PDA

View Full Version : Scary big photo

DavidP
November 28th, 2003, 03:46 PM
Here's that 30" x 40" print I had done on canvas, with me holding it, so you can get a real feel for how big it really is.

http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/images/musiclessons_lifesize.jpg

The original image was taken with the 1D and 85/1.2 at f/1.2, ISO 3200, 1/30
Steve Mitchell
November 28th, 2003, 04:12 PM
That is a nice image David. A nice testament to what can be done with ISO 3200 as well.
DavidP
November 28th, 2003, 04:32 PM
The question is, what would you do to a family member who gave you this (framed) for a Christmas present? :D

I had two made . . one for me, one for one of my brothers.

That's probably my favorite ISO 3200, f/1.2 image.
PixelPix
November 28th, 2003, 04:48 PM
Here's that 30" x 40" print I had done on canvas, with me holding it, so you can get a real feel for how big it really is.

http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/images/musiclessons_lifesize.jpg

The original image was taken with the 1D and 85/1.2 at f/1.2, ISO 3200, 1/30


I hope you don't mind David, but I made a quick photoshop edit and it's not scary at all now...

http://www.potd.com.au/TESTS/musiclessons_lifesize.jpg

I'm just joking Dave! I hope you have a sense of humor. :-)
DavidP
November 28th, 2003, 04:50 PM
Dang, that's a BIG gun that made THAT hole.

I'm definitely scared now. :D
lecter
November 28th, 2003, 09:16 PM
Dang, that's a BIG gun that made THAT hole.

I'm definitely scared now. :D


on what printer???
DavidP
November 28th, 2003, 09:19 PM
It was the big Epson . . . 9600, I think the model number is.
lecter
November 28th, 2003, 09:23 PM
It was the big Epson . . . 9600, I think the model number is.

what kind of processing, interpolation did you use? Did you convert to a 16 bit TIFF for example?

were you happy (ecstatic?) withthe final output?

I printed a work "group photo" at about this size on a HP (about as big as a 9600) off the 1Ds and I thought the printout was a little soft. I am am sure I knew more about the print process than the shop.. But all the participants (about 60) were hapopy with the halloween shot...lol
DavidP
November 28th, 2003, 09:29 PM
Happy, yes. Ecstatic, no. Ecstatic would've been if it had been "tack sharp" from a foot away. You really need to get three or four feet away for it to look good. Not bad, though, considering ISO 3200 and f/1.2

I kept it as a TIFF (16-bit as long as possible), and I simply interpolated with Photoshop's Bicubic.

Here's an 8x10 crop out of the image, at 240 dpi (which is what it was printed at).

http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/images/musiclessons_30x40_crop.jpg

If you print it at 8x10, or just size it in Photoshop to look that size, you'll get a good feel for what the image looks like.
lecter
November 28th, 2003, 09:39 PM
excellent... any neatimage? although it would probably kill the ambience of this shot....
DavidP
November 28th, 2003, 09:43 PM
I believe I used just a bit of NeatImage before rezzing it up. I used my ISO3200 profile, but applied it in a very conservative fashion.
mzdial
November 28th, 2003, 10:24 PM
Seeing this makes me realize that I can accept ISO3200 for 4x6, 5x7, and 8x10 prints..

I will not be afraid of high ISO.. I will not be afraid of high ISO..

-- Matt
DavidP
November 29th, 2003, 04:51 AM
"ISO greed" is a terrible thing. If you need to use higher ISO to get the Tv or Av you want, do it!

Prints look much better than what they look like on the screen.
mzdial
November 29th, 2003, 09:44 PM
Very true..

A lot of times I think they are so noisy on screen, they aren't going to hold up well. You get use to how clean ISO100-400 is and when you get up to 1600, 3200 you start dismissing the quality.

I use to shoot with the original Nikon D1 (Circa 1999) which at ISO800 I thought was horrible.. I'd compare it to a bad "banding" ISO1600 on my 10D now. The "banding" made ISO800 usable in limited fashion. Was still shooting with the D1 this past May.. This has been scaled down a bit, but you can see what I am talking about in this photo:

http://209.186.199.30/usf1/mzdial/photos/20030513/030513_0010_std.jpg

ISO800 F/2.8 @ 300mm (Without retrieving original, I don't recall the shutter speed)

I did try to clean some of the photos up after the fact with a demo of Neat Image.. Never had used it before. They looked better.. One of these ran in the newspaper, which looked fine at it's print quality.. That was all that mattered.

-- Matt



"ISO greed" is a terrible thing. If you need to use higher ISO to get the Tv or Av you want, do it!

Prints look much better than what they look like on the screen.
DavidP
November 29th, 2003, 11:03 PM
Wow, that's pretty bad (the D1 pic) for being scaled down so much.
Steve Mitchell
December 4th, 2003, 08:53 AM
Always sacrifice ISO for shotter speed and aperture. To many people get obsessed by looking at an image at 100% or even higher and nitpicking the noise. It's really a joke and a waste of time to do that. What matters is what the image looks like for it's intended output. ISO 1600 on a 1D in print that is exposed correctly looks great. Period. Reduced for web display, it looks great. Frankly, I could care less what it looks like in any "analytical" fashion as long as it looks good when displayed.