Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] (OT) G12 vs OM Film

Subject: Re: [OM] (OT) G12 vs OM Film
From: "Bill Pearce" <bs.pearce@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:35:31 -0500
I often find myself examining a big print from a close distance. Guess I'm
just plain nuts.

Bill Pearce

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Norcutt [mailto:chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 6:58 PM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] (OT) G12 vs OM Film

Indeed we do/did.  I've done lots of portraits where brows, eyes, lips,
teeth, jewelry, etc. are nicely sharpened, skin is deliberately blurred or
softened and all the rest of the image just allowed to be something less
than sharp.

But I remember many years ago looking at a large (maybe 6 ft long) wall
portrait of a Formula 1 car.  It looks good when you stand back but the
mechanical details in such an image make you want to examine it from reading
distance.

Chuck Norcutt


On 10/25/2010 6:44 PM, Bill Pearce wrote:
> Most of these kind of "hard and fast" rules depend a lot on what kind 
> of photo is reproduced. Most wedding and portrait photographers 
> produce things that are lo res on purpose.
>
> Bill Pearce
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Norcutt [mailto:chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 4:44 PM
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
> Subject: Re: [OM] (OT) G12 vs OM Film
>
> Moose may need 300 dpi at 3 feet but I think the rest of us could get 
> by with much less at that distance.  According to the math here 
> <http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/PenetrantTe
> st/Int
> roduction/visualacuity.htm>
> it's about 95 dpi at 3 feet.  The same math says about 285 dpi at 1 foot.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 10/25/2010 4:01 PM, John Hudson wrote:
>> If viewed at 30 feet 260 ppi would be overkill. If viewed at 6 feet 
>> or less 260ppi might be enough but likely not. Viewing distance matters.
>>
>> If the 100cm x 80cm image was intended for up close viewing, say 
>> three feet, more like 300 ppi might be advisable.
>>
>> Saying that he generated a 100cm x 80cm image means not much unless 
>> there is some indication of the level of detail that is evident from 
>> whatever viewing distance is chosen.
>>
>> jh
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ken Norton"<ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Olympus Camera Discussion"<olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 3:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: [OM] (OT) G12 vs OM Film
>>
>>
>>> Which is a load of bogus crud. What happens when you scale the image 
>>> to the equivalent of, say, 260 ppi? Does the image turn to junk? Of 
>>> course not.
>>>
>>> AG
>>>
>>> On Monday, October 25, 2010, John Hudson<OM4T@xxxxxxxxxxx>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Dawid Loubser"<dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> To: "Olympus Camera Discussion"<olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 8:43 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [OM] (OT) G12 vs OM Film
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As a test, I have had made (some years ago) a ~ 100cm x 80cm high 
>>>>> quality print of this image (not otherwise great, but technically 
>>>>> at the limits of what was achievable in 2002 with a compact 
>>>>> digital
>>>>> camera):
>>>>>
>>>>> http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs10/i/2006/115/3/b/Progressive_by_phil
>>>>> o
>>>>> somatographer.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Interesting:
>>>>
>>>> What was the pixels per inch resolution of the file that was sent 
>>>> to the printer ?
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it 300 ppi is adequate for a high quality close up, 
>>>> say a viewing distance of 36" or less, but less than 300 ppi will 
>>>> suffice the further away one is from the print.
>>>>
>>>> jh
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ken Norton
>>> ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://www.zone-10.com
>>> --
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>
>>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz