Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-05-2014, 04:49 PM   #101
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,492
"In the higher end DSLRs like the Nikon D800 pixel densities are now pushing up close to what used to be only for medium format cameras."

Which means the medium formats are pushing up even higher and better lol.

Again, I'm a bit out of date with which digital densities can produce what type of quality - but I will always accept bigger is better. Bigger may not always be necessary, but it's better to have the potential and not use it, than to not have it and need it.

IMO.
__________________

__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-05-2014, 05:04 PM   #102
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kerrville,Tx
Posts: 2,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by seraphim View Post
"In the higher end DSLRs like the Nikon D800 pixel densities are now pushing up close to what used to be only for medium format cameras."

Which means the medium formats are pushing up even higher and better lol.

Again, I'm a bit out of date with which digital densities can produce what type of quality - but I will always accept bigger is better. Bigger may not always be necessary, but it's better to have the potential and not use it, than to not have it and need it.

IMO.
I believe the rule for pixel densities and printing is 300 dpi. thus 8 mp gives you essentially 8x11, and and 16 mp (5200 by 3400) gives about 18 by 12.

Interestingly I have read that the old Kodachrome was between 2400 and 3000 dpi in resolution.
__________________

__________________
meierlde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2014, 11:22 PM   #103
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by seraphim View Post
Not referring specially to landscape - just any shot where the subject is static. Could be commercial, fashion, etc.
Ok. I see what you are getting at. Your prior comments took me by surprise because there are quite a few photographers that have gallery pieces printed very large from 35mm film (e.g. 30x40, 40x60, etc.). But I guess they are mostly not what you would call "static" or controlled images.

Quote:
Define 'quite reasonable'. Quite reasonable for an amateur, for a gallery or museum, a fine art shot? What you consider reasonable another may not. I tend to be extremely critical; 'quite reasonable' sounds like 'not as good as it could be'. Not meant to criticize others, just explaining my own personal outlook.
I think only pixel peepers would notice the difference. A 21MP camera will print 16x24 @ 234 dpi. This is not quite as good as 300 dpi but you have too look extremely closely to see the difference. I don't think I could tell the difference from a few feet away.
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2014, 12:00 PM   #104
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 6,331
No doubt a 36 mega pixel camera will take a better photo than my smaller sensor little guy IF it is carryable to where the photos are. :-) However I have made 18 x 36 images from it and they look darn good hanging on the wall.

I remember reading years ago that the best camera is the one that gets least in the way of the photographers goal.
__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2014, 12:45 PM   #105
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,422
Best camera is the one that you have with you.

There are way more photos uploaded from iPhones than any other photo device.
__________________
explanade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2014, 01:57 PM   #106
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,492
"Interestingly I have read that the old Kodachrome was between 2400 and 3000 dpi in resolution."

Never read a comparison, but analog and digital are two different worlds - you can't get get smooth transitions in digital as you can with film. It's comparing apples and oranges. Kodachrome's weakness was it's shorter tonal range - Cibachromes were expensive and contrasts, but archival quality.


Pixel peeper? Lol. Used to spend hours with a loupe examining negatives for minor flaws that would show up in a print. Depends on how critical one intends to be - IMO, if one wants to be professional level ( and not everyone does) you can't be too critical.

Getting it to the scene - serious photographers have been dragging large cameras on location for long time. Still do. When I mentioned shooting 6x7 at weddings, I was referring to a Mamiya RB67 - a studio camera and I was shooting it handheld using a stroboframe flash holder. Quality can be inconvenient. It depends what's important to you.
__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Photographer's Corner - equipment
Old 03-06-2014, 01:58 PM   #107
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,492
Photographer's Corner - equipment

Esplanade

+1

Haven't shot seriously for years because my gear was spread out around the house. Just got it organized again in quick grab cases. They're by the front door, now. No excuse but laziness... Lol
__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Photographer's Corner - equipment
Old 03-06-2014, 02:03 PM   #108
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,492
Photographer's Corner - equipment

"I remember reading years ago that the best camera is the one that gets least in the way of the photographers goal."

But it must also allow the photographer to ACHIEVE his goals. Whatever the photographer is comfortable with, can manipulate quickly and accurately when the need calls for, and produces a negative (positive) which will produce the desired results to the standards demanded by the photographer. For one, that might an iPhone; for another, a Hasselblad creating 50mb files, or a large format creating 100+ megabyte files.

To each their own.
__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2014, 02:08 PM   #109
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,492
"There are way more photos uploaded from iPhones than any other photo device."

That's also because they're quick and easy to use; but let's also differentiate between quantity of photos uploaded and quality of the uploaded image. I love my iPhone - most of my posts here were taken with it. But it's uses as a camera are limited.
__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Photographer's Corner - equipment
Old 03-06-2014, 02:15 PM   #110
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,492
Photographer's Corner - equipment

And I think another question is the ability of a digital printer to produce an acceptable quality for every use.

"If you are not intending to use your printed images for anything professional, then a resolution of between 200ppi and 300ppi should be fine. Most tests show that humans can't see the individual pixels unless the image resolution is lower than 200ppi."

Individuals may not be able to see the individual pixels, but I've no doubt they can tell differences in the smoothness of tonal and color transitions.

Read more: http://www.webdesign.org/quality-ima...#ixzz2vDR7ihlp
__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2014, 03:59 PM   #111
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,422
iPhone photography is part of the "good enough" trend when moving from analog to digital.

MP3 is "good enough" tradeoff for the convenience of having tons of music in a little device.

Similarly, the iPhone camera is "good enough" for the portability, ease and ubiquity of the device for capturing photos.
__________________
explanade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2014, 05:00 PM   #112
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,044
I love the panoramic mode on the iPhone. It's so easy to use and the photo quality is quite good!
__________________
FIREd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2014, 07:04 PM   #113
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,492
There's a nice app called 645 pro which offers some nice features for iPhone photography. Also an editing app called Photogene. Both worth the investment.
__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2014, 09:13 PM   #114
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by seraphim View Post
And I think another question is the ability of a digital printer to produce an acceptable quality for every use.

"If you are not intending to use your printed images for anything professional, then a resolution of between 200ppi and 300ppi should be fine. Most tests show that humans can't see the individual pixels unless the image resolution is lower than 200ppi."

Individuals may not be able to see the individual pixels, but I've no doubt they can tell differences in the smoothness of tonal and color transitions.

Read more: Quality Images in Print and Web Formats | Web Design Principles
This is a very odd article in the link and I think the author is confused and mixing up the dpi of the printer with the ppi of the input file.

For example, they write "Typically, most publishers require that the resolutions of their images be at least 600 ppi." No publisher I've ever worked with has asked for more than 300 ppi. Even 300 ppi is probably overkill for most publishing mediums (e.g. magazine).

Also they write that 300 ppi "is not typically an acceptable resolution for professional grade prints.". This is way off the mark -- 300 ppi on the input file is a great input resolution. If you look at professional labs like westcoastimaging, they state that you can get "superb" quality starting at a little more than 200 dpi.

https://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci...qprintlab.html
(click on the megapixel to print size chart link on the left)

Now if the article meant that the printer resolution had to be at least 600 dpi, then I would agree with it.
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2014, 09:04 AM   #115
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoguy View Post
This is a very odd article in the link and I think the author is confused and mixing up the dpi of the printer with the ppi of the input file.

For example, they write "Typically, most publishers require that the resolutions of their images be at least 600 ppi." No publisher I've ever worked with has asked for more than 300 ppi. Even 300 ppi is probably overkill for most publishing mediums (e.g. magazine).

Also they write that 300 ppi "is not typically an acceptable resolution for professional grade prints.". This is way off the mark -- 300 ppi on the input file is a great input resolution. If you look at professional labs like westcoastimaging, they state that you can get "superb" quality starting at a little more than 200 dpi.

https://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci...qprintlab.html
(click on the megapixel to print size chart link on the left)

Now if the article meant that the printer resolution had to be at least 600 dpi, then I would agree with it.

"
Chromira
The Chromira produces excellent prints at both 200 dpi and 300 dpi. You do not have to set the dpi of a file for us to make a print, but experienced photographers can increase the quality of their prints by following the following recommendations:

For digital camera files:
We recommend using the interpolation method outlined in our Photoshop Tips.

For prints from film:
We suggest setting your resolution to either 200 dpi or 300 dpi. We have noticed that prints 24x30 and larger look sharpest when printed at 200 dpi.



Epson Printers
360 dpi is the optimal resolution for Epson printers, although many photographers are satisfied when using lower resolutions. Resolutions other than 360 dpi can cause aliasing in your print.

If your file is smaller than 360 dpi and you want to avoid aliasing, you can up-res your file to 360 dpi. You can up-res a 240 dpi file to 360 dpi (150% up-res) with no noticeable loss of resolution. In general, our testing reveals that small files up-resed to 360 dpi look better than printing them as-is at a lower resolution.

For digital camera files, we recommend using the interpolation method outlined here."
__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Photographer's Corner - equipment
Old 03-07-2014, 09:32 AM   #116
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,492
Photographer's Corner - equipment

Researching .edu sites, it seems the input file is generally configured to 600 dpi for use on a higher dpi printer. It was never specifically stated, but all the examples - and I searched for 'fine art' - showed 600 dpi in the file size box.

The West Coast site used terms like 'excellent' and 'look good' or for 'most photographers'. It did mention, I think when referring to files made from film, that a slightly lower dpi produced a sharper image - but I'm assuming that's from a scanner, and sharpness may not always be the main goal. Mostly subjective, it seems.

Time to pull my old Epson wide format printer out of storage, if I can still find ink for it. Mostly been shooting for the web lately, and displaying images on the iPad. Haven't tried printing from the iPad onto a nice printer, just an air printer which only does 4x6.

An interesting article:

http://www.digitalphotopro.com/techn...esolution.html

The article is 3 years old, so info on the specific printers may be dated, but the rest isn't.
__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2014, 10:18 AM   #117
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by seraphim View Post
Time to pull my old Epson wide format printer out of storage, if I can still find ink for it.
I just had to sell my beautiful hp 24" printer (Z3200) due to moving . It was like my precious and made wonderful prints (although a bit slow).
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Photo Editing program
Old 03-09-2014, 12:04 PM   #118
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 397
Photo Editing program

Can anyone recommend an inexpensive easy to use photo editing program? I am using Picasa 3.9 but would like more capability.

Thanks
__________________
2soon2tell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2014, 12:55 PM   #119
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kerrville,Tx
Posts: 2,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2soon2tell View Post
Can anyone recommend an inexpensive easy to use photo editing program? I am using Picasa 3.9 but would like more capability.

Thanks
I am not sure about the easy to use part, but there is allways GIMP:GIMP - The GNU Image Manipulation Program
Tried it once and it was not to bad to use but I had already gotten use to Photoshop Elements, which is a good program but I am not sure if $79 is inexpensive. (GIMP is free)
__________________
meierlde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2014, 02:37 PM   #120
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
walkinwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,676
Try paint.net and see if you like it. Also free & a much easier learning curve than GIMP.
I use Lightroom & PSE - works for me.
__________________

__________________
walkinwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
hogan mirrorless


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:22 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.