What's the biggest you've printed with your D30?

[Gabe]

I'm curious as to how large ya'll have gone with the D30, and if you had to run the image through another program to res it up first (Genuine Fractals).

A magazine publisher down here had me shoot an assignment for him, but was worried that 3.2 MP wouldn't be enough to print to 8.5x11. Will it be a problem? I can't wait to get that Epson and experiment on my own...

[Hodgy]

I have gone up to 30 inches with my D30. They are all tac sharp. People don't beleive me when I show them the prints (especially other photogs). I just had 4 prints entered provincially, all were 16x20's, one scored excellence, the other 3 merits.

Make sure you get a proper exposure (some say shoot raw, I don't.) When sizing up, size up at 5% increments from the native pixels.

All the images in this gallery (except the second last one) were taken with the D30 and have gone 16x20 or higher. All were shot JPG.

Good glass is another factor.

D30 gallery

[Sebastian]

The Nikon D1H was making many beautiful prints in those sizes and larger for SI and other mags, all at 2.75 megapixels.

[Gabe]

Thanks, guys .. that puts me at ease some. I don't think it would be too high a jump to print to mag size then.

Just to be sure, shooting in RAW format won't increase the resolution, correct? Mine seems to be stuck at 180, but I guess I have a little leeway with that.

Hodgy, great stuff, man! I love the galleries.

[Sebastian]

Gabe,

Ignore the DPi out of the camera. You can change it to whatever you want, but for the meantime ignore it, it only is useful to the printers. Of course if a client gives you specs, you want to match them when setting up the file, but once again that's only for print. Even though digital files seem small, the really do res-up very well, and the traditional thinking of more DPI=better no longer applies.

[Gabe]

Thanks, Seb ... that clears things up for me. Like I said, when I get my Epson, I'll be experimenting (read: wasing paper! lol) and figuring this out on my own, but I needed to know that what I shot could be used by this guy. I was starting to think I should've sprung for the digital Rebel instead of a used D30, but I guess the extra 3 MP won't make such a big difference for my needs - at least not enough to be worth a few hundred dollars more.

This digital thing, man ... it's like learning photography all over again! The basics are all the same, but the process has changed. I like it, though ;)

[darkman]

Thanks, Seb ... that clears things up for me. Like I said, when I get my Epson, I'll be experimenting (read: wasing paper! lol) and figuring this out on my own, but I needed to know that what I shot could be used by this guy. I was starting to think I should've sprung for the digital Rebel instead of a used D30, but I guess the extra 3 MP won't make such a big difference for my needs - at least not enough to be worth a few hundred dollars more.

This digital thing, man ... it's like learning photography all over again! The basics are all the same, but the process has changed. I like it, though ;)

If you just go by sensor resolution, including size, and lenses, the d30 has enough resolution to print 8x12 at 3lpm. This is approximately what's needed for viewing at about 18". The d30 can actually go a little larger than that. Printers like to use about 300dpi ( I use 240 with my epson). Therefore, when you are interpolating up to 8x12, you are doing it for the printer not your eyes. Fortunately, the larger the print the further the viewing distance. That's why billboards and posters like on the side of busses can be done with cameras like the d30.

Going beyond this depends much on the image type and quality. For example, I find protraits res-up easily (it's almost scary how good), very detailed landscpapes shots don't do as well. An extra few megapixels would have given you a little wiggle room when it comes to cropping. But if you goal is to mostly prints 8x12's and an occasional 11x17 or larger, the d30 will easily suffice.

Mike

[Hodgy]

Try not to get so technical. (I see that alot in digital). Alot of the lambda printers you can get away with 150 dpi, everything I send to my custom lab is @ 200dpi although they ask for 300dpi.

Basically your "cheating" the pixels, you can size up with the native pixels and think well that's as big as I can go without breaking down the image, but there is a larger line of breaking down the image, and the breaking point that your eyes will notice.

[Gabe]

Mike, I appreciate the explanation. I remember checking into whether the D30 can handle my printing needs, and it seemed like it would work. Now that I have it, but haven't printed anything from it (that might change this weekend), I was getting a little nervous, lol. But you guys are taking that little fear away.

Hodgy, I know what you mean. I've seen people get so wrapped up in the tech side of things that they forget why they even started taking photos. But for now, I need to be as technical as possible as much of digital is new to me. I have some pretty big plans for myself this year, and part of that depends on having more than a working knowledge of digital. It's like when I learned how to ride motorcycles last year - I must have read hundreds of articles, a bunch of books, and a thousand webpages, plus practiced for miles. Now I ride everyday ;)

Now to find a really good digital lab down here while I save up for that printer...

[darkman]

Hi Gabe,

My goal of the post was to present a different view point, and well, I have an undergrad in physics...

But, I do a lot of scenics and can even tell the difference between cropped and non-cropped images in print. Detail gets lost and noise becomes more apparent. Even at the lowest iso settings. Using a noise reduction tool like neatimage tends to be too harsh for these and loses even more detail. I can also tell the difference printing below 240dpi.

Conversely, who is going to miss that blemish that's less visible in a portrait? In this case, noise reduction software can actually make the image look better by smoothing out the skin and further softening the background. Printing at lower dpi also dulls the details.

I've tried tools like real fractals. It seems to work better than the increase by 10% methods. Still, it can't create detail, only lose it.

Again, much depends on the image and what it's intended use is.

Mike

[Gabe]

Mike, I see your point. I will actually be shooting mostly models and news - so mostly people. But I also shoot wildlife and a few scenics, though I hardly ever print those. And I don't think I've ever printed beyond 8x10 anyway, so I guess I'm on the right track so far in terms of equipment.

Am I right in assuming that 3 more megapixels wouldn't do much to increase the resolution? You mentioned that they wouldn't do much more than give me a "little wiggle room", but at what point - how many more MP - would I start to see a difference? Just curious.

[darkman]

It's hard to say how many... I believe the media and web have sold the need for more pixels. Dito with "L" lenses when a tripod, a mediocre lens, and better technique would do a whole lot more for your pictures along with a couple of good books and practice. Not that anything is wrong with either of them (I do own a 10d and currently have one L lens and owned two others in the past - I own three tripods too). I'm not sure if people are just concerned about being crass or think a better lens and more pixels will make them a better photographer?

Sorry for the rant! My point is good lenses and more pixels won't make up for good all around technique. Plus, there's a point of diminshing returns with these. The better the lens and sensor (for a given format - the d30, d60, 10d, and d300 are all aps-c), the harder it is to get the most our of them. Unless, of course, you're in a vibration proof laboratory....

Here is a link to check out:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/

Mike

[Hodgy]

Take your file, size it up to 30 inches at 5% increments, print it and mount it and then be the judge.

Make sure you have a great exposure, and you don't over do you post processing.

I remember the week that the D30 came out. Now we didn't spend over $3 grand to get a camera that "technically" can print up to an 11x14.

The thing I like about digital, along with everything else, you can break the rules.

We shoot everything with the D30, weddings, commercial, stock, portraits, 16x20's are not problem (if you know what you are doing).

[Gabe]

Hodgy writes: "The thing I like about digital, along with everything else, you can break the rules."

I've always said I like to learn all the rules first, so I know which ones I'm breaking later ;)

Now, when you guys say to size it up or res it up in incrememts, do you mean going into Image Size in PS and increasing it by 5%, then saving it, then going back and increasing it another 5% if I still need to?

Mike, as with any camera format, some people get too obsessed with having the latest and greatest. I don't know if it's laziness in learning how to make the best of what you already have, or the excitement over getting a new "toy". Me, I shoot with a mix of Sigma and Canon lenses as the Sigmas do what I need at a fraction of the price.

Thanks for the link, I'm gonna check it out now.

[Sebastian]

Gabe,

No need for saving after each step. Just increase it by 5%, then do it again over and over again. Save it when you get to the size you wanted. You can make an action to make this less repetitive.

[Gabe]

Thanks, Seb. I figured it would be like that but wanted to be sure.