Competing with Medium Format - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

01/13/2007 05:33:08 PM · #1

Well, I am 8/10ths of the way into getting my work into a gallery. While I have felt that my post-processing skills have greatly improved over the last 18 months I am back to feeling overwhelmed with the task of competing with medium format film drum scanned. I was at the gallery talking to the owner and seeing some of the stuff on the wall was completely awed by how clear the stuff was at sizes like 24x30 and 30x40.

I'm not sure the 5D is up to snuff for complex stuff. Either that or my processing skills aren't. I am keenly interested in two factors: 1) noise and 2) sharpness. One problem is I like to do long exposure and night stuff. That pushes my camera to the edge.

Whew. Just looking for some encouragement or some advice.

I am using Neat Image to try to manage noise as well as possible (although I have not found anything near a good tutorial about how REALLY to use NI besides the basic stuff). I have downloaded and am evaluating genuine fractals for enlargements. The gallery prints the large stuff at 250 dpi which makes a 30x40 7500x10000 pixels.

Pixlmaker

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

01/13/2007 06:48:48 PM · #2

Well, if you want a little encouragement, click here, click on Pro Corner and then on "Shooter's Insight: EOS 5D". The reason I bring that up is because I was just on their earlier today, and one of the pros interviewed mentioned how he makes huge gallery prints from his 5D, and how good they turn out.
And of course, it isn't the equipment, it's how you use it. You're a great photographer, no question, and I couldn't imagine seeing your work in a gallery and not liking it.

hanneke

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/13/2007 06:51:42 PM · #3

Doc, have you ever used medium format?

knowing you a little bit from this site, I think you might like it.. why not give it a try? You could rent a Hasselblad (or another brand) and try it out.. maybe you get hooked.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/13/2007 06:59:55 PM · #4

The bigger you go, the more outstanding the original needs to be. Something that you get away with and looks sharp at 4x6 will fall apart at 16x20, or 20x30. It has to be exactingly fantastic to go larger. Great tripod technique. Flawless processing.

Otherwise its a very expensive way to go to see your pictures not at their best.

A thought is why bother trying to be something your pictures aren't. Print them at a resolution that shows them to their best.

wavelength

Nikon D300

01/13/2007 07:11:46 PM · #5

Originally posted by Gordon:

Isn't that sort of analogous to telling a remedial kid, "It's okay Billy, you can't read and we're not going to suggest you try." ??

jaysonmc

Nikon D200

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

01/13/2007 07:15:24 PM · #6

Skip medium format all together. Go Large Format. You know, photography is just an arms race. :) Better yet, see if you can get with Polariod and use that 20x24 Camera that William Wegman used. If you ever see the prints from that thing, man are they big.

I guess in the end it all depends on how big you plan to go...
Your photos are fantastic as is, are you losing alot of quality with big prints?

jaysonmc

Nikon D200

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

01/13/2007 07:16:20 PM · #7

Also, let us know how geninue fractals turns out. I was thinking about purchasing it myself.

Ivo

01/13/2007 07:27:28 PM · #8

It sure made sense when it was once suggested the way we, as photographers, look at output images is far more critic than the public views them. We have a tendancy of being far more on technicalities with detail that are rather superfluous. The 5D is a sweet camera and puts out amazing images. I'd suggest you carefully evaluate your process before you discount the capabilites of your camera. Otherwise, it could be a very expensive and slippery slope. Just a thought.

But hell, you're a doctor. ;-)

Message edited by author 2007-01-13 19:28:33.

David.C

01/13/2007 07:32:14 PM · #9

Originally posted by wavelength:

Originally posted by Gordon:
The bigger you go, the more outstanding the original needs to be. Something that you get away with and looks sharp at 4x6 will fall apart at 16x20, or 20x30. It has to be exactingly fantastic to go larger. Great tripod technique. Flawless processing.

Otherwise its a very expensive way to go to see your pictures not at their best.

A thought is why bother trying to be something your pictures aren't. Print them at a resolution that shows them to their best.

Isn't that sort of analogous to telling a remedial kid, "It's okay Billy, you can't read and we're not going to suggest you try." ??

No. Gordon didn't suggest he shouldn't try and get his prints into the gallery -- just don't look at it as having to compete against medium format once there. Unless it is a gallery requirement, there is no reaons for him to insist his photos be printed on a huge canvas. Print them at whatever size is best for the image.

All the while, continuing to improve on technique so the size that is right for the image is capable of becoming larger.

David

FireBird

01/13/2007 07:37:35 PM · #10

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Whew. Just looking for some encouragement or some advice.

Way to go Doc. Print some of the stuff you want to display at various sizes and see how it looks. Maybe your first show doesn't need to 20x30. Some help from someone whos been there would help. Don't we have a member named Jim Seltzer, darnit can't remember how to spell his name. I've read some of his stuff and it seems he knows his stuff v. matting and framing. Then....... if your show does well....... errr....
aaaahhhh..... anyway the URL below is my suggestion.
P30

Edit: Ummmm, I just remembered you have a passion for destroying cameras.. forget my advice above. ;)

Message edited by author 2007-01-13 19:41:47.

wavelength

Nikon D300

01/13/2007 07:38:30 PM · #11

Anyways, FredMiranda.com also has a resize plugin, that looks pretty usable, ResizePRO

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/13/2007 07:43:10 PM · #12

I'd be surprised if you could NOT get acceptable quality images from the 5D at 20 X 30. That only blows up your original by a little more than 4 times when printed at 250dpi from a full framed capture. You should have little problem with that.

If you are careful in post processing you will get excellent results.

For best artistic control you will want to tweak post processing in PS using proof setup for the printer/paper combination that will be used to generate the actual print. That is critical so you can check your print's color gamut compared to what the printer/paper combination you are printing on can handle as well as see a what-you-see-is-what-you-get display. The gamut warning display in CS will show you out-of-gamut colors. If you include out-of-gamut colors in the print file then the printer substitutes its own colors and it is a guarantee that you will not like the result.

For noise you will have to do "hand" corrections AFTER noise reduction is applied using the clone or blur tools in large prints. I'd recommend a full check of the entire image at 200-300 percent the size of the print. That will take time but will insure the highest quality prints. CS2 is actually better at removing color noise than NI but that, of course, also reduces color saturation.

Like with web graphics you will want to save sharpening for you last step after resizing your images larger. (You may also want to do a last noise tweak check after sharpening) Be sure to select "bicubic smoother" in CS2 for upscaling images. It does as good a job upscaling images as purchased programs.

Sharpening large prints is a lot different than 640 web graphics and you will have to experiment with that to learn how to get the best results. Where your basic overall radius setting for web graphics is normally about .3, that goes up considerably for prints to 1.8 or more. The larger the print the higher the basic value. Web graphics are forgiving but prints are not.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

01/13/2007 07:54:38 PM · #13

Thanks for the posts guys and thanks for the direct advice Steve.

I am a perfectionist and I do realize that I may think an image of mine looks like crap when 98% of the public would think it was great.

The ability to print 30x40 is a requirement of the gallery. I'm not going to start with stuff hanging on the wall like that, but if someone wants it that size, the owner wants to know that he can deliver it.

It's also tough to think that IF my picture got up on the wall at 30x40 it would be sitting next to another 30x40 MF shot. While digital may look awesome if done right, can it look awesome while being directly compared to MF? I had my nose six inches from those prints (way closer than the viewing distance for the size) and there was NOTHING there. No artifacting, no noise, nothing. Imposing to say the least.

Sometimes I perhaps ask too much of myself. Although I would consider myself to be "accomplished", I am competing with people who make it their career and have been working for 20 years. I shouldn't expect myself to immediately be able to go mano a mano with them.

Cutter

Nikon D700

01/13/2007 07:58:25 PM · #14

My little bit is this: I have used only a D70 and CS2 for upsizing and have my work selling in a gallery for what I consider too much...but I shan't complain.

Your 5D kicks my D70 ass (now have D200) and I have stuff up to 20x30. When matted and framed, that size definitely holds its own.

And my images are plenty sharp and quite frankly am very impressed and pleased with the results when I visit the gallery. I actually can't wait to get some of my images printed up larger still, especially with my new camera and lenses.

Keep at it and don't be too worried about it.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/13/2007 08:13:36 PM · #15

Just as an update, I'm feeling quite a bit better.

I was processing this shot here:

I had the original .psd file (with my original processing) and was working off that. What I later realized was that I had used the shot that had purposely underexposed by two stops for the sky for the entire scene. At 640 pixels the noise could easily be handled, but at large sizes it was totally out of control (due to the underexposure).

I'm redoing the shot with a composite of two shots (one for the sky, one for the rest) and am having WAAAAAYYYY better results with the noise.

If I get a chance I'm going to reprint a crop early next week of this version. I think it's going to be quite acceptable. We shall see.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

01/13/2007 09:30:34 PM · #16

Compete?? Stitch yourself a few three or four shot panos, and you will blow them out of the water!

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/13/2007 09:33:42 PM · #17

Originally posted by kirbic:

Compete?? Stitch yourself a few three or four shot panos, and you will blow them out of the water!

What a monster idea! So simple! You really are the man! Thanks! :-)

Message edited by author 2007-01-13 21:34:08.

JunieMoon

Sony Alpha a7 II

Sony FE 3.5-5.6/28-70 mm OSS

01/13/2007 09:41:45 PM · #18

Congrats on the gallery gig. Hope it is a success for you. I have nothing to add of help, but perhaps by posting to this thread, some of your wonder and awe in your pics will rub off? Probably not.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

01/13/2007 09:43:20 PM · #19

oh man pushing iso 100 2 stops makes the noise "totally out of control" on a 5D? Oh boy :-/ I've done testing on the 1D and 20D up to iso 800 (well beyond, but 800 is about the limit) with good results printed 20x30inches. This was definately with viewing distance in mind though. I guess going against MF makes a huge difference in what seems ok!

01/13/2007 09:44:59 PM · #20

OK, here's evidence of why I was breathing faster before, but am breathing a bit easier now. The first is my original version at a 100% crop after processing and enlargement with genuine fractals to a size of 30x22 at 250 DPI. The second is with better overall processing (not using an underexposed shot, "painting" with NI (thanks Steve), and then resizing to the same dimensions.

The difference in the image zoom is due to a crop I had originally used. It's not completely fair since the original is more upsized, but not by a ton (I think it was 250% to 200%). I don't think it accounts for a large portion of the difference.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

01/13/2007 09:53:05 PM · #21

I'll say that 2nd one has much less noise, but it also has a very plastic feel to it. Personally i'd rather see noise and detail, than no noise and no detail. But really I see hardly any, if at all more detail in the first, but the 2nd looks overly processed to my eyes. I really like the colors in the 2nd one though, that looks great!

wavelength

Nikon D300

01/13/2007 09:55:23 PM · #22

WOW, that first one looked like the D200 banding pics I've seen, no wonder you were worried. Good work on the new PP.

01/13/2007 10:07:10 PM · #23

Originally posted by kyebosh:

It could be a product of the resizing or just a product of the fact that we are taking an extreme crop of a larger picture (no context). The NI in the second picture is only applied to the water. I painted around the rocks as much as possible. So any "plastic" feel to the rocks is not a product of NI. (I do see what you are talking about.)

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/13/2007 10:10:32 PM · #24

Originally posted by wavelength:

Isn't that sort of analogous to telling a remedial kid, "It's okay Billy, you can't read and we're not going to suggest you try." ??

Only if you assume big = better. Why pretend something is what it isn't ? All you do is make it look bad.