- This topic is empty.
Who needs 5×4?
-
A client of mine used one of my 6 megapixels images for a reception graphic.
Looks to be about 8-10 foot wide !!
Andy
Nobody ‘needs’ 5×4,
in fact maybe 6Mp is being much too generous-Any chance of a 100% crop at print resolution?
in a twig area?
We could compare it to one of my scans,
if you like?j
Jb7,
I’ll see if I can dig out a crop for you.
I’ve asked them to give me an idea of the viewing distance that the image starts to break down. I dare say that 5×4 will let you get closer.
Andy
Enlargements are just simple math,
at one level-I checked out a hoarding in Dublin at the weekend,
which was printed at 10 dpcm (I counted).On that basis,
I could get a print 3.9 x 2.6m from the D200,
without any further interpolation-And the print looked ok from about a meter away-
not great,
but at least you couldn’t see the individual pixels-But I prefer a minimum of 180dpi for the bigger ones-
especially if people are allowed to walk right up to it-You need to go to quite high magnifications before you notice a big difference,
but it also depends on the subject-6mp is maybe not too big an issue if you can keep all the pixels,
but if you need to remove pixels due to extreme transformations,
then you’re better off sticking to larger originals-I took a shot on Saturday that threw away about 70% of the pixels
to replicate the movements in a view camera.Quality suffered.
j
Here’s what they said about image break up.
I can view the image at about 24 inches and it is hard to detect any image break-up. I would also say that due to the busy textures in that particular shot, the image break-up is less evident.
Andy
Who are ‘they’?
It doesn’t sound particularly critical to me-
and not too far off my appraisal of the hoarding above-You can enlarge anything to any size,
and if quality isn’t an issue,
then the size of the original isn’t either-I saw really massive prints in IMMA recently,
by Thomas Demand, and the quality was stunning,
even up close, everywhere-at about 5m wide x 2.5 wide-
I’ve also done some large prints myself,
off digital and larger,
and I’d say that the maximum size print off 10Mp
that I would be happy with up close,
is about 900 x 600 mm.Though I have gone larger,
and others were happy with the quality,
and I’d be happy to do it again,
but, given the option,
and the budget,
I’d suggest the 5×4 is the better tool-j
Jb7,
Can’t say too much I’m afraid. But they are a Dublin based design company.
I would love to see this with my own eyes of course. I’ll dig out that crop for you Jb7.
I think as you say, there is no doubt that 5×4 would be a better tool for the job. The problem is that they would have had trouble sourcing a 5×4 image like this and would have had to commission someone to take it at great expense.
Andy
amcinroy wrote:
Who needs 5×4? [/img]
Andy
Its a little silly to post a 100kb snap of an enlargement and expect people to seriously consider your point that a 6mp file is a replacement for 5×4. But if you are happy then why not post your 5×4 camera for sale in the classified section.
No no no no… I bet this is just a design company located in a forest, what we see here I bet is a window view into the garden/forest, it’s not a photo at all.
V nice Andy.
Fintan wrote:
Its a little silly to post a 100kb snap of an enlargement and expect people to seriously consider your point that a 6mp file is a replacement for 5×4. But if you are happy then why not post your 5×4 camera for sale in the classified section.
I don’t bother with 5×4 to be honest. It wouldn’t work with the way I shoot (often in bad weather with sea spray, moving quickly, shooting quickly and walking fair distances). The 5×4 transparencies I’ve seen seem to lack soul, probably because their owners tend to only take them out in good weather. Also there is a tendancy to produce the same type of wideangle, tilted focal plane, foreground/midground/farground shots.
I’m not expecting you to be able to guage the quality of the enlargement from this image. It’s more a demonstration of what is possible from small format. It obviously must be good enough for the job at hand or the design company wouldn’t have hung it.
Brian. What a place to have your office eh?
Andy
I’ve heard some sweeping generalizations in my time Andy and yours is high up the list.
amcinroy wrote:
Fintan wrote:
Its a little silly to post a 100kb snap of an enlargement and expect people to seriously consider your point that a 6mp file is a replacement for 5×4. But if you are happy then why not post your 5×4 camera for sale in the classified section.
I don’t bother with 5×4 to be honest.
Andy
I’d have to agree, Fintan.
Andy, when you first posted, and I responded, I had no idea that you hadn’t seen the print.
As the thread developed, little information was forthcoming about the print quality;
would I be right to assume that you supplied a 6Mp file,
so that the designers were in charge of the reproduction?As I’ve said earlier about the hoarding,
anything can be enlarged,
if you aren’t bothered about the appearance of the end result.
Its just a matter of standing back a bit further.amcinroy wrote:
The 5×4 transparencies I’ve seen seem to lack soul, probably because their owners tend to only take them out in good weather. Also there is a tendancy to produce the same type of wideangle, tilted focal plane, foreground/midground/farground shots.
To take the last bit first, it reminds me very much of a comment I made in December about one of your pieces-
“down-tilted, wide-angle, seashore, dusky, thirdy, fore-mid-backround type of shot”
Which was, incidentally, referring to a digitally originated shot.
Shooting 5×4, tilting the camera is the last thing I think of doing.
Why would I do that when I have an 8″ – 10″ image circle within which to position my film?
I’d be much more likely to use drop front first.They lack soul?
I would massively disagree-
maybe you’re not giving it a proper chance,
or maybe you haven’t seen enough to make a properly informed judgement.amcinroy wrote:
It obviously must be good enough for the job at hand or the design company wouldn’t have hung it.
Hearsay, Andy. Not admissable.
When you have seen the picture for yourself,
I’d like to hear what you think of the enlargement.
But for now, that sounds like bluster.Well done Andy for getting a big print on the wall,
but I think you were a bit misguided to couch your announcement in the way that you did.You chose your forum carefully;
I’m quite sure you didn’t post your announcement on the RPS in quite the same manner.Or, heaven forbid, the Large Format Forum,
where the hoots of derision would still be echoing even now.There aren’t many here using large format,
and 99+% of people here haven’t the slightest interest in it,
so you have a better chance of getting away with it,
and even receiving support for it.I did ask if you would be interested in a comparison,
but if you haven’t enlarged the file yourself to be outputted at that size,
then maybe that would be a little unfair-You could ask the designers for a copy of the print file,
but its quite possible that they just printed the one you gave them.Maybe they’re the same designers who do the designs for those hoardings I was talking about earlier.
Whenever I output a file for enlargement, I up-res it myself,
and sharpen for the final output,
whether it be from digital or film.If anyone is interested, here’s a little comparison-
spot the difference-
Although they are reduced here,
and not really at 100%All the information is in the picture-
The film file is for an 8′ print,
the digital one a good bit smaller-j
oops, sorry posted wrong picture, correct ones up now
My goodness that was quite a rant jb7.
I’ll leave it there. Just my opinions of course and and everyone is welcome to those.
Andy
Hardly a rant, Andy,
just my opinions too-Apologies for the muddle with my pictures,
they’re kinda sorted now-
j
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
