Sony Alpha a65 - Photo Size

[ecvilleneuve]

Just wondering I just got a new Sony Alpha a65 and wondering what's the biggest size print I can get with good quality

[Golem]

Just wondering I just got a new Sony Alpha

a65 and wondering what's the biggest size

print I can get with good quality

Unlimited ... well, it's limited only by the sizes of

paper and printing machines on the planet.

 

This is no joke, nor any expression of admiration

for the a65. It's just the facts. So ... ENJOY !

 

I'll leave it to you to research/confirm the math/

technology behind this. I get waaaay too looong

winded trying to explain such stuff :-)

[molan]

I do not agree with Golem at all, although I think I know what he is getting at.

 

I'll uses the old calculations you can google about 300 DPI print, it's a good rule of thumb.

[addicted2light]

I wholeheartedly agree with Golem.

 

The "dirty secrets" of a good print are:

- subject (you can blow up street subjects or portraits way more easily than detailed landscapes)

- proper printing sharpening (i.e. correct amount for the kind of printer you're using, the size at which you're printing, and the kind of medium you're printing on; all that is different from the "creative" sharpening, and from the "import" sharpening you should apply to your raw files)

- viewing distance (this will naturally increase with larger prints; as a rule of thumb people will be comfortable in observing a print at a distance close in length to the diagonal of the print itself)

 

Medium format film images were blown out pretty big, nobody complained and there is still plenty of them in galleries around the world (and they look stunning). If you ever look at a medium format film scan at 100%, now that we're accustomed to the "clarity" of digital, you'll cringe (think something like a digital file at 25.000iso)...and still they print great with proper technique.

 

IMHO, as long as we're talking "large sensors" (micro 4/3 and up) nowadays you can blow up everything with at least 16Mp to every conceivable size and nobody will say a thing, with the possible exception of a couple of the pixel-peeper photographers By the way, most of the people who talk in online forums etc. has never printed a thing, and judges the images only on a display. In the last month alone I made more than 120 prints (yep, I have to stop     ) and let me tell you that what you see in a print and what you see on a display can be really very different things...

 

Even a master printer like Ctein (http://ctein.com/whoami.htm) a few days ago said something similar, affirming that a 16Mp micro 4/3 sensor nowadays gives better results - all things considered - than medium format film used to:

 

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/03/when-will-micro-43-equal-medium-format-film-we-have-the-definitive-answer.html

 

For a few examples you can also check a post of mine of last month or so:

 

How good are 16Mp? Olympus OM-D E-M10 + kit zoom 14-42 II vs Fuji GS645 + Fujichrome Velvia 50 Iso

 

 

 

 

[Austerror]

I wholeheartedly agree with Golem.

 

- viewing distance (this will naturally increase with larger prints; as a rule of thumb people will be comfortable in observing a print at a distance close in length to the diagonal of the print itself)

 

This!

 

Any photo can look pixelated if you are looking close enough.  

 

Photos from my old Nex-5 look great at B0 sizes.