«

During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR. My prints
were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the average. Prints smaller
than 8 x 10" are of little interest to me.

What would be the best approach to starting digital photography knowing that
the finished results will be at least that large?

Thanks,

Norm
Strong

wrote:
> During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR. My prints
> were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the average. Prints smaller
> than 8 x 10" are of little interest to me.
>
> What would be the best approach to starting digital photography knowing that
> the finished results will be at least that large?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Norm
> Strong
>
>
Hi Norm,

Pretty much any reasonable digital SLR will do you. I've found you can
up sample in PS pretty well any photographic image by a factor of two
with no problems. Some types of images you can push much larger. So a
dSLR in the 6-12MP range shouldn't be an issue. Like all photography,
the lens becomes more important the larger the print because the lens
issues become more obvious. Good lenses, used properly (optimum
aperture, tripod where possible, etc), will give you a solid image that
you can print in the sizes you want.

As far as system, I really don't think it matters. I own Canon but also
use Nikon, Olympus, Sony (Minolta) and Pentax when they are in for
review and you can get great results from all of them. It really comes
down to price, ergonomics (which is highly personal when it comes to
cameras, you need to handle them), and special feature requirements you
have (IS in lens or body, for example). Since it sounds like you do not
have an existing investment in lenses, you are free to choose.

Cheers,

Wayne

--
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:

> Hi Norm,
>
> Pretty much any reasonable digital SLR will do you. I've found you can
> up sample in PS pretty well any photographic image by a factor of two
> with no problems. Some types of images you can push much larger. So a
> dSLR in the 6-12MP range shouldn't be an issue.

If you mean on an area basis, I agree. I find upsampling only seems to
help up to about 40% increase linearly (which is approximately twice
the pixels by area count). Beyond that it doesn't help much. It
depends a lot on scene, however. Scenes with a lot of fine detail do
not upsample as well as ones with less detail, more uniform regions.

<> wrote in message
news:hbmdnWAnJ-...
> During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR. My prints
> were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the average. Prints
> smaller than 8 x 10" are of little interest to me.
>
> What would be the best approach to starting digital photography knowing
> that the finished results will be at least that large?

How much do you want to spend? A Canon 30D would probably work well for
you, or a similar Nikon DSLR.

Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
>
>> Hi Norm,
>>
>> Pretty much any reasonable digital SLR will do you. I've found you can
>> up sample in PS pretty well any photographic image by a factor of two
>> with no problems. Some types of images you can push much larger. So a
>> dSLR in the 6-12MP range shouldn't be an issue.
>
> If you mean on an area basis, I agree. I find upsampling only seems to
> help up to about 40% increase linearly (which is approximately twice
> the pixels by area count). Beyond that it doesn't help much. It
> depends a lot on scene, however. Scenes with a lot of fine detail do
> not upsample as well as ones with less detail, more uniform regions.
>
Hi Don,

Exactly. High detail images upsample less well, soft images, like foggy
landscapes or most of the 'blur' shots I love upscale well and
massively. Highly dependent on subject matter as well as your own
personal priorities.

Now here is something to think on: in theory any image is infinitely
scalable. Why? Because as you go to bigger prints the 'normal' viewing
distance becomes larger and that means the details subtend the same
angular resolution Now I say in theory because many of us have a
tendency to get up close and personal with even huge images.

Another important aspect is what you will print on. Highly textured fine
art papers, for example, tend to fill in detail because the actual
texture of the paper provides fine detail, sometimes allowing you to
push an image bigger. Glossy photo paper is the least forgiving.

Cheers,

Wayne

--
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/

<> wrote in message
news:hbmdnWAnJ-...
> During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR. My prints
> were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the average. Prints
> smaller than 8 x 10" are of little interest to me.
>
> What would be the best approach to starting digital photography knowing
> that the finished results will be at least that large?
>


As noted in this review ...

http://www.popphoto.com/camera_revie...n-eos-1ds.html

.... you need a full-frame 16.7 MP sensor to put you in the ISO 100 35mm film
quality ballpark, and while you can get good 16X20 prints from that film
size and speed with little cropping, you're more likely get acceptable
results from medium format film or a MF class sensor, such as the following.

http://www.popphoto.com/camera_review/mamiya-zd.html

http://hasselblad.com/products/h-system/h3d.aspx

Of course, you have the option of deferring your plunge into digital and
using your old Rolleiflex and 120/220 film, if you still have it. If you
do, you have the option of either scanning the negatives for printing, or
having wet-process prints made.

If you are interested in professional quality prints, upsampling a smaller
digital image is a bad idea.

SW

Summer Wind wrote:

> <> wrote in message
> news:hbmdnWAnJ-...
>
>>During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR. My prints
>>were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the average. Prints
>>smaller than 8 x 10" are of little interest to me.
>>
>>What would be the best approach to starting digital photography knowing
>>that the finished results will be at least that large?
>
> As noted in this review ...
>
> http://www.popphoto.com/camera_revie...n-eos-1ds.html
>
> ... you need a full-frame 16.7 MP sensor to put you in the ISO 100 35mm film
> quality ballpark, and while you can get good 16X20 prints from that film
> size and speed with little cropping, you're more likely get acceptable
> results from medium format film or a MF class sensor, such as the following.
>
> http://www.popphoto.com/camera_review/mamiya-zd.html
>
> http://hasselblad.com/products/h-system/h3d.aspx
>
> Of course, you have the option of deferring your plunge into digital and
> using your old Rolleiflex and 120/220 film, if you still have it. If you
> do, you have the option of either scanning the negatives for printing, or
> having wet-process prints made.
>
> If you are interested in professional quality prints, upsampling a smaller
> digital image is a bad idea.

Most people seem to agree that the 1Ds Masrk II 16.7 MP competes
with 6x4.5 or so. Regarding spatial resolution, it may match
fine grained film, but digital has much higher signal-to-noise ratios
resulting in better total image quality. E.g. see:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html

and look at Figure 1 as well as the section on AIQ.
Digital also has much higher dynamic range than film.

I now routinely make 16x24-inch prints from 8-megapixel DSLR
images that appear sharper with much better image quality that
drum scanned fine grained 35-mm slide film.

My workflow includes: Image Restoration
Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...e-restoration1

Then, when I want more pixels for a larger print of a static
subject, I do a digital mosaic:
Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

So I have mostly dropped 4x5 film in favor of digital.
And digital works must better for fast action photography.

Roger

wrote:
> During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR. My prints
> were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the average. Prints smaller
> than 8 x 10" are of little interest to me.
>
> What would be the best approach to starting digital photography knowing that
> the finished results will be at least that large?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Norm
> Strong
>
>
Accumulate about $2000, and go buy a nice DSLR (Canon/Nikon), and some
lenses. It is unlikely you will satisfied with anything less.

Ron Hunter <> wrote:
> wrote:
>> During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR.
>> My prints were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the
>> average. Prints smaller than 8 x 10" are of little interest
>> to me.
>> What would be the best approach to starting digital
>> photography knowing that the finished results will be at least
>> that large?
>> Thanks,
>> Norm
>> Strong
>
>Accumulate about $2000, and go buy a nice DSLR (Canon/Nikon),
>and some lenses. It is unlikely you will satisfied with
>anything less.

That sounds a bit trite... but Norm is probably *dead* *on*.

The $2000 is only a start too, as it is easy to invest that much
in a minimal lense inventory alone.

Generally people agree that it takes about 200 pixels per inch
to have a good print. Some images are fine with less, some take
more. Virtually everyone agrees that 300 ppi will result in a
good print, and for some purposes 150 or even 100 ppi is enough.

Here is an interesting chart:

Print Size 8x10 11x14 16x20 20x24

Image size
3:4 aspect
ratio 8x10.7 11x14.7 16x21 20x26.7

150 dpi 1200x1605 1650x2205 2400x3150 3000x4005
1.9 MP 3.6 MP 7.6 MP 12.0 MP

200 dpi 1600x2140 2200x2940 3200x4200 4000x5340
3.4 MP 6.5 MP 13.4 MP 21.4 MP

300 dpi 2400x3210 3300x4420 4800x6300 6000x8010
7.7 MP 14.6 MP 30.2 MP 48.0 MP


Keep in mind that Canon's top of the line DSLR produces 16
megapixel images, Nikon's produces 12 megapixel images, and
everything else reasonable is between 6 and 10, approximately.

For 8x10's, virtually all of the current crop of 6MP or better
cameras will probably do just fine (even up to 11x14).

If you are less demanding, 10MP or more images will suffice for
16x20 prints. If you are fairly critical, a 10MP image won't
often be good enough for 16x20 prints, and a 12MP image will
barely manage it. If you are super critical, 10MP and 12MP
cameras won't do for anything much larger than 8x10's!

Choose a camera accordingly...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Ron Hunter <> wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> During my youth I was an avid amateur using a Rolleiflex TLR.
>>> My prints were 16 x 20" at most, and somewhat smaller on the
>>> average. Prints smaller than 8 x 10" are of little interest
>>> to me.
>>> What would be the best approach to starting digital
>>> photography knowing that the finished results will be at least
>>> that large?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Norm
>>> Strong
>>
>> Accumulate about $2000, and go buy a nice DSLR (Canon/Nikon),
>> and some lenses. It is unlikely you will satisfied with
>> anything less.
>
> That sounds a bit trite... but Norm is probably *dead* *on*.
>
> The $2000 is only a start too, as it is easy to invest that much
> in a minimal lense inventory alone.
>
> Generally people agree that it takes about 200 pixels per inch
> to have a good print. Some images are fine with less, some take
> more. Virtually everyone agrees that 300 ppi will result in a
> good print, and for some purposes 150 or even 100 ppi is enough.
>
> Here is an interesting chart:
>
> Print Size 8x10 11x14 16x20 20x24
>
> Image size
> 3:4 aspect
> ratio 8x10.7 11x14.7 16x21 20x26.7
>
> 150 dpi 1200x1605 1650x2205 2400x3150 3000x4005
> 1.9 MP 3.6 MP 7.6 MP 12.0 MP
>
> 200 dpi 1600x2140 2200x2940 3200x4200 4000x5340
> 3.4 MP 6.5 MP 13.4 MP 21.4 MP
>
> 300 dpi 2400x3210 3300x4420 4800x6300 6000x8010
> 7.7 MP 14.6 MP 30.2 MP 48.0 MP
>
>
> Keep in mind that Canon's top of the line DSLR produces 16
> megapixel images, Nikon's produces 12 megapixel images, and
> everything else reasonable is between 6 and 10, approximately.
>
> For 8x10's, virtually all of the current crop of 6MP or better
> cameras will probably do just fine (even up to 11x14).
>
> If you are less demanding, 10MP or more images will suffice for
> 16x20 prints. If you are fairly critical, a 10MP image won't
> often be good enough for 16x20 prints, and a 12MP image will
> barely manage it. If you are super critical, 10MP and 12MP
> cameras won't do for anything much larger than 8x10's!
>
> Choose a camera accordingly...

and don't forget the printer!