyond 240ppi will require a loupe to truly appreciate.
.... so, as long as I leave the zoom (2,500, but only a zoom) in the bag, and use Apo-digitars, a Sinar P3 (mirror-free) on a 10 kg tripod, with cable release and polaroid filter, I should be able to produce "acceptable" 24 * 34" prints from a 6132 * 8176 DCU on a 7900?
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #27 on: April 28, 2009, 11:18:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jasonrandolph
I'd say you're good to go.  Up-rezzing 200% or more with modern software produces pretty good results, as long as your initial capture is good.

I thought that even the standard Epson print drivers did the up-rezzing for you, making it unnecessary to up-rez before printing, and up-rezzing before sending to galleries was frowned upon?

With cameras with anti-alias filters, you can down-res by 200% without loosing detail, can you not?
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 28, 2009, 11:28:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
I thought that even the standard Epson print drivers did the up-rezzing for you, making it unnecessary to up-rez before printing, and up-rezzing before sending to galleries was frowned upon?

With cameras with anti-alias filters, you can down-res by 200% without loosing detail, can you not?


Resampling in Photoshop prior to printing gives you more powerful upsizing options than simply allowing the printer driver to calculate it for you. However, if it's only 10-20%, it's inconsequential.

As for galleries, all they want is artwork that will sell. Period. So if increasing the image size (without unsightly levels pixelation of course) is what it takes to make an image more appealing to a potential buyer, then that is what they want. Of course, all galleries differ but that is my experience.
Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #29 on: April 28, 2009, 12:29:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ckimmerle
Resampling in Photoshop prior to printing gives you more powerful upsizing options than simply allowing the printer driver to calculate it for you. However, if it's only 10-20%, it's inconsequential.
The main problem, as I see it, is print moire if you are not printing at an exact fraction of the max dpi of your printer, 240 or 360 dpi for Epson... will resizing in photoshop give me good 24 * 36" prints on ColorBurst on a 7900 from a 6132 * 8176 DCU?
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 29, 2009, 11:23:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Yep, resampling in PS works very well for RIP's (I use Imageprint). If you're worried about moire, just be sure to select an appropriate ppi setting.

To be honest, though, I think the moire issue when printing with differing file resolutions works well in theory, but in my experience has no noticeable effect in practice. Still, if it's something you're worried about then why change?

Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #31 on: April 29, 2009, 12:23:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ckimmerle
To be honest, though, I think the moire issue when printing with differing file resolutions works well in theory, but in my experience has no noticeable effect in practice. Still, if it's something you're worried about then why change?
At focus Epson had an example of very noticeable print moire @300 dpi
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
MichaelAlanBielat
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78



WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 29, 2009, 12:55:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I am not too sure if others can vouch for this but if you are getting started wanting to sell your work then may I suggest starting off on a smaller scale to make due with what you have?

Yeah it would be awesome to sell only 30x40" prints when starting out but if you want to get a following and a name for yourself then you may want to start off smaller and work on 8x10 to 11x14" sizes. Many entry level printers render amazing quality without dropping thousands on one and can print up to 13" wide. If you use that to your advantage then you would be able to 1.) Sell the prints at a more reasonable price to get them off your printer and into homes 2.) You can keep the money you make over having to repay massive debt from $50k worth of MF camera gear, lenses and massive printers and so on...

I did this after watching the "From Capture to Print" video series (especially the Brooks Jensen interview) and it worked like a charm... My BH Photo Wishlist was packed with me ready to pull the trigger on a Hassy H3DII 39mp, couple Hassy lenses and a large Epson printer which would have been quite the mess if things didn't work out.

I have my Nikon FF bodies, sharp glass and my 12mp RAW files printed from 8x12" to 13x19" paper look great. I am currently using a Canon Pixma Pro9000 printer which is a PITA but when I get the right paper in there then it really sings!

To each his own so just my 2 cents.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 12:55:53 PM by MichaelAlanBielat » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad