Lament of 6.1

Efergoh · Apr 28, 2007

I have two beautiful photographs that I shot in RAW, and I wanted to print large (20"x30"). Try as I may, they just won't hold together. the transitions from shadow to light look horrific. Pull the shot back to 12x18, they are borderline.

*sigh....

Anyone wanna buy a Minolta Maxxum 5D?

Sw1tchFX · Apr 28, 2007

What do you shoot with now?

Efergoh · Apr 29, 2007

Digital? Minolta Maxxum 5D.

Gonna sell the body and buy a Sony A100.

Don Simon · Apr 29, 2007

How are you enlarging/interpolating the image?

Efergoh · Apr 29, 2007

Photoshop.

after opening the RAW file, Image--->Image Size---> select desired size.

I tried printing them twice. 300dpi and 240dpi. Both looked like crap. I have another one that didn't have the dramatic shift from light to dark, and that one didn't come out too ugly, but the ones I shot using a 10% grid have horrible transitions from light to shadow in the skin tones.

xfloggingkylex · Apr 29, 2007

Efergoh said:
Photoshop.

after opening the RAW file, Image--->Image Size---> select desired size.

I tried printing them twice. 300dpi and 240dpi. Both looked like crap. I have another one that didn't have the dramatic shift from light to dark, and that one didn't come out too ugly, but the ones I shot using a 10% grid have horrible transitions from light to shadow in the skin tones.

what are you printing with?

Efergoh · Apr 30, 2007

Epson 4800 and Epson 9600

Don Simon · Apr 30, 2007

Have you tried gradually increasing the image size, say in 10% increments? Interpolating to 20"x30" at 300dpi in one action may be what's causing you trouble here.

Efergoh · Apr 30, 2007

I'll give that a shot. Much of it has to do with the shadows...

This is one of the images I was trying to print:

craig · May 1, 2007

What was your ISO and exposure settings? What is your file size? Digi does not handle under exposed photos well. Depending on the camera ISO above 800 goes south very fast. Meaning you will not get the gradation of tones you are looking for. The lighting it self is harsh. Do not try and bring out something that is not there. Maybe re shoot with some bounce cards opening key areas.

Shooting raw is not the cure all. Start by printing the original jpg and work from there.

View your photo at 100%. If you are happy with what you see then work on the printer settings. Again; spill those settings and we will be able to help further.

Love & Bass

Big Mike · May 1, 2007

Can you work in 16bit rather than 8bit? A higher bit image will have many more tones with which to transition from light to dark. It may get compressed somewhere in the process anyway (print drivers etc) but it may help.

gmarquez · May 2, 2007

Try sending it out to be "printed" on actual photo paper (using a laser or LEDs to expose photo paper). These prints do wonders even for lower res photography. The systems usually support a hardware RIP (raster image processor) that does all of the upsampling needed, and the dedicated RIPs usually do much much better than you can do "at home". Try out MPix, Adorama, or even Kodak's online printing. You may be surprised. I now use my epson printer only for proofing.

Efergoh · May 2, 2007

craig said:
What was your ISO and exposure settings? What is your file size? Digi does not handle under exposed photos well. Depending on the camera ISO above 800 goes south very fast. Meaning you will not get the gradation of tones you are looking for. The lighting it self is harsh. Do not try and bring out something that is not there. Maybe re shoot with some bounce cards opening key areas.

ISO was 100. Exposure was 100th at 5.6 I made the shot using a 30% grid on a 1600 watt/second flash

The light was supposed to be harsh. I didn't use bounce cards or reflectors because I didn't want to. It was not an error in shooting. I wasn't trying to bring anything out that wasn't there. I was attempting to print what you see posted above. I did not adjust the exposure or levels in PS. I printed it as it was shot. All I did was increase the size of the image.

The file size for the 20x30 image was nearly 400Mb

Big Mike said:
Can you work in 16bit rather than 8bit?

My first attempt was at 16bit, but the printer doesn't work in 16bit from what I've been told about it.

gmarquez said:
Try sending it out to be "printed" on actual photo paper (using a laser or LEDs to expose photo paper).....I now use my epson printer only for proofing.

I'll give it a go. I was trying to avoid major expense. The Epson 9600 is a pro level printer that is larger and taller than most kitchen tables. One would think that a top shelf print would be achieved with this model.

I think, in the end, it will come back to asking too much of a 6.1 camera. We all know that 35mm film can only be printed so large before it looses resolution...same will hold true here.

I just need a 10mp camera....