shutter speed

[Ysarex]

@Braineack and @astroNikon Like I said, major factor in why I'm trying to upgrade. Until now, it hasn't been too big of a factor because for years I've been shooting in bright daylight almost exclusively. But, now I find myself shooting in more shadowed forests and wanting to take on more events (with dark dance floors), so I need to get rid of the grain. With my personal work I want to be able to print large and if an image has a noticeable grain, it's not print worthy. It's right up there with printing less than 300 dpi, in my opinion.

In an earlier thread you seemed to suggest a preference for Epson printers. That's curious then given your statement here that printing less than 300 ppi isn't print worthy. Even Epson's newest top-of-the-line pro printers are not 300 ppi capable. You like them but don't consider them print worthy?

Joe

 

[PersistentNomad]

In an earlier thread you seemed to suggest a preference for Epson printers. That's curious then given your statement here that printing less than 300 ppi isn't print worthy. Even Epson's newest top-of-the-line pro printers are not 300 ppi capable. You like them but don't consider them print worthy?
Joe

Time as a designer. I know from experience that 300 is the threshold for most people's understanding of what's print worthy. It's what professional printers, newspapers and mags ask for in the files you send. Anything below that is no good, but all things above that are delicious. Even most low end printers print higher than that. However, it is interesting to note that the human eye actually cannot see the difference between 300 and anything higher, but we can see the difference between 300 and lower. Unless you have super-human eyesight, in which case I defer to your judgment on what you can or cannot see.

This attitude alone has probably cost more good images than any other way of shooting.

I don't think so, at least not for my personal work and what I want to get out of it up until recently. With my personal work, it also allows me to keep going and searching in my quest of images to collect when I set a standard for what I will or won't shoot in a given situation. When it's your personal work, it's a personal choice.
For anything that hasn't been my personal work, I do what I need to get the shot and if that means more grain, it's grainy.

 

[Ysarex]

In an earlier thread you seemed to suggest a preference for Epson printers. That's curious then given your statement here that printing less than 300 ppi isn't print worthy. Even Epson's newest top-of-the-line pro printers are not 300 ppi capable. You like them but don't consider them print worthy?
Joe

Time as a designer. I know from experience that 300 is the threshold for most people's understanding of what's print worthy. It's what professional printers, newspapers and mags ask for in the files you send.

An old rule from a time long past -- misunderstood by most and way overdue for an upgrade. Modern printers use stochastic algorithms now in place of line screens.

Anything below that is no good, but all things above that are delicious. Even most low end printers print higher than that.

No they don't. They don't print that high. Even your new Epson P series printers don't reach that resolution. Check the specs. and if you understand them then you'll see that 300 ppi is beyond their physical capacity. A 300 ppi image requires a DPI output of 2400 x 2400. When you check the specs. you see they have dual values like 5760 x 1440 resolution. That first figure represents interpolation at work and it's not hard -- it's soft. To be 300 ppi capable the math requires 2400 x 2400 DPI.

Joe

 

[480sparky]

This attitude alone has probably cost more good images than any other way of shooting.

I don't think so, at least not for my personal work and what I want to get out of it up until recently. With my personal work, it also allows me to keep going and searching in my quest of images to collect when I set a standard for what I will or won't shoot in a given situation. When it's your personal work, it's a personal choice.
For anything that hasn't been my personal work, I do what I need to get the shot and if that means more grain, it's grainy.

So basically, you're willing to not take a shot if it doesn't meet your personal standards. That's fine......... but you still don't get the shot if you never take it.

 

[PersistentNomad]

That's fine......... but you still don't get the shot if you never take it.

And the quest continues!

 

[fmw]

Nomad. Perhaps it is time to get comfortable with the tripod for those subjects that don't move.

 

[PersistentNomad]

Wow. I think you guys are taking my quips a little too seriously. I totally do use a tripod/monopod when necessary, I also bump the ISO when essential. I just happen to always be less happy with higher ISO photos because I'm super picky about grain. It's my own neurosis and I know it.

 

[480sparky]

.......I'm super picky about grain. .........

So you shoot film then..........