Help me understand

Damo1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
602
Name
Damion
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all as you probably know I currently use mft what I would like some one , any one to explain to me is , how big can I realistically print my pics before they just look crap and please for the love of god explained aspect ration to this poor little moron .......... Thanks in advance
 
I am not sure how big you can go, but I have recently had an A3 size photo book printed with one photo per page containing a lot my EM5 photos and it looks great. So you can easily print A3 size and probably bigger.

Aspect ratio is simply the relationship between the width and height of your photos. So for micro four thirds cameras the long side is four thirds (1.333) times the length of the short side. The aspect ratio is 4:3. Most other cameras have gone for the same ratio as 35mm film which is 3:2 i.e. the long side is 1.5 times the length of the short side. Square photos have a ratio of 1:1.

Another common ratio these days is 16:9 which matches the shape of wide screen TVs.

I hope this helps a bit.
 
Thank you it does help , however it makes me ask which ratio I should use in my camera :rolleyes:
 
Which ever one you want is the honest answer. Whichever is best for the image you are taking. There's no right or wrong answer, and it's purely a matter of personal preference.
 
As David said, aspect ratio is a matter of taste. Personally, I usually keep my cameras set to the largest image that the sensors can get then crop to suit the paper size.

maximum print size can be limited by pixel count. The usually quoted resolution is 300 pixels per inch for prints at arms lengh but at more normal viewing distance you can usually drop that to 200 or even lower.
 
... the usually quoted resolution is 300 pixels per inch for prints at arms lengh but at more normal viewing distance you can usually drop that to 200 or even lower.
There's no such thing as 'normal viewing distance' - when viewing paintings we naturally adjust where we stand according to the size of the picture and this also applies to photoprints - if it's big you stand back, if it's small you stand close.

It's not simply about pixels either since they may be successfully interpolated up to a degree. Just as important is the sharpness of the original image (think tripod, or VR).
 
Normal viewing distance is typically 2.5-3x the diagonal.
 
The 'correct' viewing distance is 1x the diagonal. That's the distance used for all depth-of-field calculations.

If viewing distance is adjusted according to the size of the image, which is what we naturally tend to do, then you can print as large as you like and the image will always appear equally sharp. Eg street posters look sharp when viewed from across the road.
 
Normal viewing distance is typically 2.5-3x the diagonal.

The 'correct' viewing distance is 1x the diagonal.

Only for those that think there's a normal viewing distance :)

Unless you put up a sign telling people where to stand, I think you'll find people will do whatever the hell they like.

Whenever I exhibit big prints, most look at them very closely. If you hang a big print with lots of minute detail, people will go up to it. They may then step back to appreciate the whole thing, but they WILL go close if they are allowed to.

All this correct viewing distance is [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].. in reality, you'll get people standing all over the place to view your prints. The worst offenders are other photographers as they will go REALLY close to see how sharp it is.... even the ones in this thread telling you there's a correct viewing distance.... they'll go up close to see how sharp it is... they won't be able to help it :)


All this "correct viewing distance" thing is [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].
 
Last edited:
All this "correct viewing distance" thing is [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].
No it isn't, it just needs to be understood properly.

Studies have shown that, when looking at a picture, people who want to look at the whole picture tend to position themselves (if it is large) or hold it (if it is small) at a distance which broadly corresponds to the diagonal measurement of the picture. Of course there's variation from person to person, and presumably the findings might not work so well with images that have extreme aspect ratios, and it's probably been a bit over-simplified, but that doesn't invalidate it as a rule of thumb. Obviously it means that all pictures when viewed from this distance subtend the same angle, so it's probably tied in with the engineering of the human eye somehow.

But the key point is that it only applies to people who want to look at the whole picture. Obviously some people like to look at the details, but then they're not looking at the picture.

If you want to cater for the study-the-detail brigade, then always print at 300 ppi and you'll never ever go larger than 24x16 inches, even with a D800. Or if you want to cater for the look-at-the-picture people, the rule of thumb is a useful one.
 
I've been to exhibitions where there have been large (5ft x 4ft at a guess) prints and it seems to me the reason for printing them so large has been to reveal lots of detail.

Stuff like this and this which look completely different at web size, or even in a large book, to how they do as very large prints. Your reading and understanding of the pictures is altered by their scale and the ability to see them as a whole AND to inspect the details.
 
All this correct viewing distance is [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]..

All this "correct viewing distance" thing is [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].
That's two bolloxes.
 
Actually, I'm with Pokey on this one. At the recent Prix Pictet show, Hong Hao (http://www.prixpictet.com/portfolios/consumption-shortlist/hong-hao/) showed some of his work printed really large. Most people approached it, viwin g it as a whole, but then stood close, moving around to take in the details. It wasn't about how sharp, just looking at the minute details in the image.

Michael Schmidt - the winner's work you did the same

Michael-Schmidts-Lebensmittel-at-Prix-Pictet-at-the-VA-%EF%BF%BD-Hugo-Glendinning-940x627.jpg


Observed from a distance to get the idea of the series, then moved in closer to look at each image
 
That's two bolloxes.


Well.. they do come in pairs :)

No it isn't, it just needs to be understood properly.

Studies have shown that, when looking at a picture, people who want to look at the whole picture tend to position themselves (if it is large) or hold it (if it is small) at a distance which broadly corresponds to the diagonal measurement of the picture.


I've stood and watched people in galleries for years. They stand back to appreciate it as a whole, sure, but invariably, at some point, either before or after, will go in close to look at it. You print something big, with lots of minute detail, it invites people to go closer.

Ideal viewing distance = load of [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].
 
Last edited:
No it isn't, it just needs to be understood properly.

Studies have shown that, when looking at a picture, people who want to look at the whole picture tend to position themselves (if it is large) or hold it (if it is small) at a distance which broadly corresponds to the diagonal measurement of the picture. Of course there's variation from person to person, and presumably the findings might not work so well with images that have extreme aspect ratios, and it's probably been a bit over-simplified, but that doesn't invalidate it as a rule of thumb. Obviously it means that all pictures when viewed from this distance subtend the same angle, so it's probably tied in with the engineering of the human eye somehow.

But the key point is that it only applies to people who want to look at the whole picture. Obviously some people like to look at the details, but then they're not looking at the picture.

If you want to cater for the study-the-detail brigade, then always print at 300 ppi and you'll never ever go larger than 24x16 inches, even with a D800. Or if you want to cater for the look-at-the-picture people, the rule of thumb is a useful one.

^^^ Yes. If there is a 'correct' viewing distance, that is it. And the note about 300dpi is also true.

Of course images will get viewed at all sorts of different distances, but equally obviously we view smaller images from closer range than larger ones. Research has shown (Prof Sidney Ray, I think) that on average the most comfortable viewing distance to take in the whole image means we position ourselves so that the angle from side to side is 60 degrees, and that equates to a distance equal to the diagonal of the image.

While that may not always apply, it's very useful to know and a good rule of thumb. And as mentioned above, these are the 'facts' that underpin all depth-of-field calculations.*

*Depth-of-field calcs are based on the assumption that when a 10in print is viewed from a distance equal to the diagonal, ie about 12in, then the smallest detail the eye can detect is 0.2mm wide. The formula is worked back from that basic assumption.
 
Of course images will get viewed at all sorts of different distances,

Thus making all this "correct" viewing distance utterly redundant.

While that may not always apply,

...uh huh.... see above....

If it's a 44 sheet billboard, then you CAN'T view it close... it's up in the air, and about 30ft across, but a print on a gallery wall, I promise you, will be inspected closely. If you are printing for hanging on a wall, and the viewer has no physical barriers to getting close to it, I'd inspect it for quality MUCH closer than then "correct" viewing distance, because every ****er else will be doing just that once it is hung :)


People aren't machines. They will not all be viewing your image from a distance equal to the diagonal. Well.. they WILL...(roughly) Richard is correct, but what the study fails to realise, is that once they've done that... they'll then go in close. Think about it. You print something 1 metre across... let's say a landscape.... you think that once the viewer has appreciated it in it's entirety from a distance equal to its diagonal they'll think, "Oh... I'd love to go closer to see what that sign says.... or appreciate the quality, but I can't, because I'll be at a distance less than the diagonal" ? Of course they'll go close. It's at THAT point this concept of ideal viewing distances goes right out of the window. Don't take my word for it.... go to a photography gallery.... sit down... watch the people. The majority will go close at some point.

The irony is, photographers, especially the types who will quote you the ideal viewing distances are the worst offenders :) They can't resist going close to that Burtinsky or that Kander.. just to see if the images are as sharp as their own or not :)
 
Last edited:
I think the ideal distance depends on which pair of glasses I'm wearing at the time....
 
The irony is, photographers, especially the types who will quote you the ideal viewing distances are the worst offenders :) They can't resist going close to that Burtinsky or that Kander.. just to see if the images are as sharp as their own or not :)


Anyone that closes in to assess the sharpness of the image is not someone that appreciates photography..



NB, I suspect that some of the confusion is down to an incomplete understanding of the term "normal" triggering a bloody-mindedness reflex. In the context of normal viewing distance it's the same as when considering a 50mm as being normal, not in any sense of a rigourously prescribed or correct distance of viewing an image.
 
<snip>
Richard is correct,
<snip>

I continue to admire your ability to turn agreement into an argument :D

So how to answer the OP's question "how big can I realistically print my pics before they just look crap?" There are two possibilities: as big as you like, if the 'viewing distance equal to the diagonal' is observed; or, to max out the detail under close scrutiny (and assuming the lens has resolved significant detail down to pixel level), print at 300dpi which on an Olympus EM5 works out at about 15in wide.

Personally, I do the former.
 
Anyone that closes in to assess the sharpness of the image is not someone that appreciates photography..

Nonsense. I do it. Do I not appreciate photography?

So how to answer the OP's question "how big can I realistically print my pics before they just look crap?" There are two possibilities: as big as you like, if the 'viewing distance equal to the diagonal' is observed; or, to max out the detail under close scrutiny (and assuming the lens has resolved significant detail down to pixel level), print at 300dpi which on an Olympus EM5 works out at about 15in wide.

Personally, I do the former.

Personally I do the latter, as there's always someone looking really close, and something that maxes out at 15" @ 300ppi will look crap at A2 when viewed close.. and it will be viewed close unless you can find a way to physically stop people going closer to it.
 
Last edited:
I viewed a exhibition today and found my self closing in for a close up , now I'm worrying that my m4/3 gear isn't up to the job of large prints that I want and thi going of moving to the fuji system for better iq ...... When does this stop then???
 
When does this stop then???

Too late. ^_^

Once upon a time, I had a little TZ5 superzoom compact. Then a coworker let me borrow his Sony DSLR.. a few months later, I bought a used D90 and a Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3. A few months on, a superb Nikkor 300mm f/4D.

Now? I'm in the middle of a week's rental of a Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6.

I'm afraid there is no escape now. =:)
 
I viewed a exhibition today and found my self closing in for a close up , now I'm worrying that my m4/3 gear isn't up to the job of large prints that I want and thi going of moving to the fuji system for better iq ...... When does this stop then???

You're probably trying to run before you can walk, and as you'll have gathered from this thread, there are no fixed rules. And certainly, there's far more to a good exhibition print than just pixels. Try making a few big prints first and see what you think.

To answer your question, when does it stop? Well it doesn't really. Photographers have always been obsessed with image quality and there is always more to be had if you spend enough money and time, and have the skills.

But in practical/affordable terms, it's probably full-frame for most people. All things being equal, the larger the sensor, the better the final image quality. That's a fact of physics and though of course all things are not always equal, I can't think of any exceptions to that in practice either. M4/3 has a sensor area of 225mm sq (though that reduces to 200mm sq with a 3:2 aspect ratio). Fuji's 1.5x format has 368mm sq so is roughly 60% larger, but full-frame has 864mm sq which is over 400% larger than M4/3.
 
Last edited:
In real world use the difference between m43 and aps is marginal. I think it would be a mistake to move purely on the small increase of iq between those systems.
 
Thank you phill for calming my anxiety :)
I do think that when my ship comes in I will go to either the sony a7 / a7r although there is a totally new question lol
 
I'd have thought it better to work out if you need to make large prints rather than just make them because it's possible.
I viewed a exhibition today and found my self closing in for a close up , now I'm worrying that my m4/3 gear isn't up to the job of large prints that I want

How much larger than you have already printed you want to go should be the determining factor on what gear you use. Everyone's concept of what is acceptable at certain sizes varies, and the print surface and method makes a difference too.

Rather than worrying that your current gear isn't up to it what you want to do make some prints from it as large as you intend going and see if they are acceptable to you.
 
True Dave true unfortunately I have gas and I'm quite a bit fickle , I suppose the truth is id like to buy into one camera system that has all the features I want and spend time learning to use that to the best of my abilities and I'm not sure I have that rite now , I understand that my equipment is very capable and at the min I am incapable ......there is a saying in fieldtarget shooting , beware the man with one gun , does that make sense ?
 
The Fuji X series is definitely giving FFs a run for its money with quite a few people switching over. But there is very little to gain unless you really want to print big.
 
Image quality is an easy and very blokeish thing to become obsessed by, and the usual recourse is to throw lots of money into a well of diminishing returns buying more shiny-precious.

Image content.. that has a far higher return but can't be addressed in such a blokeish manner.. and you very rarely see anyone discuss how they are working to improve that on an internet forum. Unlike sharpness it can't be measured, so doesn't fit the Top Trumps model of photography.

Don't obsess about how large you can print. Print large and judge the result for yourself. DSCL do an 18x12 for a very reasonable price, worth getting a few printed that size to see how they come out.
 
Image quality is an easy and very blokeish thing to become obsessed by, and the usual recourse is to throw lots of money into a well of diminishing returns buying more shiny-precious.

Image content.. that has a far higher return but can't be addressed in such a blokeish manner.. and you very rarely see anyone discuss how they are working to improve that on an internet forum. Unlike sharpness it can't be measured, so doesn't fit the Top Trumps model of photography.

Don't obsess about how large you can print. Print large and judge the result for yourself. DSCL do an 18x12 for a very reasonable price, worth getting a few printed that size to see how they come out.


Brilliant answer thank you very much
I'm currently pp some pics I love and was about to ask for printing labs recommendations so thank you very much !
 
...unfortunately I have gas...

I thought that might be the case! :D

I have used 12mp m4/3, Nikon APS and FF, various compacts, and a 16mp XE2. Comparing the detail on A3 prints they are all pretty much indistinguishable to my eyes.

The proof is in the printing. ;)
 
Ha I do so love the "look" of fuji ........ I know that means nothing .........
 
Ha I do so love the "look" of fuji ........ I know that means nothing .........
If you mean 'the look of the cameras' it's a perfectly acceptable reason to buy. If you mean the look of the files, so is that.
 
The cam
If you mean 'the look of the cameras' it's a perfectly acceptable reason to buy. If you mean the look of the files, so is that.
Cameras :)
 
If you mean 'the look of the cameras' it's a perfectly acceptable reason to buy. If you mean the look of the files, so is that.
With Fuji, it's both ☺
 
Oh, and back to the aspect ratio question.. look at the available sizes you want to print and work to that aspect ratio from the start. With uncommon aspect ratios such as 16:9 printing is more complicated (you'll need need to trim from a standard size) and custom framing gets expensive (if you must use odd sizes, use standard frames and get custom mounts cut - it's far cheaper).

I personally recommend they Fuji x-series for looks and the look. But I also recommend buying your camera body with a view to committing to it for 4+ years, and not switching too frequently as that will drain your wallet in no time at all and gets you locked into the mindset of "new gear fixes everything".

Whatever system you use, going for the semi-pro option works out cheaper in the long term than constantly updating the base level model.

Nothing wrong with MFT for looks or look either.. there's a lot to be said for a small form camera that can live in your pocket and be there when you see the shot. Better the Panny in your hand than the Hassy left behind in the studio..
 
Back on topic.. It depends on ISO, intended audience, framing and so many other things. I find this a very useful starting point:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/omd-em5/omd-em5A5.HTM

As a slight aside, I have been asked to supply 300dpi images for printing in the past. As another poster said that doesn't necessarily mean 300 sensor pixels per inch - some upscaling and interpolation seems to be permissible. I don't really understand how doing the upscaling myself differs from allowing the printer's software to do the job, and I know that dpi is largely meaningless for a digital image but the arguments got so heated that I now just do what I'm told :)
 
Back
Top