Discernable differences in prints

[chauncey]

I just finished rereading an article...https://luminous-landscape.com/canon...t-performance/
in which Keith Cooper laments that non-photographer folks who are shown prints from a Canon 1Ds3
and a 5Ds are unable to discern any differences.

To those that have upgraded to any of the high MP bodies, be it Sony/Canon/Nikon agree with that?

[DanK]

I haven't purchased one of these bodies, but I have hung prints up to 11 x 14 (28 x 36 cm) from 10, 15, and 22 MP bodies, and no one has ever commented on differences among them. I haven't given people A/B comparisons to judge, but why would one? I do have one 13 x 19 (33 x 48 cm) printed from a substantially cropped image from a 15 MP camera that I can tell is not as sharp as it should be, but it doesn't seem that anyone else has noticed. Online, it shouldn't make any difference, since the resolution of computer screens is so low.

If I printed VERY large or did very severe crops before printing, I might be interested in one of those bodies, but for my purposes, my 22 MP 5D3 is perfectly fine, IMHO.

[Shadowman]

You should always consider the specific image, its difficulty or ease in capturing the scene, and the output devise used to do the comparison. The scene shown on the link could probably be captured with any camera, try the same two cameras on an action scene with panning, or a lowlight scene and then compare the prints.

[Manfred M]

The prints are too small to really show any differences.

Go to a print that is more like 1m x 2m / 36" x 72" and pixel peep, and that's where you are going to start seeing the differences. Cooper's largest prints are 29" x 19"; definitely not large enough to see any differences and frankly I'm surprised that he doesn't get it.

[MrB]

Isn't it simply that those who are not OCD photographers look at the image not the pixels?

Cheers.
Philip

[James G]

I'm reminded of certain 'critical' discussions, some time back, about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I suspect Keith Cooper is potentially a great theologian.

I must be one of the non-photographer folks because I'm absolutely sure I could not discern the differences... in fact I'd simply rather appreciate the angels.... sorry images....

[rpcrowe]

People seem either not to care or not to realize the quality or the lack of quality of images. As an example, if someone is viewing a recognizable image of their baby or their dog, that is a GREAT image to many people.

However, some of us are more critical. I had problems yesterday afternoon shooting Tommy a Havanese rescue puppy. Tommy has a black coat and bushy eyebrows. You cannot see his eyes unless he is looking straight at you which he decided NOT TO DO yesterday. No amount of treats or squeaking could get him to raise his eyes. I tried shooting from lower positions with no luck.

Out of the entire session, I had only one shot which "barely" showed his eyes and that image was pretty bad. I finally quit intending to do another shoot the day after he came home from neutering. I tried rescuing the image with Photoshop...



I didn't want to post the image on Petfinder.com (the rescue website we use). My wife said "Please post it, no one will care if it isn't a great image." Well, we posted it (over my objections) and the pup was adopted within eight hours by an adopter we had previously approved, The adopter said, "When I saw that beautiful picture, I just knew Tommy was going to be my dog!"

All my wife said was "TOLD YOU SO!"

[Shadowman]

People seem either not to care or not to realize the quality or the lack of quality of images. As an example, if someone is viewing a recognizable image of their baby or their dog, that is a GREAT image to many people.

However, some of us are more critical. I had problems yesterday afternoon shooting Tommy a Havanese rescue puppy. Tommy has a black coat and bushy eyebrows. You cannot see his eyes unless he is looking straight at you which he decided NOT TO DO yesterday. No amount of treats or squeaking could get him to raise his eyes. I tried shooting from lower positions with no luck.

Out of the entire session, I had only one shot which "barely" showed his eyes and that image was pretty bad. I finally quit intending to do another shoot the day after he came home from neutering. I tried rescuing the image with Photoshop...



I didn't want to post the image on Petfinder.com (the rescue website we use). My wife said "Please post it, no one will care if it isn't a great image." Well, we posted it (over my objections) and the pup was adopted within eight hours by an adopter we had previously approved, The adopter said, "When I saw that beautiful picture, I just knew Tommy was going to be my dog!"

All my wife said was "TOLD YOU SO!"

I've seen many crappy looking Farrah posters that were still popular and it had nothing to do with the viewers ability to recognize quality imagery; sometimes it's all about the subject.

[lukaswerth]

This reminds me of the other thread "why upgrade for more MP" over in the general discussion forum to which I replied a little earlier.
The gist is: the differences from more MP are minimal to nonexistent for many purposes; I think it is worthwhile to think for which purpose one wants to take a picture, online or print, which size...
Pixel-peep is where most people satisfy themselves, moving through the picture and minutely comparing different areas - don't I know, have done it myself. But pixel-peep is mostly not communicable, so it doesn't really make sense to get fixated on the highest amount of sharpness here.

Lukas

[snemet]

Ideally, I'm hoping to hear from those who have had extensive experience with my scanner model, the Coolscan IV (LS-40), and have then moved up to the Super Coolscan 5000. I produce prints from films scans, have sold several and get many compliments from others doing similar work, but still wonder if my prints would show discernible improvement with the Super Coolscan 5000..

I've owned the Coolscan IV for several years, and have been quite pleased with the results, and it is still working like new. I know the 5000 is faster, which would be nice, but my real concern is with ultimate quality. I'm not at all sure how important this is, but the maximum desired size for any of my prints is 10" by 15".. The resolution of my coquegsm.com Coolscan IV seems fine at this size.. Also, most all of the images that I scan are well exposed on high quality Kodak films; I'm usually not concerned with trying to make prints from less than optimal originals..

I think that the major considerations for my purposes are tonalities and color fidelity.. I don't think my present scanner is lacking in these areas, but still, considering the bump up in specs, and without a direct comparison, I would be very curious if the quality that the 5000 produces is clearly superior to the critical eye in those of you who have had serious experience with both.. Thanks for any help you can provide.

[Mike Buckley]

Welcome to CiC, Snemet!

I don't have any information about the scanners you discussed, but I do have an option that might be worth considering. You could use ScanCafe.com to scan a couple of your images that you have scanned using your own equipment. Doing so would give you a comparison of the results you get using your equipment with the results they get using theirs. This page explains in great detail the equipment they use.

That leads to the idea that it will be very helpful to you and others if you would edit your profile to display the area you live on the left side of your posts. As an example, depending on where you live, the idea of using ScanCafe.com might be very practical or very impractical. It would also be helpful if you would edit your profile to display your real name, at least your first name. See the posts in this thread for examples of both displays.