If I want to make big big prints with a digital camera that is not super expensive, am I best off with a used D800?
I've asked this question before and I always get stupid snarky responses of learn 2 shoot (when I was talking about my 24mp cam)
When I mean big prints, I mean prints that are tack sharp when your eye is 2 inches from the paper
I've yet to see a digital print that is blown up to something like a 20x30 that looks nice with a camera in the 20ish megapixel range, you can see the pixels n shit
is there any options for people that liked shooting large format in the digital realm yet?
I don't suppose there are any cameras out there that are super simple but take extremely detailed pictures right...(like a 4x5 or 8x10 equivalent)?
>>2838888
Get the highest resolution camera you can afford.
Be sure to leave enough money to afford very high quality lenses.
Shoot at your base ISO to minimize noise.
Shoot on a tripod, at your "sweet spot" aperture, with a remote release.
Make sure your shutter speed is enough to freeze any motion in the scene.
Process the image well for fine detail.
Print using a very high quality print service (not a home printer, or your local mom and pop drug store.
Generally, optimal print resolution for scrutiny is 300 dpi. At 20x30", that leaves you needing a 54 megapixel sensor.
If you shoot your scene correctly, process your shot correctly, and get it printed well, you can get away with less (Like a D800).
If you shoot your scene incorrectly, accidentally process for noise/grain, or print on a shit printer, you will see noise/grain if you're using a 500 megapixel sensor.
>>2838888
If you don't know how to shoot, you'll never get tack sharp photos regardless of your camera body / gear.
>>2838956
here we go with the stupid comments
>>2838964
Well do you know how to shoot?
You come here and tell a board filled with photographers that 24 MP is not enough to get a tack sharp photo.
MP don't matter, skill matters.
>>2838974
>megapixels don't matter for massive enlargement
Holy shit, how are you this dumb
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 570 Image Height 857 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2838987
I guess nobody ever printed anything bigger than 8x10"s until ~2010 when high MP sensors became available, right?
Oh, shit, wait they did.
>>2838888
OP you're best off with a nikon coolpix.
It's aston kutcher approved, so it should be perfect for you.
>>2838888
>I've yet to see a digital print that is blown up to something like a 20x30 that looks nice with a camera in the 20ish megapixel range, you can see the pixels n shit
I have a 20x30 print from my D7100, looks tack sharp senpai
there is literally no purpose in looking at a 20x30 print from 2 inches, you have to at least be a meter back to view it properly and at that distance there is virtually no difference between 200ppi and 300ppi
not that I wouldn't mind a few extra megapixels but unless you're making really fuckhuge prints, you have no actual need for gazillions of megapixels
If you're going to insist on mega pickles and not listen to anyone on this board go buy that 100 MP hasselblad
>>2838888
>big prints
> tack sharp when your eye is 2 inches from the paper
time to drop your digital for an 8x10?
or stay digi and get a phase 1
neither of which is cheap
Or you can drop your silly 2" requirement and make do with a lot less.
>>2838997
Are you printing at 300dpi?
If you're not you don't know what sharp means.
>>2839022
The difference between 200dpi and 300dpi is next to unnoticeable on large prints when viewed in a reasonable distance. Especially if you're admiring the photo and not autistically hunting for detail.
This is just an extension of gearfaggotry. That extra tiny bit of sharpness serves nothing other than your pixel peeping craze.
>>2839027
You can't seem to read what the OP entailed
And you are most likely blind if you can't the tell the difference between 200dpi and 300dpi
This question always buttblazes camera geeks because for all the useless shit they pack into cameras these days, they still can't compete with cheap artfag cameras for making large prints unless you buy some back that costs 50grand.
Literally use a nikon coolpix.
It's what the pros use.
Sonyfags BTFO
>>2839030
If you don't have the exact right image, on the exact right paper, from the exact right type of printer. From two feet away, you won't notice the difference at all. Claiming you do is like claiming you hear a difference between FLAC and 320kbps on a car stereo.
>>2839088
I can hear the difference between flac and mp3 on a my iphone speakers.
OP here,
Are there any cameras that will allow me to take photos with over 1000 DPI?
I'm planning on printing wallpaper for my apt so i'm gonna need really long photos.
>>2839101
DPI isn't a function of the camera. It's a matter of how you set up your print, and how high resolution your printer can handle.
You can print 1000 DPI from your phone if you want.
>>2839099
no you can't
>>2838888
You can do big prints with almost any camera. I have a sony a7r right now, which can make big prints, but I used to have a canon t3i. You can do mosaic photography, where you stitch multiple photos together to create 1 seamless high-resolution photo. I've made photos that are upwards of 120mp with my 18mp T3i, and they look fantastic blown up large, some as big as 30"x120"
Another thing you can do to help, is use Alien Skin plugin for photoshop. All the program does is resize images, specfically for enlarging. It works much differently from photoshop, because when you enlarge an image in photoshop it samples nearby pixels to approximate the new pixels being created, but Alien Skins will actually analyze the image and turn it into a vector file creating sharp lines that will help maintain detail.
However, keep in mind that a good print resolution is 300 DPI, and if you're thinking about creating a wallpaper for your room (im assuming 8' tall 12' wide) you're looking at a 4,000 megapixel image, which isn't feasible, especially trying to send the file to the printers. You could probably get away with something much lower resolution, because people aren't going to have their faces 2 inches away from your wall.
>>2838888
Yead the words of wisdom from Uncle Ken:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
>>2839132
>http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
definitely do not listen to this OP, Don't ever read ken rockwell
I love how people talking saying they can make big prints with shit like 24mp cameras
you can, but they don't look that great and they are not sharp.
Ken Rockwell takes the worst pictures known to mankind
hes a geekfag
geekfags BTFO
>>2838888
>When I mean big prints, I mean prints that are tack sharp when your eye is 2 inches from the paper
Shoot film
>>2839173
When will this meme end?
Yes, you can make big prints with film, if you use an 8x10 camera. But then you're talking about going on a photo trip, taking 20 photos, coming back, hoping you don't fuck up developing, then you have to get them scanned. And scanning can be expensive as shit if you want to get a proper drum scan.
I'm sorry, but digital has surpassed film, you just fell for the /p/ film meme.
>>2839173
that was the entire point of the thread genius
to see if there was digital that had file sizes with the needed information
moron
>>2838888
shoot MF/LF or pay the quid for massive MP. no shortcuts OP.
fuck your quads
>>2838989
What do the numbers within the boxes represent in this image?
>>2839233
The DPI needed for the sensor on the left to create a photo with the dimensions on the top.
>>2839202
you are really fucking hostile towards people who a re trying to help you, you know that right?
anyway, as long as it's still life or not moving you can just stich your shit from multiple shots
May I politely enquire as to what necessitates a viewing distance of two inches, OP? Because that's not where people typically view a 20x30 print from
>>2839273
Because having the best of the best of the best capable of the very best of the best means my photos of my shoes at my back door at ISO 2000 are good.
>>2838888
just use an iphone 6.
those huge billboards were shot on iphone 6.
>>2839165
>but they don't look that great and they are not sharp
have you ever done a big print with a 24 megapixel camera?
20x30 inches, for example.
>>2839622
max size for 300dpi with that is 11x16.5
that is not a large print
below 300dpi is not 'sharp'
>>2839628
>below 300dpi is not 'sharp'
this only confirms to me that you did not ever make a big print with a 24 megapixel camera. Unless you count looking at a 20x30 print from 5 centimetres of course. But that's just your personal autism.
>>2839629
Yes, thats what counts as 'sharp'
Sharp means its sharp. Having the image be completely sharp at 5cm is sharp, anything less and thats not the point of the thread.
Not interested in whats 'good enough for you' or what you personally think is acceptable.
Point of the thread was trying to find a digital camera that can produce large prints where they are sharp down to being 5cm.
>>2839108
This. Just do a photo stitch. Like a Brenizer method stitch but not necessarily with a wide open aperture.
Any fairly modern camera will be fine.
>>2839636
>Yes, thats what counts as 'sharp'
No, what counts as sharp is when you stand at a distance that you can actually see the whole picture without having to move your eyes like you're using some 2.0 magnification viewfinder.
That would be about half a meter. 200 DPI is sharp as fuck at half a meter, assuming the photo itself has been shot on a sharp lens in good light and was processed properly for detail.
>b-but my 5cm
literally autism
>shitter blind bads can't see the horrific difference between 200 and 300ppi
>>2839273
>i want muh sharpness
>D-DON'T YOU DARE EVALUATE MY SHARPNESS THOUGH
>>2838888
> I've yet to see a digital print that is blown up to something like a 20x30 that looks nice with a camera in the 20ish megapixel range, you can see the pixels n shit
20x30 meters won't work, but you can do 20x30 inches in one shot just fine.
All you need is a sharp lens (as in *really* sharp, a Sigma Art prime or something like that) + no substantial shake + little if any ISO noise from insufficient lighting.
Pic is a ~1000x1000 crop from an A6000 6000x4000 24MP image, you could easily print the whole thing at 30x20 and it'd look okay.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 90 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 500 dpi Vertical Resolution 500 dpi Image Created 2016:05:15 18:22:02 Exposure Time 1/350 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/4.5 Brightness 7.4 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 60.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>pro tip
>two 24mp equals 48mp
I understand where you're coming from, OP.
D800 would be a great camera to print large from. I don't think a lot of people here understand fine art prints from the context of a gallerist's or collector's perspective. There are many collectors who stand far back and appreciate the whole, then inspect the print closely to appreciate the craftsmanship. The people who are going to buy your prints will always appreciate the detail you're able to retain with a high resolution camera and a strong technique. They're not buying a picture of something they can merely recognize from 2 or 3 feet away, they're buying an object - an artwork - an artifact in their eyes, and they want to enjoy the subtleties and the details just as much as the whole image.
I recently printed a few images at 20x30" from a 16mp file, and I was barely able to get away with it. 20"x30" from a D7000 is about 160 DPI. You can notice the low DPI, even from a foot and a half away. You can notice the difference between 200 and 300dpi at that distance too.
I've had galleries reject some images of mine because they couldn't be printed at a certain size while maintaining image quality. I've also had portfolio reviews where critics basically told me to reshoot all my work with a better camera.
I understand many here will never be in the position I am, and very few understand the importance until their work is put under scrutiny, but it's worth investing in. I'm saving for a D800 right now so I can continue with my current project. It's on hiatus until I get one.
>>2838989
Do you have that in metric? You know the measurement system the rest of the world uses?
>>2839877
Hey, definitely check out my post right here
>>2839108
You can make big prints from almost any camera, you just need the technical ability to do it. I've had my photos at a gallery before, and I've sold prints as wide as 10' feet, taken with an 18mp camera.
Obviously the higher resolution camera you have to begin with, the higher resolution you can make with little effort.
Have you ever used programs like ptgui to stitch high res photos together? or used plugins like alien skins to increase resolution?
>>2839678
>All you need is a sharp lens (as in *really* sharp, a Sigma Art prime or something like that)
sharpness is good but you also need focus to be correct, something sigma is bad at
>>2839901
What's your technique? Where are you exhibiting?
>>2839934
It's a bit of a lengthy process, but I'll try to lay it out step by step.
1. figure out what exposure will work best for your scene when you take into account the sky, ground, etc.
2. Figure out where you want the boundaries of your image to be, Top, bottom, sides.
3. Make sure you keep your exposure locked for all the photos (as you would with any other normal panorama)
4. Keep with a specific pattern when you start teking your series of photos (anywhere from 3-100, or however many you need). Example, starte from top left, take photos from left to right, overlapping each image by about 30-40% for each image. Move the camera down by a small amount (overlapping by 30% still) to take the next row of photos.
5. Open photos in raw converter of your choice. Do the edits you want, but keep in mind you need to apply the EXACT same edits to each photo in the mosaic.
this step will vary depending on your software.
6. if you're going to open in photoshop, simply open up each edited image in photoshop, and use the photomerge function to merge and blend all the images together
6-2. If you're using a third party program like ptgui, simply export Tiffs from your raw converter and open them up in your program.
7. Optional, you can re open your finalized image in photoshop and do final adjustments in the camera raw filter (gradients, horizon straightening, vignette)
I used to display in a gallery in Texas, but I have since moved out to California, and I strictly just do shows now, rather than showing at a gallery.
I'll be monitoring this thread if you need any clarification
Pic related is an example of what you can do with an entry level dslr
>>2839877
yeah it sucks
you could get away with it with 35mm film because when blown up it imparts this kind of 'look' thats accepted, you can't do that with digital.
anything lower than 300dpi with digital just looks like garbage
>>2839955
how do you deal with shots when you can't take a whole bunch of pictures?
This is a nice technique and it's kind of something most people are already aware of, but is a bit of a stop gap to those who don't just shoot landscape kind of stuff.
people showing stuff at 20dpi are not going to be in galleries or that kind of thing...
maybe at the community arts center or local art fair kind of thing but it doesn't fly with real artsy fartsy photography
>>2839955
Oh you're talking about stitching panoramas. I've done that in the past but it doesn't work for my current studio project :-<
>>2840002
What do you mean by
>how do you deal with shots when you can't take a whole bunch of pictures?
Yeah, it's definitely more useful for people doing landscape and architecture photography. Really any type of photography that isn't photos of people, this can work really well with.
I know a lot of people are aware of it, but I don't think a lot of people use it or know how powerful it can be. It really only serves a purpose if
1. You print really large
2. Your lens won't cover the entire scene.
>>2840011
Yeah, but panoramas are generally just a single row. But doing multi rows panoramas or even just multi photo shots work too.
What kind of studio project are you doing? And why wont this work?
>>2840008
20 DPI???
From a 24mp sensor, at 20 DPI, you're making a print that's literally 25 feet long.
Nobody on this board has printed anything at 1/5th that size in their entire life (future included)
>>2840022
Anamorphic illusions where the camera can't be moved. I think I have fulfilled every possible reason as to why I should have a high resolution camera.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:11 11:48:21 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/9.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 250 Lens Aperture f/9.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Flash Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2840037
I've printed 10' :) 300dpi
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 960 Image Height 720 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:15 16:55:22 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 960 Image Height 720
>>2840046
even through this low quality pic I can still see how low quality the print is
>>2840043
Very nice. I imagine you might be able to still do the panoramic technique with a nodal ninja (which eliminates parallax error) or something similar. They even have motorized. But if you can afford a medium format 80-100mp camera, fuck it, why not get that?
>>2840050
LOL, Okay bud. It's 300 dpi, printed on kodak Edura Metallic, face mounted to Acrylic. It cost over $1,200 just to print it and get it to the client. I can promise you, it's not a low quality print
>>2840053
Honestly I'd like to someday, but I can't. Even dropping $3000 on a camera is out of sight for me right now. A lot of the images I want to create cost a bit to produce. I've averaged minimum production budget of $100 per shot this year, and I want to produce about 50 of these to put into a photo book. I'm selling an occasional print here and there, which helps to cover a few of these images, and saving up while working this summer will help bring me to where I want to be. Also got shoed in to receive a free spot in a large art fair this summer so I'm hoping to sell some small prints, something I haven't done before.
>>2840064
Yeah, I completely understand. It's expensive. Your images are definitely unique, and seem to be good quality, so both of those things will help you to sell them. You may also consider renting a medium format camera, not sure how much they cost, but you could knock out a few photos at a time.
You could also try the nodal ninja, it costs like $200, and it might really help, you never know.
>>2840050
Do I smell jelly?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 259 Image Height 194 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2840109
>Gets BTFOd
>Tries to turn thread into spiderman
Nice try faggot.
digitalfags still can't make real prints after all this time
>>2840050
haterade
>>2840131
film """""""""""""""""""""""""""photographers"""""""""""""""""""""""""" STILL
S
T
I
L
L
have to pay just to be able to look at the """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""photos"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" they took using their century old technology
>>2839191
>scanning
>not optically printing
>>2840154
Looks like I hit a soft spot lmao
>>2840154
wow, u sure did telled him m80.
To all of the people posting in this thread saying "this is why people who shoot digital are retards"
let's point out that so few photographers in the world actually do any of this that when you round to 2 sig figs, it's zero people.
You can also make up an equally retarded argument to prove that film is ridiculous, watch.
I want to take 200 high resolution photos in 17 seconds, and then be able to send all 200 to a publication 20 minutes later. Which film camera can I use to do that?
Which begs responses of "Spray and pray faggot no talent can't pick a moment why are you in such a hurry, nobody actually needs that" and the reply is "yeah, exactly"
>>2838989
>no 24MP
WRYYYYYYYYYY
>>2840377
LOL, and you have a large format enlarger and 10' wide paper in your moms basement? No, you don't. And good luck getting that optically printed somewhere else.
>>2840498
Sports tog?
It's not worth trying to argue with /p/ on stuff like this, the guys who will argue with you about it can't wrap their heads around how pro photography works.
>>2839955
>I strictly just do shows now, rather than showing at a gallery.
What is the reason?
>>2840983
Just don't have the connections in California that I had out in Texas. The gallery wasn't really a good source of income, I made most of my sales to people outside of the gallery anyways. The shows that I do, I can sell maybe 2-3000 in two days, where it would take a while to do that in a gallery. I'd prefer to have my stuff in the gallery though, I don't have to spend my time selling it. The biggest benefit to being in the gallery is just to tell people your stuff is hanging in a gallery, then they think you're a big shot.
Both have their pros and cons, the shows are expensive to start doing, can cost up to $500 for a booth, and I had to spend like $1000 to get the gear I needed to hang the art inside the booth, And I also printed $2000 worth of large prints to show there. One thing I noticed though, people want custom prints, so I will usually sell a print at a custom size to fit a spot in their house. I price my prints at 2-3x the cost to manufacture, and I make them pay half upfront, so I get the print made without using my money, then they pay the rest when the print is delivered. If they don't pay me when I deliver the print, I keep it and their money.
>>2839925
There is the restriction with PDAF working only in the center of the lens rather than across the whole frame, but those five points and CDAF have normal reliability on the A6000.
Maybe that is not the same on a Nikon, but even if you MF in the worst case I'm sure a sharp lens like a Sigma Art -or a good Nikkor if you prefer- will let you get a 30x20" print on a recent APS-C with 20+ MP.
>>2840988
Thanks for breaking that down. I imagine its also nice not having to give the gallery 40-60% too. I was offered a (gallery) show and my head almost exploded when a friend of mine broke down the costs.
