«

X-No-Archive: Yes

I am one of those old mares who has stuck clear of digital, apart from
a convenience 8MP small-sensor non-SLR P&S which is fine for what I use
it for.

A friend of mine uses a Nikon D100 and a couple of AF-D Nikkor zooms.
He has asked my opinion as to whether that is suitable equipment for an
assignment to photograph some objects for ADVERTISING POSTERS. The
poster sizes will be 24 inches x 42 inches (2 ft x 3.5 ft). The
subject matter will fill almost all of the area of the poster.

The posters will typically be viewed from a distance of a foot, in shop
windows and on display stands.

While I can't tell you what the subject is, pin sharpness of the end
result is critical for the assignment. Sharpness is an attribute of
the very thing being advertised.

The D100 is a 6 megapixel camera, making 3008 x 2000 pixel images in
its highest resolution mode. It is certainly better than my 8MP P&S
due to the larger sensor size / better noise, superior lens(es) e.t.c.

But I just can't see how the D100 can cut it to reach 24" x 42". Even
assuming that he fills the frame pretty well with the subject so there
is only a 20% loss through cropping (given the nature and proportions
of the subject, that would be excellent), that would mean he would need
to fill 42" with 80% x 3008 = 2406 pixels. That means the "ppi
resolution" would be no more than 2406/42 ppi = 57 ppi, or just over 2
pixels per mm.

Sharpening or interpolating (creating pseudo-detail) software won't
help much, given the subject.

I think that 57 ppi is far too little, given the likely viewing
distances. The general wisdom is that 300 ppi is best for a hand-held
8" x 10" and 150 ppi may be acceptable for critical work with a viewing
distance of over a foot. But 57 ppi is nowhere close to 150 ppi, and I
think the image will look quite pixellated or dotty and, when
interpolated for printing and the end result viewed as a poster,
unsharp.

Given that the advertising posters are aimed at an audience who will
come up to them and look at them closely (some from closer than a
foot), can 57 ppi be enough?

Oh I know ppi and dpi are not the same.

Please tell me your views. Will the D100 cut it for the assignment? I
think a modern 11+ MP SLR just might, and certainly if I could stretch
to a digital back for my Hassy it could. My instincts (more reliable
than my maths, which isn't too good) would be to shoot it on Kodachrome
25 (I have a brick holed away in the fridge) or Velvia 50 (grain being
less important than sharpness for this subject - a little grain may
even be flattering) or similar, and have it drum scanned for good
measure. I'd use a 6x6 on a 'pod. Just maybe a 35mm with a good prime
lens too.

If I am right, how do I diplomatically tell him this? I value his
friendship and he does not take criticism well. The assignment means a
lot to him, and I don't mind loaning him my analogue gear (a modern
Hassy and/or an almost brand new F6).

Or is my friend right, and my maths wrong as usual, and the D100 will
do the job fine?

X-No-Archive: Yes

I forgot to mention that the subject CANNOT be photographed in sections
which can then be pasted together.

wrote:

> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> I am one of those old mares who has stuck clear of digital, apart from
> a convenience 8MP small-sensor non-SLR P&S which is fine for what I use
> it for.
>
> A friend of mine uses a Nikon D100 and a couple of AF-D Nikkor zooms.
> He has asked my opinion as to whether that is suitable equipment for an
> assignment to photograph some objects for ADVERTISING POSTERS. The
> poster sizes will be 24 inches x 42 inches (2 ft x 3.5 ft). The
> subject matter will fill almost all of the area of the poster.
>
> The posters will typically be viewed from a distance of a foot, in shop
> windows and on display stands.

No. If they were viewed from 10 - 15 feet or so, no problem.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Yes. Usually, viewing distance is calculated as 1.5 times the diagonal
dimension of the art piece. If that's not the case and the image is viewed
at a significantly shorter distance, a D100 might not offer enough
information to create what you have in mind at 24" by 42". If smart
interpolation does not work, get medium format camera.

Gregor

<> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> I am one of those old mares who has stuck clear of digital, apart from
> a convenience 8MP small-sensor non-SLR P&S which is fine for what I use
> it for.
>
> A friend of mine uses a Nikon D100 and a couple of AF-D Nikkor zooms.
> He has asked my opinion as to whether that is suitable equipment for an
> assignment to photograph some objects for ADVERTISING POSTERS. The
> poster sizes will be 24 inches x 42 inches (2 ft x 3.5 ft). The
> subject matter will fill almost all of the area of the poster.
>
> The posters will typically be viewed from a distance of a foot, in shop
> windows and on display stands.
>
> While I can't tell you what the subject is, pin sharpness of the end
> result is critical for the assignment. Sharpness is an attribute of
> the very thing being advertised.
>
> The D100 is a 6 megapixel camera, making 3008 x 2000 pixel images in
> its highest resolution mode. It is certainly better than my 8MP P&S
> due to the larger sensor size / better noise, superior lens(es) e.t.c.
>
> But I just can't see how the D100 can cut it to reach 24" x 42". Even
> assuming that he fills the frame pretty well with the subject so there
> is only a 20% loss through cropping (given the nature and proportions
> of the subject, that would be excellent), that would mean he would need
> to fill 42" with 80% x 3008 = 2406 pixels. That means the "ppi
> resolution" would be no more than 2406/42 ppi = 57 ppi, or just over 2
> pixels per mm.
>
> Sharpening or interpolating (creating pseudo-detail) software won't
> help much, given the subject.
>
> I think that 57 ppi is far too little, given the likely viewing
> distances. The general wisdom is that 300 ppi is best for a hand-held
> 8" x 10" and 150 ppi may be acceptable for critical work with a viewing
> distance of over a foot. But 57 ppi is nowhere close to 150 ppi, and I
> think the image will look quite pixellated or dotty and, when
> interpolated for printing and the end result viewed as a poster,
> unsharp.
>
> Given that the advertising posters are aimed at an audience who will
> come up to them and look at them closely (some from closer than a
> foot), can 57 ppi be enough?
>
> Oh I know ppi and dpi are not the same.
>
> Please tell me your views. Will the D100 cut it for the assignment? I
> think a modern 11+ MP SLR just might, and certainly if I could stretch
> to a digital back for my Hassy it could. My instincts (more reliable
> than my maths, which isn't too good) would be to shoot it on Kodachrome
> 25 (I have a brick holed away in the fridge) or Velvia 50 (grain being
> less important than sharpness for this subject - a little grain may
> even be flattering) or similar, and have it drum scanned for good
> measure. I'd use a 6x6 on a 'pod. Just maybe a 35mm with a good prime
> lens too.
>
> If I am right, how do I diplomatically tell him this? I value his
> friendship and he does not take criticism well. The assignment means a
> lot to him, and I don't mind loaning him my analogue gear (a modern
> Hassy and/or an almost brand new F6).
>
> Or is my friend right, and my maths wrong as usual, and the D100 will
> do the job fine?
>

Seems to me that a Canon 1DsMkII would suffice. Wouldn't have to go all
the way to a medium format with a digital back. For the same price as
the PhaseOne p20, you could buy 2 mkII's

Also,
are you entirely sure that people are going to get within a foot of the
poster? I hardly ever get that close to store posters. I can't imagine
why anyone would even.

Does the town he lives in have a place to rent high end cameras from? I
live in Kansas City and there's one here.

Theres been a whole slew of posts on the issue of scanning 35mm, and
whether this equals the sharpness of a 6-8mp camera. The general
consensus is that it does not in most cases. The general consensus is
also that 6-8mp does not go much past 20x30 prints. So the 35mm may
only work just as well as a 6-8mp for overall detail and sharpness. The
people will see the grain of the film from 1 foot. Standing back from
either should be fine.

In the case of offending a man's ego.....

Good luck. You know him better than I, and I ain't no Dr. Phil.
(potential trolls: grammer intentional)

Did somebody pay you to write this crap?


wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> I am one of those old mares who has stuck clear of digital, apart from
> a convenience 8MP small-sensor non-SLR P&S which is fine for what I use
> it for.
>
> A friend of mine uses a Nikon D100 and a couple of AF-D Nikkor zooms.
> He has asked my opinion as to whether that is suitable equipment for an
> assignment to photograph some objects for ADVERTISING POSTERS. The
> poster sizes will be 24 inches x 42 inches (2 ft x 3.5 ft). The
> subject matter will fill almost all of the area of the poster.
>
> The posters will typically be viewed from a distance of a foot, in shop
> windows and on display stands.
>
> While I can't tell you what the subject is, pin sharpness of the end
> result is critical for the assignment. Sharpness is an attribute of
> the very thing being advertised.
>
> The D100 is a 6 megapixel camera, making 3008 x 2000 pixel images in
> its highest resolution mode. It is certainly better than my 8MP P&S
> due to the larger sensor size / better noise, superior lens(es) e.t.c.
>
> But I just can't see how the D100 can cut it to reach 24" x 42". Even
> assuming that he fills the frame pretty well with the subject so there
> is only a 20% loss through cropping (given the nature and proportions
> of the subject, that would be excellent), that would mean he would need
> to fill 42" with 80% x 3008 = 2406 pixels. That means the "ppi
> resolution" would be no more than 2406/42 ppi = 57 ppi, or just over 2
> pixels per mm.
>
> Sharpening or interpolating (creating pseudo-detail) software won't
> help much, given the subject.
>
> I think that 57 ppi is far too little, given the likely viewing
> distances. The general wisdom is that 300 ppi is best for a hand-held
> 8" x 10" and 150 ppi may be acceptable for critical work with a viewing
> distance of over a foot. But 57 ppi is nowhere close to 150 ppi, and I
> think the image will look quite pixellated or dotty and, when
> interpolated for printing and the end result viewed as a poster,
> unsharp.
>
> Given that the advertising posters are aimed at an audience who will
> come up to them and look at them closely (some from closer than a
> foot), can 57 ppi be enough?
>
> Oh I know ppi and dpi are not the same.
>
> Please tell me your views. Will the D100 cut it for the assignment? I
> think a modern 11+ MP SLR just might, and certainly if I could stretch
> to a digital back for my Hassy it could. My instincts (more reliable
> than my maths, which isn't too good) would be to shoot it on Kodachrome
> 25 (I have a brick holed away in the fridge) or Velvia 50 (grain being
> less important than sharpness for this subject - a little grain may
> even be flattering) or similar, and have it drum scanned for good
> measure. I'd use a 6x6 on a 'pod. Just maybe a 35mm with a good prime
> lens too.
>
> If I am right, how do I diplomatically tell him this? I value his
> friendship and he does not take criticism well. The assignment means a
> lot to him, and I don't mind loaning him my analogue gear (a modern
> Hassy and/or an almost brand new F6).
>
> Or is my friend right, and my maths wrong as usual, and the D100 will
> do the job fine?

wrote:


>
> If I am right, how do I diplomatically tell him this? I value his
> friendship and he does not take criticism well. The assignment means a
> lot to him, and I don't mind loaning him my analogue gear (a modern
> Hassy and/or an almost brand new F6).
>
> Or is my friend right, and my maths wrong as usual, and the D100 will
> do the job fine?


If he won't listen, let him find out the HARD way. There is no way that dSLR
can produce a print that size that will look good viewed 1 foot away. Even
6X6 is pushing it IMHO.

--

Stacey

If the audience will be as critical as you are suggesting, the simple answer
is no. I doubt any small format (ie 35mm film or digital) will do the job.
Medium format should be just about there, but I'd be starting to think maybe
he should be looking at a 5x7. Realistically though, will people be viewing
such a large image from such a close distance that critically? I would find
it highly unlikely people would be inspecting such a shot from 1 foot.
Also, how will it be printed? most commercial large format poster printers
have a pretty low effective resolution.
I recently had an assignment for a 24x48 poster to be used in an instore
display, that I shot on Fuji Superia 35mm. The film was scanned at
3300x2200, cropped top and bottom (24x48 would be equivalent to a 32x48
print if the full frame was used), and printed on an Epson 7600. It is not
critically sharp, but it appears extremely good at a typical viewing
distance of about 2-3 feet. This is a very similar resolution to a D100, so
I would expect it to be similar quality to a D100 image printed at your
smaller target size.
I would suggest your friend mocks up a version of the shot, prints it at the
required size, and checks if that is going to be sufficient quality.

<> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> I am one of those old mares who has stuck clear of digital, apart from
> a convenience 8MP small-sensor non-SLR P&S which is fine for what I use
> it for.
>
> A friend of mine uses a Nikon D100 and a couple of AF-D Nikkor zooms.
> He has asked my opinion as to whether that is suitable equipment for an
> assignment to photograph some objects for ADVERTISING POSTERS. The
> poster sizes will be 24 inches x 42 inches (2 ft x 3.5 ft). The
> subject matter will fill almost all of the area of the poster.
>
> The posters will typically be viewed from a distance of a foot, in shop
> windows and on display stands.
>
> While I can't tell you what the subject is, pin sharpness of the end
> result is critical for the assignment. Sharpness is an attribute of
> the very thing being advertised.
>
> The D100 is a 6 megapixel camera, making 3008 x 2000 pixel images in
> its highest resolution mode. It is certainly better than my 8MP P&S
> due to the larger sensor size / better noise, superior lens(es) e.t.c.
>
> But I just can't see how the D100 can cut it to reach 24" x 42". Even
> assuming that he fills the frame pretty well with the subject so there
> is only a 20% loss through cropping (given the nature and proportions
> of the subject, that would be excellent), that would mean he would need
> to fill 42" with 80% x 3008 = 2406 pixels. That means the "ppi
> resolution" would be no more than 2406/42 ppi = 57 ppi, or just over 2
> pixels per mm.
>
> Sharpening or interpolating (creating pseudo-detail) software won't
> help much, given the subject.
>
> I think that 57 ppi is far too little, given the likely viewing
> distances. The general wisdom is that 300 ppi is best for a hand-held
> 8" x 10" and 150 ppi may be acceptable for critical work with a viewing
> distance of over a foot. But 57 ppi is nowhere close to 150 ppi, and I
> think the image will look quite pixellated or dotty and, when
> interpolated for printing and the end result viewed as a poster,
> unsharp.
>
> Given that the advertising posters are aimed at an audience who will
> come up to them and look at them closely (some from closer than a
> foot), can 57 ppi be enough?
>
> Oh I know ppi and dpi are not the same.
>
> Please tell me your views. Will the D100 cut it for the assignment? I
> think a modern 11+ MP SLR just might, and certainly if I could stretch
> to a digital back for my Hassy it could. My instincts (more reliable
> than my maths, which isn't too good) would be to shoot it on Kodachrome
> 25 (I have a brick holed away in the fridge) or Velvia 50 (grain being
> less important than sharpness for this subject - a little grain may
> even be flattering) or similar, and have it drum scanned for good
> measure. I'd use a 6x6 on a 'pod. Just maybe a 35mm with a good prime
> lens too.
>
> If I am right, how do I diplomatically tell him this? I value his
> friendship and he does not take criticism well. The assignment means a
> lot to him, and I don't mind loaning him my analogue gear (a modern
> Hassy and/or an almost brand new F6).
>
> Or is my friend right, and my maths wrong as usual, and the D100 will
> do the job fine?
>

wrote:

> If I am right, how do I diplomatically tell him this? I value his
> friendship and he does not take criticism well. The assignment means a
> lot to him, and I don't mind loaning him my analogue gear (a modern
> Hassy and/or an almost brand new F6).
>
> Or is my friend right, and my maths wrong as usual, and the D100 will
> do the job fine?

Science (and in particular Math) is *exact*. Don't be misled by
reality!

Kidding aside, your math looks wrong to me -- the D100 has 3000 x 2000
resolution; that would be the form factor of a 36 x 24, but since you
require 42 x 24, that would mean you end up using only 3000 x 1714 of
the available resolution.

The physical (spatial) resolution on the print will be:

DPI = 3000 dots /42 inches = 71 dots/inch

71 dpi is the resolution of a fairly good monitor, where the image will
look *much* better than anything taken with 35mm film (well, maybe if
you use ISO 64 or ISO 25 -- if those beasts do exist -- then it would
be a close call)

Provided that the printing is done properly (in particular, provided
that the printer does a digital oversampling to its native resolution
of maybe 300 or 600dpi, as opposed to printing SQUARES of a 70th of an
inch), it should be fine.

I have ordered 6x4 prints from a 640x427 image (for testing purposes),
and the print is impeccable (as impeccable as the best of 35mm film
images I've taken). Ok, that's a bit above 100dpi, but 71dpi is in
the same order of magnitude -- I think it should definitely look
good from about 1 foot (and I mean *good*, not just ok). Provided,
of course, that he has good lenses and makes good use of them (i.e.,
use the aperture that yields sharpest results, trading-off between
diffraction and depth-of-field, etc.)


That, or, as already suggested, let him find out the hard way and
update his camera to a D2X with ED lenses

Cheers,

Carlos
--

"Carlos Moreno" <> wrote in message
news:JsuSe.29801$. ..
> wrote:
> I have ordered 6x4 prints from a 640x427 image (for testing purposes),
> and the print is impeccable (as impeccable as the best of 35mm film
> images I've taken). Ok, that's a bit above 100dpi, but 71dpi is in
> the same order of magnitude -- I think it should definitely look
If you think 640x427 printed on 6x4 is impeccable, you need to get your eyes
checked. If you think it is as good as 35mm film, your 35mm camera needs
some serious work.