How BIG Can You Print? -Printing BIG From Three Different Sensor Sizes
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 พ.ค. 2024
- Promotion Code: MATTISU50
EU: tinyurl.com/5h4rjc8c
UK: tinyurl.com/rxwam9uc
USA: tinyurl.com/yckk7zj2
The vouchers have a value of 50%, are valid until Oct 31, 2023, can be redeemed once per person, no minimum order value and can not be combined with other promotions of Saal Digital.
☕️ Support my channel: www.buymeacoffee.com/sulantoblog
Get a copy of my zine: www.blurb.com/bookstore/invit...
0:00 Intro
0:23 The Prints The Cameras
1:28 The Print Size
2.16 Selecting The Photos
4:11 Special Offer
4:27 Color Management
5:14 ICC Profile
6:11 M43 Print
6:42 Extra Tip
7:06 1 inch Print
7:28 FF Prints
7:42 How BIG Can You Go
8:06 How To Display The Prints
8:58 Outro
Subscribe also to my monthly newsletter and get a free preset and camera profile that you can use with LR or PS (ACR). Of course you'll also get my best picks of the latest in the camera and photography world. sulanto.fi/newsletter/
My camera gear, these are affiliate links to Amazon:
Ricoh GR3: amzn.to/3k8UATp
Ricoh GR3x: amzn.to/3DB4Puc
Sony A7IV: amzn.to/3BshuwT
Sony 24mm F2.8 G: amzn.to/3nVqy6y
Sony 40mm F2.5 G: amzn.to/3xGm49E
Sony 50mm F2.5 G: amzn.to/3BQxNBw
Sony ZV-1: amzn.to/3qVgo7H
Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 G2: amzn.to/3DKPsPN
Sirui ST124 tripod: amzn.to/3BuXc5P
NiSi Vario ND: amzn.to/3bGLFUy
Topaz apps: www.topazlabs.com/shop/ref/722/
👕Get something to wear and support my channel at the same time👕
teespring.com/stores/sulantob...
My name is Matti Sulanto, I'm a photographer based in Helsinki Finland.
My Instagram: / sulantoblog
My website: sulanto.fi
One additional consideration (for print resolution) is the distance at which the print will be observed. A magazine might be viewed inches away, a wall mount several feet, a billboard a quarter mile. 300 dpi is not a requirement for everything.
Thanks for your insights.
It's basically impossible to buy a bad digital camera these days from a major mfg. Lousy photographs are usually the fault of the photographer not the camera.
That's true.
In good light at base ISO you can get decent prints from nearly every camera ( exceptions being camera phones which may have issues printing large)
It's amazing, isn't it? I recently picked out some old photos to print 13"X19", including a seascape from over 10 years ago that I really liked. Wonder what camera I used to shoot that? A bridge camera with a 1/2.3" sensor. Wow. Makes we wonder whether the sensor-size wars are much ado about nothing. Fundamentally, it's just about whether you find the image pleasing, regardless of what camera captured it.
Thanks. That's what it is in the end, what looks good to you.
Its well proven that the distance the viewer stands from a print is related to the size; bigger= stands further away, smaller= stands closer. The human eye can only take in so much. With this in mind my Leica M8 with 10.5 megapixels prints up in size really well. So, lots of pixels has its place but it does not mean that you can only print large with a high pixel sensor.
Thanks for another great video, Matti! Printing and displaying your work brings it to life in a way that merely viewing it on a screen can never accomplish. Thanks for your advice!
Thank you. A print is a physical object, something tangible, unlike colored pixels in the monitor😀
On the sound absorbing qualities, they are heavily limited. Anything too high in frequency won't make it through the actual print, as it will just be reflected by it. Anything too low will make it through the print, but also the thin foam layer and will eventually be reflected by the wall behind it like the foam wasn't even there (which is why big bass traps are not a great idea in the first place, for lower frequencies Helmholz resonators are the gold standard). You might get a slight reduction in mid frequencies, but honestly a thick rug, a few more pillows on the sofa or a shelf full of stuff will do the same, if not more. Or just stuff some foam into regular canvas prints - same thing, much cheaper.
Thanks for an interesting video. I always had the experience that photos print much better than the 1 pixel is 1 dot rule (=divide pixels by dpi to get the largest possible format). So most of my digital cameras can do larger pics that I can hang in my appartment and even my film photos.
Thank you for this video. I just discovered your channel and subscribed. In my experience, canvas prints are *by far* the most forgiving for printing. They hide flaws (lack of sharp focus, low resolution, limited dynamic range, etc) in ways that fine art prints don't. When there is a picture I want printed but know there is a technical flaw to it, I always consider a canvas print first. I wonder if your test results would have been different if you used a fine art printing process with appropriate paper? I love your teaching style and it would be great to see a how-to printing video on your channel. Thanks again for the great channel!
The any camera is good enough mantra again.
High pixel does matter. even on small prints. But many people just don`t know how to use it.
Those are beautiful photos and prints. Very relaxing to look at, and im sure will stand the test of time.
Thank you so much.
I print regularly, and started doing so out of curiosity back in 2012 with my Nikon V1, the first mirrorless camera from Nikon. I was not impressed by all the nay-sayers and wanted to see if I could print large from a 10mp one inch sensor. To cut to the chase: I can just print acceptable photos up to 90x60 cm in black and white with that sensor size, but not in color. With larger sensors, such as APS C, I would imagine you could print billboards if you are so inclined. Give it a shot! I have some wall art now that I am actually proud of, and that feels fine to me. I love my new hobby! 🙂
Thanks again for sharing, Matti. Ciao from Portugal. Jan.
Thanks. In the past, when I was doing paid assignments for clients, my photos have appeared on all kinds of prints from roadside billboards to magazines. So I have some experience on printing and what to expect from both film and digital😀
I find it interesting that all 4 pictures show a scene by the sea. In the room where I am watching and commenting this, I have 3 large photos on the wall. 2 also show the sea shore, 1 a lake… Obviously water is a good long term subject.
Thanks! Appreciate the discussion. I had never considered a print this large for my MFT. Yours look great. I will have to try this.
Thanks. Your will look great too, if you have prints made😀
Thank you Matti, very valuable input 👌👍👍👍
Thanks!
What a great video to debunk the "You need Full Frame" "You need at least xx megapixels" nonsense that so many non-photographers spout on TH-cam comment sections. I used to use 2 cameras back in 2005 for weddings and one was an 8mp Canon 1Dn II (top of the range sports camera with 8 fps!), and I made canvases from even that size.
Full frame and high pixels have nothing to do with each other.
Full frame has many advantages over smaller sizes in low light, dept of field and creative possibilities.
Thank you Matti! This answers my questions regarding printing and what is actually sufficient camera-wise. I appreciate it.
Thanks and happy to be of assistance.
Excellent video with a much needed reminder of the futility of “sensor and pixel madness.” I have, after many years with FF Canon, gone with a diminutive Fujifilm X-T30 mark II and I’m staggered by the performance of the sensor and Fuji lenses. I print on a Canon Pixma iP8750 and A3 size prints are just the right size for me. The content of the photo is more important than a judgement on the means by which it was produced. I am once again a very happy and industrious photographer! Thank you for such an informative video.
Such wonderful photos….now my new gear fixation is somewhat calmed! Always said almost any camera would work well for social media, but this ups the game. Great video!
Thank you.
Good points about prints! I had some problems with color management before at other printing services
Thanks.
I did a test recently, not for as big of prints, but 11x14's instead. The cameras I tested were a Canon Powershot S95 (10MP CCD 1/1.7-inch sensor Digicam with raw support), Pentax MX-1 (12mp 1/1.7" backlit CMOS sensor), Olympus E-PL8 (16mp MFT), E-M5.II (16mp MFT), Pentax KP (24mp APS-C), and a Pentax K-1.II (36mp Full frame). It was a good mixture of older and relatively newer, while also ranging from a couple of compacts, beginner/entry level mirrorless with the E-PL8, to a high end dslr with the K-1.II (and I'd argue KP, that body takes swings against a lot of FF bodies with its performance).
At 11x14 after processing, modern denoise, and preparation the large gap in dynamic range was all but gone (I like clipping and reducing the range of shadows and highlights a bit replicating some tendencies of film) and the solid lenses on all cameras made great prints that you really had to get close up to really spot differences. A lot of the tools these days brings a camera like the MX-1/Pentax Q's and Nikon 1 V3/J5, cameras with solid fixed or interchangeable lenses, back to life. Even before that they looked good, it's just the current bandwagon of pixel peepers that ridicule every little lab result but never actually take photos to enjoy are the loud ones that destroy interest for people maybe new or wanting to try.
Thanks for your insights.
The reality is that , any size print will look fine at 12-14mp at normal viewing distances. That level of detail exceeds human acuity.
Any size print????
Are you sure about that. LOL.
@@brugj03 very sure, as long as you are at a normal viewing distance of at least 1.5x times the diagonal of the medium. That is how they used to make bill boards from iPhone images in the early 2000's. 8mp exceeds the resolution of 4k displays. HD is less than 2mp. Most galleries use ropes so that you can not get closer than 2x the diagonal of the medium. So yes, very sure.
A couple of years ago I tried to order from Saal, but they were not willing/able to mail to Finland. I'm glad to see that it has changed. They deliver really good quality.
Yeah, the quality is really good.
Great information. Thank you. I love those SAAL canvas acoustic prints.
Thanks!
I recently had a small gallery exhibition. Images were shot with a Lumix GF1 (12 megapixels), Olympus E-M1.1 (16 megapixels) and finally a Canon 5D Mk iv. I had no concern over IQ for any of these images.
When friends ask me what camera they should buy I often recommend purchasing a good used MFT or APS-C camera. I point out that they can get more professional quality in a used camera with some good used lens choices.
A case in point would be an original Olympus E-M1 Mark I with the 12-40mm f2.8 PRO lens can be had for around $600. More often than not the shutter count on the camera body can be quite low too. As you point out they can create extremely good pictures from a 16 megapixel camera. These resulting images will be superb for online and prints will be beautiful.
Print more, pixel peep less!
Thanks so much and indeed we should print more and pixel peep less😀
In our hall we have a 60x80cm print of a 2016 iphone shot. OK, it's at the seaside at bright weather, so there were tons of light. 🙂
Thanks for your inspiring videos! 🙋♂️
Thank you.
The only prints I have on my walls are those of my dogs. They are amazing I want to remember them forever.
Why not, pets are family members whom you want to remember.
Really great video, excellently presented, learned many things. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you, Matti. Your video was so timely, as my wife wanted to frame some of my photos. However, i kept saying, "But no-one will look at these after 6 months.". Now, i understand why i felt like that. Thank you.
Now, I can photograph a collection of images which will be better suited to hang on a wall
Thanks so much and it makes me happy if I could offer useful info.
Thanks for this video. I definitely do not print enough of my photos, I got some blank wall around me, time to get some prints!
Glad it was helpful!
love this!
I think a lot of people are afraid to print big and pixelpeep to much. I Just received a poster (50x70cm) made from an image from my XZ1 point and shoot. 1 1/7 inch sensor, 10mp. It looks great and sharp. Just print people its so much fun 😀
Thanks for sharing your experience. Printing is fun and we all should print more.
Those prints look beautiful, Matti!
Many thanks!
Thx for restoring the truth on the non importance of sensor in todays camera . Every type of sensor m43, aps-c, FF are producing today good images. We can just chose with a budget and size. Thèse kind of prints seem quite interesting. I will have a look. Thx.
Thanks and great to hear you enjoyed the video.
This is exactly what I have been saying for years…camera sensor size and large prints are possible. Do not be afraid to print large from small sensors. I noticed that you use Topaz products. Where any of their software such as Gigapixel AI applied to your images? Thank you again for a very enlightening video!
Thanks. These photos were exported from Lightroom without any other treatment.
Did you apply some enlarging to that M43 picture or just printed in a smaller PPI?
Saal Digital ordering system will tell you if your file is not big enough. I did upscale the MFT and Sony RX100 files in PS just to be safe.
I'm glad to see a print comparison done with similar subjects. Very curious personally. I've often marveled at the quality I get from my RX100.
Thanks for sharing!
The number of pixels might matter, but the physical size of the sensor is irrelevant. 20 megapixels is always 20 megapixels.
@@oneeyedphotographer well, not quite ... more MP on a smaller sensor means less light energy per pixel. So less dynamic range and more noise starting at lower isos. So I might want to upgrade to 20mp for my micro four thirds camera but I may not be that interested in going beyond due to that tradeoff. That said for well lit photos like a beach I would agree.
The rx100 is an excellent camera, even the mark I. The used camera prices show this, too :)
True in good light 💡
Not true in low light ..
Not only sharpness but colours matter .. And FF protect colours much better IMHO..
Another of your very useful tips videos, Matti! I want to do this and I'd have to think more about color adjustment. I wonder if it's not so easy for amateurs who maybe use free software like Linux, rawtherapee, photopea instead of Windows, Lightroom, Photoshop etc. Nothing new there I suppose :D
Thanks. You'd need an app that can display the print preview using the correct ICC profile. It's not 100% mandatory to check the colors, but the end result may not be exactly what you expected.
Interesting video, I have printed larger than this from a 1 inch sensor, as you say good enough
Thanks.
Interesting comparison Matti. I understood however, that in 'normal' printing the maximium size is dictated by printing at 300dpi, for the smaller camera examples you surely printed at something less than 300 dpi?
Thanks. That 300dpi is a persistent number that keeps popping out, but it's only one number and a guideline for some printing. There are so many factors that dictate the acceptable dpi, like the printing material and intended viewing distance. For example, a roadside billboard does not require even close to 300dpi, but a fine art print on the "best" paper may look better, if printed at 300dpi. However, in real life you can print quite large from a relatively small file with very good results, as my examples in the video demonstrate.
Hi Matti, nice and useful video once again!
I'm guessing that was some cropping because of different sensor aspect ratio :)
Regards 👋
Yes, the Micro Four Thirds photo was actually around 14Mp cropped to 2:3 ratio.
Perhaps when you send off you’re image to be printed over the internet the file size is limited thus reducing all photographs/cameras to a similar quality of print.
Or perhaps not. I have had local professional labs do 30X40 in. print images from Medium Format film, as well as from an 8 MP 4/3's digital sensor, and no one has ever discerned any obvious difference in print/image quality.
I've long given up the notion that the size of the sensor is relevant at all. The number of pixels, yes.
If 20 megapixels is too few, then Canon would not have had 1Dx II, 1Dx III, 7D II, 6D all 20 megapixels. Nikon has some too, though I am less confident about which ones.
I have a lot of pixels for a lot of flexibility in post production. If 20 megapixels is enough, then I have a lot of room for choosing from the 187 megapixels my S1R can produce. I can use a standard prime and crop to give the effect of zooming in and/or of shifting. It's a rough alternative to a shift lens, but it's there. I can also always shoot landscape and crop for a portrait orientation if I want.
It depends on the medium you choose to print your photos in. Canvas is very forgiving, so there’s no need for high megapixel files to achieve good results. On the other hand, if he had printed this on photo paper, the 16MP and 20MP wouldn’t have looked as good. Decent, but not great. Yes, you can step back and not notice the lack of detail, but that’s part of the enjoyment. When clients get close to see the details, it also makes you feel like you’ve delivered to them something they have never experienced before.
I printed a 30”x40” engagement photo from the A7IV with its 33MP and it looked rough to my eyes. I mostly print in 20”x30” so that was never an issue, but once you get into printing these higher sizes you will need more megapixels.
Thanks. 20Mp goes a long way.
It's good to remember that the bigger is not always better. Some photos look best in small size and some in big size. I mean the content, not the technical quality.
No, that's not true. All else equal, the larger sensor provides a larger capture envelope. When the lighting is sufficient, when the scene dynamic range is small, the tiny imager on my cell phone does as well as current digital MF. The situation changes very quickly when conditions shifts away from optimal.
The tool does matter. So the take away really is to know the how and why of the particular tool.
@@RobertLeeAtYT This gentleman seems o have done the research and provides a very clear explanation.
th-cam.com/video/SXm3peOg5rc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=vZj3ooKKfyCas9UZ
Apart from this, I have also seen testimonials of professional wildlife photographers shooting at ISO 20,000.
Nice shirt Matti….❤
Thanks.
Great video. I think most general bags will do but I would be worried about protection. Otherwise for street purposes you can get it done with no worries.
Thanks for the great info 👍
Thank you.
Matti, great photos an a wise choice for wall hanging.
But did you mention the print dpi?
Printers, even professional ones, vary a lot in their dpi capability. 300dpi is sufficient for enprint book reading distance, as we move further away to the mantelpiece arms-length 10x8 framed print and then the across the room wall hanging the dpi can be reduced. A massive "bus stop" poster can be printed at reduced dpi from a 16Mp. Of course high-end printers can go to much higher dpi and can interpolate missing pixels if the original resolution is not high enough. A 16Mp 4608x3456 pixel image can print 30x20 at about 150dpi, but a printer may interpolate that up to 1200dpi or more.
Sorry for using inches, photo print sizes are traditionally inches and printers use dpi. I have no idea why dpi as most printers come out of Japan where they utterly do not understand inches, it pains them to convert to inches.. They have never used inches, they had their own "Sun" unit (~30.3mm) and then metric. At a fair guess Finland has never used an imperial inch in its entire history neither.
The screen is projected light and the print is reflective and here we do have to simulate the printer gamut to ensure a good print. It is good that SAAL provide an ICC profile. Nowadays we print so few photos on paper that we maybe get out of practice with the process.
Images are measured in pixels. PPI is useful to convert to inches. I regularly export at the minimum LrC allows, 1PPI I think. Nobody has noticed. Capture One doesn't allow fewer than ten.
DPI is a printer thing.
I went on a judging course a while back. The standard viewing distance is the diagonal of the print. You don't need more pixels for bigger prints UNLESS you expect your viewers to put their noses almost against the print. Levon Biss does expect this, look him up and see why.
glad to see your video on prints matti. I'm old school so i am always visualizing my images as large prints on my walls and this keeps me inspired to get out to keep growing my craft. the emphasis is always on the art not the gear. zen billings in canada
@@oneeyedphotographer I estimate but what opticians use. By the diagonal, which is a good estimate, an 6x4 enprint would be at 7inches under your nose whereas they're usually reading distance about 14-inches. Then we have computer screen "occupational" at arms-length. Then the framed print on the sideboard at about 2 metres, and then the across-the-room wall hanging. And the across the road bus stop poster. No hard and fast rule here. |More how long is a piece of string (apparently the "piece of string" is a gardener's term for 20-inches, hand to armpit ;) ).
Finland moved to the metric system in 1886😀
@@mattisulanto yebbut your were not using british inches before that ;)
That's why I keep saying that fullframe is overrated, unless you print humongous.
You could also say that anything over one inch type sensor is overrated😀
@@mattisulantosome do print photos taken with phones, that's true 😊
@@bamsemh1 Yeah, I guess we all should sell our cameras and just use phone cameras😀
@@mattisulanto nah, I bought a real camera because ai ruined the joy of phones point and shoot 😬 and a camera is better to control in winds, than the flat phone 😊 do you have the camera grip gadget for your iPhone?
@@bamsemh1 No way, I'd rather carry a dedicated camera😀
IMHO, 30x20" isn't big enough. Go bigger! 😉
My home is not enough😀 Besides bigger is not always better, some photos look better in small size.
Keith Cooper has. I forget how many metres, quite a few. He used a Canon 1Ds. He did use multiple images. The story is on hist channel.
If one took the same scene with 5 different cameras, nobody would be able to tell you what camera took what picture.
There is a thing called diminishing returns. A $500 camera may be considerably better than a $50 camera, but a $5,000 camera is not much better than a $500 camera. The human eyes are not as good as todays cameras, So if you need a magnifying glass to tell the difference, it makes no difference. Nobody looks at wall prints with a microscope.
Thanks for sharing your opinion on this.
Hi is there a free app which I can use to edit my photo?
There are many free apps for photo editing. I recommend you google them.