Most Recent Canvas Print - Moose

[NorthernFocus]

Recently there have been a couple of threads discussing image quality. In those there has been discussion about image size/resolution. Coincidentally I was reworking through some images that I had not previously processed for printing. I posted a smaller version of this image last fall shortly after it was shot. Last week I re-worked it in Photoshop/Perfect Photosuite and printed a fair sized canvas version. It really came out nice.

This was shot with a Nikon D800E/70-200mm VRII. That day I was trying to get some "wildscape" images so was using the wider zoom lens. When the animals started to interact I wanted to get tighter but was limited by the 200mm long end. Luckily I had the advantage of the high resolution D800. Until now I'd never printed a larger format moose image and thought this one might be a candidate. But how large could I go?

As pointed out by Manfred in another thread, print medium and intended viewing distance should be taken into consideration when determining image resolution. As it worked out, I figured I could print the image as a 24x32in gallery wrapped canvas at 150ppi at its native resolution (i.e.4800x3600px). Canvas typically doesn't render super crisp detail so I've found that higher resolution than 150ppi on canvas doesn't buy you much. And not having to resize helps retain detail. So it worked out well. Bottom line is that the print came out really nice. The eyes are tack sharp on both critters and the fur detail is awesome. Even printed on canvas it stands up to scrutiny viewed from less than a meter away. Where it is currently hung, viewing distance is 2-3 meters.

Here is a 1200px wide version. Best viewed in the light box.

Nikon D800E, 70-200mm VRII @200mm
1/250s, f5.6, ISO800
handheld w/VR on

[FootLoose]

Looks good, Dan. You got a good angle on the antlers showing both inner and outer surfaces

[John 2]

Nicely framed by the BG as well. Very nice study Dan.

[Shadowman]

Very nice.

[Marie Hass]

Very nice. I would be pleased to hang this one, also.

Marie

[deetheturk]

Great shot Dan, well captured!

[nikon66]

Well done.

[Mike Buckley]

Gorgeous! Interesting observations about the implications of printing on canvas.

[Brownbear]

Yes, gorgeous everything about it, and a special moment captured.

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks for all of the comments, everyone. Having posted this image last fall my intent this time was to follow up on prior threads about the implications of IQ. Those discussions seem to be split between two camps, it's good enough just print it versus nothing is ever good enough and there is always room for improvement. I lean towards the latter, my point being, if you strive to optimize IQ, then you have many options open to you. I'm sure we all have those shots that have amazing content but are slightly OOF, noisey, heavy crop, etc. that limit printing options. The better the IQ of the origninal image, the larger you can print/more you can crop. I have much better (i.e. broader appeal) moose images (content wise) in my portfolio. But when I started going through them looking for something to print at the size I wanted, IQ was a limiting factor for many of my images that were captured a couple of years ago or longer. Better skills and/or equipment have produced much improved work in the past couple of years.

Interesting observations about the implications of printing on canvas.

Printing on canvas takes a few adjustments. Figuring out dpi and sharpening are two issues. My experience to date has also been that images need to be brightened and saturation increased a few points versus other media. There are different types of canvas with different coatings as well so that experience may only apply to the print shops that I've dealt with. But something to consider. One of the services I use recommends 300ppi. When using them I resize to that but I can't say that I see any difference versus 150ppi.

[Digital]

Dan, very nice image.



Bruce

[Downrigger]

Great image, helpful information here too. Thanks, Dan.

[bnnrcn]

Very nice image

[Mike Buckley]

One of the services I use recommends 300ppi. When using them I resize to that but I can't say that I see any difference versus 150ppi.

That's probably because they recommend 300 for all media as a measure of safety. Otherwise uninformed people would send files at 70.

By the way, it's dpi, not ppi. That's a pet peeve of mine.

[NorthernFocus]

...By the way, it's dpi, not ppi. That's a pet peeve of mine.

ppi indicates the resolution of the digital file sent to the print lab. Within my control.

dpi indicates the resolution that the image is printed onto the medium. Specific to their printing equipment.

I supply the 300ppi files to the one supplier because they indicated that is the dpi resolution of their printer. So nothing should be altered by printer algorithms (in theory).

The other print service recommends 150ppi files. I never could get an answer out of them what the actual dpi of the printer was. So I just followed their recommendation. And the results are comparable to the other outfit. I suspect the printer is printing at 300dpi. Resizing by even multiples/divisions has less impact on IQ so probably why there isn't any meaningful degradation. It's been working so I've stuck with it.

Mike you do realize that no one but you and I care about this ppi/dpi discussion?

[Mike Buckley]

Mike you do realize that no one but you and I care about this ppi/dpi discussion?

Indeed I do. Actually, we should include Manfred in this very short list.