David Verch

Hi everyone, I read UHH everyday, but I don't participate very often.

The question of resolution is often discussed here, but I am always left with some uncertainty. I know most of the rules of thumb and well intended biases when it comes to judging what is acceptable. I love my "750", but have seen comments that basically come down to if you want to shoot large landscape prints, a 20"x30" is probably the acceptable limit for this camera. I snapped this picture of Trillium Lake in Oregon this summer and was pleasantly surprised with the outcome, so much so I decided to have it printed onto a 3-frame, 40"x60" canvass rap.

Is just my bias causing me to like this large 40x60? I realize that subjectivity is acceptable if someone likes something. Byond that, though, could a "professional" be happy with the results based on ppi or the generally acceptable standards of quality? Even up close (3 feet) to this picture, I am not dissappointed with the resolution...and the color is just great. Granted, I understand you cannot appreciate how the enlarged version impacts the viewer.

So hear's the bottom line. Like so many of you, when I saw the specs for the "850", I immediately thought to myself...I've got to have one of these! Then, I am reminded of many of your comments re "don't worry, be happy", it's what you do with a camera that is more important than the instrument...not that I think this picture stands for all that much. "GAS" is a really tricky because even though I am happy, it is difficult not to want that "850". How do you feel?

(Download)


(Download)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

David, you could have made a print 2 times that size and it would work. The issue is normal viewing distance. This distance is approximately 1.5 times the diagonal dimension of the print. So, as long as one keeps that in mind, you could make billboard-sized prints and they'd work.
--Bob

DJCard Loc: Northern Kentucky

Very nice photo! Reminds me to stop and think before taking the plunge. I do like what my D750 is able to do ... the rest is up to me!

Rongnongno Loc: FL

It works for you?

Yes?

You have a winner.

The rest is BS.

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

I absolutely agree with you rmalarz!
Dave, even images from the small sensor (1/2.3) can make a large print 24"x36' and larger.
That is why the bridge cameras are so popular.
Their convenience for travelling photographers having a decent zoom, EVF, RAW and rotating screen is quite obvious.
Happy shooting!

David Verch

Thanks, Paul, I appreciate your response.

David Verch

Thank you, Bob, I regularly look for your responses in UHH.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Seriously, when you hung it on your wall did you like it?
Do you still like it?
No one else's opinion counts. (Except maybe your better half's )

Rongnongno Loc: FL

There is that....

David Verch

Thanks, Rich, it's just that I want to be reasonably sure I'm not kidding myself.

NikonJohn Loc: Indiana U.S.A.

If it's a landscape, and you know when taking it you plan to make a large print, this is what I do. I shoot vertical and do a five frame (plenty of overlap) panorama. Then I stitch it together for a higher rez photo. I did this when I was in Yellowstone earlier this year knowing that my wife wanted a triptych (like yours) of the Grand Canyon of Yellowstone. It came out very nice with my D500 which is "only" 21MP. Years back I did a five wide three deep pano (with lots of overlap) with my D300 of a sandstone cliff with fall colors here in Indiana. Once it was all together and cropped it was the same aspect ratio of a single frame photo but 86MP big. The poster print I made from that came out really nice! So there is more than one way to skin a cat to get higher resolution for big enlargements of landscapes. :)
I would also like to have a D850, but my rationalization is that if I want a high pixel count landscape I use the above trick to get it. If I had a D850 I would be stuck with big file sizes for all my photos and I would need to buy the best possible glass. Camera is a bit pricey and the lenses even more so! Plus I don't think I would ever convince my wife to let me buy it. :)

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

I have an image of San Francisco shot from Hawk Hill. It is a 7 frame pano taken with my 12mp D700. The final image is 54” wide and 100mp. Detail is phenomenal. The only reason I sold my D300s and D700 to acquire a D810 was because I was tiring of carrying 2 bodies and all my heavy FX glass. One body is more manageable and if I shoot in DX mode I get 16mp.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

As RMalarz stated, viewing distance is a factor. But it is not the whole story. The human eye simply cannot discriminate fine detail at a distance. Increase the distance and you lower the ability to see the fine stuff. Frankly, you could have had it printed to 40ft x 60ft and it would still be fine.

Here is the science and numbers behind this.

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

There is on important caveat. IF you expect photographers to be viewing this print, you will NEVER have enough resolution. They will stand 16" away from it whip out their loupes, and examine the printer's dot pattern for flaws. My suggestion is to just follow the industry guidelines and if you feel you need to you can double the ppi required for a given size. A 24mp camera will more than handle it.

Remember these, printed from iPhone cameras:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/30/apples-new-shot-on-iphone-billboard-ads-were-all-shot-during-the-same-night/

http://mashable.com/2017/07/18/ava-billboard-iphone-apple-gallery/#j0rKfqk5Msqm

http://creativity-online.com/work/apple-sunshine-everywhere/52129

Remember, how large you print is more about eye resolution and less about print resolution, as long as you have at least 6 mp or more.

David Verch

That makes sense. Today's stitching software does an amazing job, and the "850" would consume a lot of memory. Thanks, John

David Verch

That's the 2nd logical rationalization...cewrtainly makes sense. Thanks.