Do lots of megapixels make great looking big photo prints? More camera real life testing
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 03. 2023
- Comparing different cameras by looking at print quality, not just the specifications. Large fine art type prints and what matters more than megapixels
Based on my detailed article looking at just what difference more megapixels makes to your large prints.
www.northlight-images.co.uk/c...
-----------------
My articles and videos are always free to access.
Any help with running this channel is gratefully received.
If you'd like to make a small donation, I have a Kofi page:
"Buy me a coffee" ko-fi.com/keithcooper
-----------------
I also have some affiliate links which earn me a commission if used.
US Amazon photo/print gear: amzn.to/3l9vJC6
B&H Photo: www.bhphotovideo.com/?BI=2008...
Adorama: www.adorama.com/?... - Krátké a kreslené filmy
![3 steps when printing your photos. What's so difficult? Really - I'd like to know [AMA request]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UgCn63JZK7Y/mqdefault.jpg)
![3 steps when printing your photos. What's so difficult? Really - I'd like to know [AMA request]](/img/tr.png)
Very interesting point you raise Keith. Processing is an art in itself.
Thanks - for myself, it may be a technical exercise, but it needs to have direction and a 'destination'
You really nailed it Keith. And it is totally right: what is the core? Iconic images are iconic because of the content and statement. Neither the resolution is the decisive element nor is the sharpness.
Thanks!
Keith, i recently got a micro 4/3rds image printed 4ft x 3ft to prove to myself and also to the micro 4/3rds critics that say the system is no good. It was a 20mp image the quality and detail from such a small sensor is amazing. Thank you for a great video.
Thanks - Indeed, it can be done, although it perhaps only really proves your skills and expertise ;-)
It does generally get easier with more MP and bigger sensors, but if you like the size of M43 stuff that's a powerful driver. I'm not [yet] concerned with the weight and bulk of kit, but then again I don't use long lenses or walk long distances ;-)
I knew this would be worth watching. I've created A3+ prints from a Nikon D80 before (with good glass attached) and loved the results.
Thanks!
Keith, your explanations were very important to me, as I am starting out in the photography business for paintings, with very varied print sizes. And due to the low budget I can't afford a camera with a higher resolution. I know that good focus and correct exposure will help define good quality when printing an image. However, in any case, being able to understand that it is possible to obtain a satisfactory result with a 20MP camera really meant an incentive for me. Thank you very much.
Glad it helped!
Keith we regularly print images up to 3 meters across with images from 6mp cameras and you would not know the detail is fantastic the large format printer software also helps
Yes - it's often surprising how good stuff can look.
Back in the early 2000's our city photographer had a showing of his Cuba trip; 16x20 or 17x22 (in that ball park, not all that big) prints taken with; if memory serves, a Fuji 3mp camera. After that show he was seriously reconsidering getting a big Canon (16mp+/- then?). He did "upgrade" but those prints were impressive.
Yes, when most people view prints, they don't see megapixels...
Great video. I did some sample prints recently from old 350D files (8Mp) to A2 and was perfectly happy with them. I wouldn't want to crop too heavily and print big (as you mentioned) but 'more mp = bigger prints' catches people out a lot. Good to have another video debunking it. Once you add the fact that big prints need to be looked at from a distance to appreciate them, those miniscule details seem even less important. Only photographers get their noses up to prints.
Thanks - glad it was of interest!
Keith, Thank you for your honest and careful evaluation of required megapixels needed for large prints. I have a 12 megapixel photo printed at 30 inches wide and it looks great. Dan
Thanks - it always catches my attention when someone tells me a bit of kit is 'not good enough' ;-)
Great stuff! I love the compactness of my 16mp 4/3s format(another touch point for sure). Have there been many such print comparisons of the greatest 35mm from back in the day vs digital? Many try to be objective but don’t consider lens quality or even slight exposure differences.
Thanks - I'm finding that more MP makes it easier to do big prints, it's still the subject and treatment which most people see.
As to comparing with old stuff, I've not seen that many examples
Very good 👍 video!
Take pleasure with getting better photos than how many pixels you get.
Wonderful results!
Noticed that my camera XT5 Fuji has got a white balance, dynamic range, focus and noise improved my photography not the 40 m pixels.
Thanks - hopefully the 'megapixel marketing' is toned down a bit these days
But I still expect them to use it...
Another thing is depth of field: at mft I can do with diafragma 2 stops bigger than full frame to get the same picture, eg have a two stops lower iso setting. This can be a decisive noise advantage that is often not recognized
Yes, the reduced FOV with the same focal length and need for shorter focal lengths can have some useful features.
As ever, depends on what you shoot and why, partly I never get into the 'format wars' ;-)
I'm just a hobbyist, but have been playing more with digital recently, coming primarily from medium and large format film. l I've recently been playing with lower MP cameras: 5D Classic, D200, and a D700. I'm amazed at how much detail they can capture, and how natural the images look in print. But coming from 4x5, I admit I lust after the GFX 100S for no sane or sensible reason! I have a long way to go with Photoshop and other tools.
Yes, that 100MP MF sensor is nice ;-)
another great informative video!
Glad it was of interest!
Prints are the great equaliser. Looking back as far as the early 2000s it is very difficult to tell they weren't taken on a modern camera, especially as you say, if people put work in the edit.
Yes - when I did the original testing in 2015, I had one person complain that I'd not processed the different images with identical settings...
Talk about missing the whole point... :-)
thank you, as always i learned a lot.
Glad it was helpful!
Bravo! “The Proof is in the Print!”
I really appreciate Gentlemen like Keith. Maybe it’s my age, my background, I don't know? But Keith and other established no nonsense Photographers like Him, know more in their little finger, than a lot of these new ‘kids on the block,’ that are hawking this brand or that brand, or this lens, or whatever!
Really enjoyed thsi Video. Three great Cameras there. Cheers
Thanks - appreciate that!
Thanks for the helpful video. It would be great to see your testing extended to compare the GFX100s with the 5DS.
Ah - I don't currently have a big enough printer for a full size comparisons, but more pressingly, nor for that matter do I have a GFX100S here, until I can borrow one from Fuji again (yes I'd love one, but current finances prohibit it)
No worries Keith- maybe one day.
@@KeithCooper Canon & Epson should give you some good deals for all your in-depth reviews of their printers.
For the printer - it's partly a matter of space in the house. I did used to have Canon iPF8300 44" and Epson SP9600 44" printers here.
Hi Keith. Thank you for all the great videos you produce. I've learned a lot from you, for sure. I was wondering if you could clarify one point you made? Just when you convinced me that more megapixels don't necessarily make for better printed photos, you basically said that you prefer using a camera with higher megapixels for your industrial work. What do the higher megapixels offer you for your industrial work that you can't get with a lower megapixel camera? Thanks!
Thanks - glad they were of interest.
More MP gives me flexibility in the use of the images, in that my industrial images often get cropped and every so often I get ones wanted for making big posters and the like.
On the principle that it's easier to take excess resolution away from an image - more MP helps.
So, I don't need the MP, but I'd rather be working on a 50MP image than a 20MP one. Add to that the occasional use for extreme detail and making big prints.
That said, if I had to do a job with my now 'backup backup' Canon 1Ds mk3 [21MP] I could manage fine with the number of MP for much work, but noise and the camera performance would put some limits on things, especially compared to my GFX100S or even previous 5DS
Much like when I got a Kawai KG-1 grand piano a few years ago - it just sounded so much better than my old upright. However it took a lot of work until I thought any of my playing fully did it justice ;-)
Thanks for clarifying, Keith. What you said makes sense. And I appreciated your piano analogy. The KG-1 looks like a fine piano. I'd like to hear one in person. I have a Kawai ES-920, and trust me, I have a long way to go in the talent department before I could justify graduating to a more elegant piano. 😊
@@kencrisp6333 An unexpected windfall [25 yrs ago!] got me the KG-1 and a VFR750 - the bike is long gone, but I found that the 'better' piano gave me an impetus to put in some more effort- much like the GFX100 a few months ago ;-)
@@KeithCooper That windfall obviously had some very strong winds associated with it! Enjoy your toys! 😄
I bought my first A3+ printer after getting my D300. 12 megapixel and crop. And it gave good results.
Then I upgraded to a D750 (24mp), and when looking closely, there was a slight difference, but not much.
Now I'm shooting a Z7ii. Sure, I can get more detail. But quite frankly, to get so the Z7 has a noticable difference to the D750 because of resolution I would need to go A2. I think my wife would object because of space.
But. I have (for all my Nikons) the best lenses I could afford. This means the trinity plus 60 and 105VR micronikkors for the F platform, and the 35-50-85 f/1.8 trio, 105MC, 70-200/2.8 and 24-70/4 for the Z. (And for my Zfc the 28 and 40 pancakes, because that's my EDC camera).
Let there be no doubt: Lens choices matter more than body megapixels (up to a point). But people should also be aware that diffraction limit will rear its ugly head. On my 46mp Z7ii, I will be diffraction limited if I stop down further than f/8. Same actually goes for the Zfc (it has a higher pixel density than the 46mp sensor, because it jams 21mp into the DX area, whereas the 46mp one has 19). For the D750 and D300, I could go to f/11 before I became diffraction limited.
Basically: If you intend to get the absolutely greatest resolution out of your camera, it takes more than just having the newest and fanciest body. You need top grade lenses. You need to grade photographer technique. And you need to know a fair bit about how light bends and how it behaves when traversing small holes like the aperture is. You will probably want a great quality ND filter instead of stopping down on bright days (especially if you want to stay inside your shutter sync limits, which does matter for more things than flash). You need to know how your DOF will affect things. You need to know .... Yeah, that about sums it up: You need to know.
Yes - knowing camera/lens features and how to use them is key.
For my own work I rarely worry about diffraction outdoors - I'm more usually thinking of DOF issues, so if f/16 is needed for the subject (or coverage in the corners), f/16 is used.
Whilst it's there, I don't believe 'diffraction' is quite the scary monster some would like it to be ;-)
@@KeithCooper After testing a bit back and forth (and pixelpeeping which is RELEVANT in this case), instead of stopping down for DOF in landscapes, I've now changed to using focus stacks (merged with pyramid in helicon focus), for each rotator stop, before stitching the landscape. It gives me the depth of f/762, while using f/8. Sure, it's a bit more time consuming both on site and in post process, but we both know the "right choice" when it comes to "doing less work" versus "getting a better end result". And I suspect we both do the extra job to get that image most people wouldn't bother doing the homework to achieve. ;)
Yes, it's about choosing what's right for your image.
I'm often using shift so need to pay attention to what's happening in the shifted corners, if there is important detail. Much more likely for my architectural work than when shooting landscapes
@@KeithCooper Which leads us back to "You need to know"... Basically - this isn't a business for people not interested in doing their homework. 🤣😂
I know it's weird, at one point Canon had four current DSLRs with 20 megapixels, exactly the same number. 6D, 1Dx Mark II, 7D Mark II and 70D. I was perfectly content with my 6D, until it parted ways with me.
Now I mostly use 20 megapixels Lumix G and Olympus cameras and I have the vaguely uneasy feeling I have two few. What the S1R offers is the opportunity to make huge crops (from its high res files) and STILL have 20 megapixels.
Levon Biss makes a good argument for lots of pixels, but he's a rare case.
I don't have issues with lots of MP, especially for some of my commercial work, but in general, it was that print testing of 50MP in 2015 which really convinced me what mattered ;-)
Recently printed a 16x20 from micro 4/3 Olympus pen epm1 with the kit lens around 12mp an eBay special at £60 everyone that has seen the print amazed at the quality and can’t believe it was taken with an old cheap £60 camera. Helped massively with good technique optimum aperture, a tripod weighed down, and cable release then good post processing. Skills and subject are more important than the latest and greatest gear. Although the Hasselblad and Fuji options do look unjustifiably tempting.
Very true...
Excellent article. I think I saw a similar discussion regarding crop sensor v full frame and the conclusion was the same as yours.
I've long believed it was the lenses that made the difference - Oh, that and the photographer ;-)
Keith would you recommend permajet oyster paper for my et8550 or stick with epson. Rodders 👍 ps keep up the good work. 👍
The Oyster works well, but benefits from a custom profile.
Thanks so much Kieth. I’ve watched a few of your videos recently. I’ve had the PRO 100 for at least 10years but have now upgraded to a PRO 1000 for A2 printing. I’ve always left it at the default settings of 300 or 240 pixels/inch when opening camera RAW files from Lightroom into Photoshop. Just wondering what you suggest please or if you have a video on this already? Thanks 🙏
Thanks - See here - applies to the PRO-1000 as well
www.northlight-images.co.uk/best-canon-pro-300-driver-settings/
300 - I'll go with it if I really have to - 240, just too low...
@@KeithCooper thanks very much for your reply. This is extremely helpful. I will look at this article in much detail tomorrow :-) 👍👍
Thank you for this awesome info Keith.
I have few questions though...🙂:
1. Can you still use your oldest 10mp camera and resize it with Gigapixel AI to achieve excellent results for 24"x36" nature print that would be used behind museum grade acrylic glass where people pay premium price for Fujiflex , Kodak Endura Pro Metallic or inkjet metallic papers for the detail from close viewing distance? I am talking about Peter Lyk stile of photos.
2. Have you ever seen or printed large prints (24" and above) from those Sigma DP Merril and Quattro series (that often cost hundreds less than heavier DSLRs and newer mirrorles pro cameras) with amazing built-in lenses. Would you recommend such cameras?
3. Is well known that 300dpi = 118ppi. So why then so many print shops and photographers claim 300dpi=300ppi, some claim even 180dpi look similar to 300dpi?
Thanks
Can I, with a degree of effort produce some Images of that size which people would happily put on their wall at ~60cm x 90 cm - yes, from some subjects. ... Would I turn up the colour controls like that - not a chance ;-)
Would these pictures satisfy those wanting to shove their noses into prints looking for microscopic detail? - no, unlikely.
Would I choose to use the 1Ds for this - not unless I was making a video or writing an article about the process. Take it up to 50MP AND a good lens and I'd be happier about it working OK
The Foveon sensor approach has a vociferous fan club - the benefits would sometimes seem difficult to see _especially_ with the latest in RAW file processing. I've not physically seen this though for quite a few years. Once again, some photos might make great [large] prints, but not for the nitpickers [usually other photographers - who never buy prints]. There is nothing saying you can't make such prints just the likelihood of easy success is much reduced.
Q3 'It is well known' - by whom and how do you derive this assertion? ;-)
There is image resolution and print resolution - what works, depends entirely on the size of the print, the viewing distance, the subject, the media used and of course the specific printer.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I am wondering why there's so much emphasis on MP. Most devices cannot even display 8 megapixels, so even 24 or 26 MP is mostly overkill in most circumstances.
Yes - quite true. I look at 2004 11MP shots from my 1Ds and I've some great looking [big] prints - the higher MP images are a lot easier to work on though.
But- not many people print huge ;-)
I was wondering if that could be down to the older raw file formats rather than the file sizes?
@@martinhommel9967 It's more the data that's in the RAW file.
The 11MP [35mm full frame] images from my 2003 Canon 1Ds are limited by resolution and by the quality of data from each pixel. The RAW format has no part in this for this example [I'm just looking at Canon files here]
Moving to the 21MP 1Ds 3 and then 50MP 5DS made files easier to work on because the increased resolution [assuming good lenses] - remember it's a Bayer sensor, so colour resolution is lower.
So for example, sending a 3000px by 2000px file to a client, downsizing a 50MP file yielded cleaner looking results than the 11MP one.
For biggish images I've just found that the newer images have much more capacity for editing.
Modern raw converter software makes my 2003 raw files more useful - Even older 5MP ones from an Olympus E20 process much better than 20 years ago - once again the raw format is not causing any issues, just the lack of MP and pixel quality.
How I wish I'd had my GFX100S at some of the scenes I photographed 20 years ago - next best thing is the improvement in processing software.
I like this type of comparison, not easy to make. But this is how I see things, please correct me if I am wrong. Firstly you need a very high quality lens, which is able to resolve the 50mp (42mp in my case), and this isn't a given, especially with older lenses, otherwise any difference is going to be even out by the lens. Then I would take a very small crop from the lower res image and print it to size corresponding to a low ppi, let's say 100ppi or less. Then I would take the same crop for the higher mp image and print it to the same size (therefore higher ppi). In this case the difference should be clear. In other words the reason you don't see a clear difference between the 11mp and the 50mp image is probably because the print isn't big enough....
Not quite - the key point was that with the 50MP image at native size, no-one noticed any significant difference between the 28" 5Ds print and same size 1Ds one. The idea is to look at practical differences from _whole image_ prints at realistic sizes, not the obvious one you can see zooming in on screen or printing tiny crops.
_Read the article for the actual detail of why I made the choices I did - this video is but a short overview ;-)_
The lens quality helps - but with modern software is not quite the important factor it might have been
How would you rate a Nikon D810 for panoramic stitching potential?
Thanks and nice video.
Thanks - With a good lens, perfectly fine - I've made many large pano prints using my old Canon 1Ds3 [21MP]
The key is always the view/subject. Does it work as a photo and not just 'look how big the view is' ;-)
Great piece! Mega pixels------Now I would like some observations on raw vs jpeg files for printing.
Some of my older stuff is jpeg. current photos are stored in both formats. I play with raw when it is available.
A final question--probably approaching sacrilege is that I often just have my cell phone. Its a samsung s22ultra and does a pretty good job. And I suppose we all have cell phones on us and use them. Could you please help educate me on the limitations of modern high end cell phone? I do suspect that the optics on these are not super even though they are high resolution.
Thanks! This is one reason I've only shot RAW for the last 20 years - jpegs seriously restrict any processing you can do. Modern software is getting better, but a lot of information is lost going to jpeg.
Can't help with phones I'm afraid, I rarely carry one with me [yes, fo real] and then just use it as a phone...
Yes, I agree. I use some compact sonys cameras that save jpeg and raw. I use raw when I can. I have picked my cell phones over the past 10 years with the best cameras. Some photos have been quite good to even spectacular when I get lucky. Maybe that's the point--maybe I would have more consistent quality with a modern dedicated camera. I may go back into the sony 6700--maybe it would be a big enough step up for me. I remember my first slr--a Zeiss Contaflex as I recall in the 60's--huge and heavy glass. How the world has changed @@KeithCooper
in professional environments the larger mpx quantities are used to make shots which can be better cropped by the designer. You can take pictures with much more "flesh" on the sides of the field of interest so you can place the picture in layout fields with different dimensions. Amateur photographers don't need that so 24mpx are plenty enough for them.
Possibly, but I will rarely ever make any pro vs amateur assertions...
I've seen too many excellent amateur photographers and so called 'professionals' who I wouldn't pay to clean my studio floor.
I certainly would never deny anyone whatever kit they felt like using ;-)
Not arguing with your conclusions (unlike in the The Graduate, the secret is glass) However, the Northrups have in a recent video on blind tests by viewing participants (the participants were not blind) noted that while many folks will not see the difference between images made with 21, 48, and 60 MP cameras, there is that 15 or 20 percent golden eyes than can unerringly prefer the images from the higher Mp camera.
Yes, I suspect those jaundiced eyes are picky photographers and people who never buy prints ;-) :-)
As with any experiment I prefer to see the methodology [preferably written] before the results - the test is a minefield of potential sources of error and bias.
My original testing in this was carried out after I got a 50MP 5Ds - I was the only one who could see differences :-)
www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-5ds-print-performance/
For a lonnnnng time now, for me, dynamic range and noise have been more important. I use digital for high ISO and video. I may upgrade from the EOS R to the R6ii but resolution doesn't merit consideration. Add to that the pending firmware enhancement to add sensor shift resolution, and it's even less important.
I'm actually quite interested in the Pentax K3iii, as that appears to be a dynamic range / high ISO monster that beats the R6ii. Not sure how they managed that miracle.
Canon's recent move to eliminate 3rd party AF lenses is pretty annoying. I don't like rewarding bad behavior.
I am pleased that, when I decided I need a fullframe mirrorless camera, Canon didn't have my best choice. I am using a Lumix S1R with some adapted EF lenses - four TS-E, there's an MP-E 65 should I decide Olympus isn't up to the job, I have a couple of L mount lenses, and the possibility of a seamless transition to Leica (improbably, sticker shock and all that) or Sigma.
Yes - criteria have changed. People still ask me about MP, but the answer now is even more 'It depends...'
Are modern high quality lenses capable of projecting an image onto a camera sensor in a way that say, a 60mp sensor can fully utilize ? How does lens "resolution" for lack of a better word relate to some of the high megapixel camera sensors ?
Thanks for the video !
Easily [IMHO - some might quibble] Every lens I use is better on the 5Ds [50MP] than the 1Ds3 [21MP]
Performance is the end result of a chain of sensor/lens/software actions - a rising tide floats all boats.
I'll be trying this with the same lens and GFX 100S when I next have one here to test.
@@KeithCooper That makes more sense than some of the comments that I have heard elsewhere. Thanks again
What about the sharpness in older low Mpix cameras compared to the High Mpix cameras? The unsharp mask does not sharpen, so do I need an AI sharpen tool?
Ah - depends on the image - see my articles looking at re-scaling
What if you upscale the 50mp image the same amount you upscaled the 11mp image. Then tried to upscale the 11mp up to that new 50mp enlargement. Any different then ?
Well, yes, at a certain point it will be more obvious.
The 50 MP upscaling can be tricky though, since current software runs into file size issues [Ive tried it with 50 and 100MP images ;-) ]
I've upscaled 1Ds images up to 3 metres by 2 metres - it all depends on the quality of the original image, the subject and the print viewing distance.
I got a used Nikon LS900ED scanner to use for my MF cameras I never used it, I hate cleaning up dust after scanning. I have used sparingly my Nikon LS5000 scanner for 135 slides. I think my education as an Engineer make me sensitive to taking a theoretical standpoint instead of a practical one. Now I'm updating my digital camera equipment before retirement and I recognize the though patterns that cost me money before but do not improve my quality as a ART photographer of woodlands.. I put my money in lenses and I get 2nd hand camera bodies
Yes - a reasonable approach...
Hi Keith, what's the point of getting a high mp camera if the prints look essentially the same regardless of which camera you use? What is the MINIMUM number of MPs do you need to print let's say 20x30 or 30x40 if you have access to tools such as Gigapixel AI? Thanks
Ah - some prints look the 'same' to some people... ;-)
Depends more on the subject, the lens, and how the print is to be used/viewed
Inches or centimetres?
More MP makes the editing easier [cropping - corrections]
More MP makes it easier to produce big prints from more source images. Just because I 'can' produce huge prints from 11MP, doesn't mean I want to do it very often...
For my commercial work 21MP worked for 2007-2015
50MP gives me more flexibility - 100MP would likely be even easier to use, but come at the expense of processing effort.
So - not a question I could honestly give a simple answer to ;-)
it depends...
@@KeithCooper What has going to 50mp from 21mp given you in terms of flexibility in your commercial work? You work with TS lenses, so you do your perspective corrections in camera. How much do you need to crop? What will the 100mp do for you? What size prints do you make for your clients? Thanks
it's mainly about _real_ detail - but it's also a step from 2007 21MP to 2015 50MP - so other aspects of sensor performance improve too
Both are Bayer sensors, so colour information is sub-sampled.
It's not a huge jump in resolution, but there is so much more information there to work with. Files are just easier to work with. Also, we rarely supply images at full resolution to clients, so they can be reduced in size and carefully sharpened to give images which just 'look' very detailed [remember it's usually about how images look and feel for clients - they don't care about numbers]. Bigger images do mean that even if I don't crop, the client can, for whatever the images are used for. An example would be a a narrow strip cropped out of an image used on a poster which I've seen used. We aim for images to be more useful if possible ;-)
Unfortunately, we rarely supply prints - the request for prints usually comes after we've done the job, when an image is wanted for somewhere in the office...
For small macro stuff, the 50MP gives me the same sensor resolution as my old 100D, but with a bigger frame size for 1:1 [this btw is where sensor shift would be of use]
The 100MP would be spread over a larger area. Twice as many pixels over about 1.7 times the area. The changes in lens requirements and capabilities of the large sensor [iso noise DR] are different enough that I'm still not entirely convinced how I'd best use it in our work.
However, having 100MP to play with at the start just gives a lot of flexibility
Interesting talk. Thanks. So, let me ask a (sorry, belated) question 🙋♂️
If I take an A4 piece of black card and cut a circular hole in it, as big as I can, that is my 1 megapixel simulator (OK, 1 pixel, I know).
Then, with another identical piece of card, I cut 36 holes, making them as big I can…..my 36mp simulator.
If I would up both cards to the light, I can predict which one would allow through the most light.
In photography, more light = better, right?
I conclude that I would need a much bigger light (=wider, more expensive and heavy lens) to allow the same amount of light through with the card with more holes/pixels. Or not, and sacrifice some image quality.
Am I right? (Genuine question).
Ah, I would question your starting assumption... "more light =better" BUT 'Better' is undefined - one reason I so rarely do comparative reviews ;-)
36 holes close packed into a rectangle let more light through than 1, but it's not that close an analogy... There are many subtle things at work here...
The problem is comparing like with like and deciding when a difference actually means anything worthwhile ;-)
A good source of info I suggest reading [never videos ;-) ] is the series by Thom Hogan at
bythom.com/technique/taking-photos-techniques/index.html
Email me at Northlight about this if you like - there are several aspects I could do with covering in some videos!
If i send you a painting 50x70 cm and you look at it 10 cm away, and you reproduce it and look at the print 10 cm away and it looks exactly the the same, what would you have had to do to achieve that? I find that 24 mp can only reproduce 35x50 cm and look the same real close, like 10 cm away
Art repro [done right!] is the most technically challenging sort of photography I have experience of.
Colour management, lighting and editing all have additional constraints, as does printing.
I'd want more resolution in my camera - I might need to do multiple shots and stitch to get the resolution.
Personally I might even look to use the multi-shot [400MP] mode of my GFX100S, but I'd still need very careful attention to lighting [filtration] and profiling of the camera. I'd use a longer lens for a picture that size. It's a studio job, with very solid camera mount and care in mounting the artwork square on to the camera. Then we have the lighting issues...
Megapixels in the camera is a relatively small part of the job... ;-)
There are sound reasons I won't offer this as part of our commercial services :-)
@@KeithCooper Yes , I have tried many cameras. Strangely the samsung nx mini is very accurate when it comes to color. The fuji X-T100 is also good at color.
@@KeithCooper I find the sun to be the best light for my paintings. I winter I never get it right. Spring and summer sun is better
Ah, if it's your own work, it's a lot easier ;-)
Re recycling Keith, I didn't think paper that'd been dye/pigment printed on could be recycled? Perhaps you have a special supplier who does this, or perhaps your local council's waste collection can accept printed photos, or perhaps you've found an inks + papers combo that can be recycled? Please do tell, as I'd love to start printing at home!
I've no idea I'm afraid - we have a pretty good recycling service in Leicester. I just tear stuff up and put it in our general recycling bin. What's acceptable depends on where you live though
@@KeithCooper thanks Keith, I'll inquire with Bristol CC as seems maybe can't here.
@@KeithCooper Epson UK support chat person tells me that their photo paper, and as far as they know, most photo paper can't be kerbside recycled in UK. HP do a glossy A4 and A3 photo paper (no A3+) that is recyclable, but I've not seen how the results look. I now need to look around for other papers too.
And this more comprehensively from Epson in UK re Epson inks & paper recycling; "Regarding your enquiry: SC-P900 uses Ultrachrome pigment inks. In theory, pigment inks can be recycled together with the printed paper. In practice, however, they pose a challenge when recycling in comparison with other types of ink, such as dye-based ink. To ensure maximum pigment ink removal, paper with pigment ink should go through a double process: flotation and laser removals. In our experience, not all paper recycling centres have both processes available. We suggest you contact your closest recycling facility for more accurate information." Which I think means I'll be buying a dye ink printer, rather than pigment.
@@andrewgifford7740 Thanks for taking the time to post this
Just destroyed the effort of all brands for the past 10 years in improving their camara megapixels!
Indeed ;-) Doesn't stop me wanting to try the GFX100S a bit more ;-)