10D capable of 20x30 print?

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2713312
You're arguing far beyond the original scope of the thread.

NOPE, I am arguing as this thread flows...otherwise why would I respond to others, yea? Now you are being argumenative...lol

Steiglitz wrote in post #2713414
NOPE, I am arguing as this thread flows...otherwise why would I respond to others, yea? Now you are being argumenative...lol

You were the first in this thread to push the argument into the current in which it now "flows". Go back and read posts 2, 3, 4 and then your 5 if you don't believe me.

Another varible is the general idea of "quality". Perhaps one of the most difficult terms used to define an image.

There are those on this thread that would be satisfied with something from *mart and there are those that would never use a print from anyone except their custom printer. And that is part of the rub too. The OP is not likely to want to spend $30 per square foot for a custom print. As long as the image presented to the lab falls well within it;s preset parameters you can get a usable print. But usable and custom are too different animals.

With a custom print, you get a specific ICC profile, color correction to the media used and to the specific printer. You get a very specific Dmax and Dmin parameter. All of the very technical aspects to create a fantastic print. For a machine print you get what they have, period

There are so many possible varibles to this question that it really needs to be better defined prior to the discussion, so lets start again.

Can you make a poster print from a 10 D? The answer is Yes. A poster print is NOT a custom lab print.

Steiglitz wants to compare it to a custom lab print or so I think. The rest of you are OK with a machine print. Apples and oranges

Les

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2713578
You were the first in this thread to push the argument into the current in which it now "flows". Go back and read posts 2, 3, 4 and then your 5 if you don't believe me.

Strange you don't know how threads work....most peculiar....they start, they flow, they are dynamic.

Go parent someone else.

LBaldwin wrote in post #2713617
Another varible is the general idea of "quality". Perhaps one of the most difficult terms used to define an image.

There are those on this thread that would be satisfied with something from *mart and there are those that would never use a print from anyone except their custom printer. And that is part of the rub too. The OP is not likely to want to spend $30 per square foot for a custom print. As long as the image presented to the lab falls well within it;s preset parameters you can get a usable print. But usable and custom are too different animals.

With a custom print, you get a specific ICC profile, color correction to the media used and to the specific printer. You get a very specific Dmax and Dmin parameter. All of the very technical aspects to create a fantastic print. For a machine print you get what they have, period

There are so many possible varibles to this question that it really needs to be better defined prior to the discussion, so lets start again.

Can you make a poster print from a 10 D? The answer is Yes. A poster print is NOT a custom lab print.

Steiglitz wants to compare it to a custom lab print or so I think. The rest of you are OK with a machine print. Apples and oranges

Les

I think you said it well...this word "quality" is very subjective, and this subjectivity is the reason for disagreement on this thread. One man's pixelated mess is another's "masterpiece".

My wife took shots of an event at the school where she is a teacher. The main subject in the shots was a hot air balloon. I printed 3 of them after PP to near fill 13" x 19" paper. I was just shocked by the results. They looked really good. Now, I am someone who just a couple or three years ago sold off his Mamiya RB67 outfit (god, I miss it), Rolleicord and Fuji GA645. I'm not trying to say these pictures my wife took were as good as MF, of course they are not. But, they still look really good. She used a Canon A540 (6MP).

Jr,

i agree. But Film and digital do the same thing (record an image) not even close to the same way. DUH some of you are probably saying. Well yeah but not really. Film has properties that do come across the digi lines and the worst offender is size. The bigger the sensor the more pixels you can pack on, but but but.

Bigger is not really always better, BUT it takes a whole village to raise an photographer...

If I could get LF quality out of a reasonably priced d-cam I would. But it is still outrageous to own and operate. if any of you ever get the chance to shoot LF do it. It smokes EVERYTHING in the DSLR area. That is why they compare so often, they want to be = to LF. Suprise me beat LF. Get me camera that takes full tilts , swings and massive perspective control with the ease of use of a Dslr. Oh and under 4g's

Les

LBaldwin wrote in post #2716595
Jr,

i agree. But Film and digital do the same thing (record an image) not even close to the same way. DUH some of you are probably saying. Well yeah but not really. Film has properties that do come across the digi lines and the worst offender is size. The bigger the sensor the more pixels you can pack on, but but but.

Bigger is not really always better, BUT it takes a whole village to raise an photographer...

If I could get LF quality out of a reasonably priced d-cam I would. But it is still outrageous to own and operate. if any of you ever get the chance to shoot LF do it. It smokes EVERYTHING in the DSLR area. That is why they compare so often, they want to be = to LF. Suprise me beat LF. Get me camera that takes full tilts , swings and massive perspective control with the ease of use of a Dslr. Oh and under 4g's

Les

Large format photography blows everything out of the water with quality.
I used to be a drum scanner operator and have scanned 10x8 transparencies. Blown up to A2 the quality you get from those is just incredible. So long as the shot is good quality, more pixels = more detail = better quality large print. For those who haven't seen v high res outputs, I suggest they check it out.

Ansel Adams made contact prints with 8x10 negatives. I'm sure that print quality can not be matched by any digital camera. I had a RB67 and I have not seen anything digital that can equal the tonal range, detail of that format.

I hardly ever print pictures from my camera. But at the end of the day, it's horses for courses, right? For the usual family group photos, just about any camera seems to do. The reason is because people only want to see their face clearly in the picture, and judge how much fatter they look compared to the last time, and also hope that there's less wrinkles showing. Oh, and their eyes need to be open.

To the OP or TS, I believe that getting a decent quality photo of a person depends on what sort of shot you're taking. Is it a full-body portrait? Half-body or head-and-shoulders? Something tells me that the closer the view, the better the quality that you'll want. In a very close-up portrait, it would be nice to be able to see the sparkle in the eye, individual eyelashes, the texture in the lips, the individual strands of hair...

Again, I could be wrong in my thinking. But that's why I am here. To learn. The word 'decent' is very subjective. However, my understanding of that tells me that a 10D may indeed be enough for your purposes. Take a photo that captures a moment of happiness, sheer joy and a great smile. Forget about the MP for a moment.

I agree with much of what you said. But you do ahve to have the image sharp and of a decent file size when working with prints that large. Otherwise it is sh*t and Sh*t out.

The thread I think is more of a technical one rather than one of asthetics <sp>. Although I do agree that those are part of the equation too.

Again my basic opinion having owned the 10D is really lackluster in many ways, I actually prefered the images created on the D30.

Great thread BTW the OP opened a reall can o' pixels...

Les

This might be a late reply....I was just browsing the archives.

I had one file printed a Panoramic 40x 114 inches from my D60
and a couple of 30x40's.

The quality is fantastic...

here is the link http://www.pbase.com/r​uel/garage

Sorry for the really really late reply.


Ruel

I have made several 18 by 24 and 24 by 36 inch posters from my SD600. If I can do that with my low level of skill and have it look good, anyone can do a 20 by 30 with a 10D.

Most really large images on posters and bill boards are increased in size by using Genuine Fractals or a similar program. You can get great enlargements without noticable loss of image quality. When the image leaves the photographers hand and gets to the grapic designer if they're designing a billboard they'll bump it up using such a program. I can get great 13X19 from my 5D at 240 dpi give or take a little but I wouldn't even try going bigger without using Genuine Fractals. You can get killer 20X30s from your 10D by using this program. I've seen the results.