Full Version: Is 1DsIII is as good as MF for CMYK print ?
Just click on one of the choices. Just an opinion poll, no scientific value.
QUOTE (eronald @ Dec 27 2007, 03:28 PM)
Just click on one of the choices. Just an opinion poll, no scientific value.
What size?
QUOTE (eronald @ Dec 27 2007, 04:28 PM)
Just click on one of the choices. Just an opinion poll, no scientific value.
Hi!
What do you mean by "CMYK-print"?
Crappy newspaper on pink toilet-paper or a high-end magazine like Victor (by Hasselblad) or something in between?Without knowing these parameters the answer is quite obvious!
Cheers,
J
QUOTE (Schewe @ Dec 27 2007, 09:38 PM)
What size?
average
Edmund
I doubt anyone knows yet.
What's the purpose of a poll like this? A showing of hands about an 'average' sized reproduction? Pointless -- I vote maybe.
What's the purpose of a poll like this? A showing of hands about an 'average' sized reproduction? Pointless -- I vote maybe.
No way. More pixels is more tweak power.
QUOTE (Silverthorne @ Dec 28 2007, 04:10 PM)
No way. More pixels is more tweak power.
doesn't anyone here get their files cropped by art directors?? dont they ask for cropping room for various layouts. big files can save your ass.
canon files are good without cropping, but a lot of times you cant control these things.
i wonder how many people posting are really shooting commercially?
the last shoot i did, they want a super wide billboard, a not so wide billboard and a portrait magazine page out of one file (not an easy one!)
my next shoot is asking for wide as well as tall shots as well. magazines, and sharp- high res instore printouts.
sure, billboards arnt aways needing as high res, but large displays in airports etc show up crap files really badly.
paul
A digital back is really better when it works in multishots (4x or better than better : 16 shots).
I don't think that any Canon or Nikon is actually able to give the same quality of results.
I don't see the interest to buy a Canon MarkIII for 3% of my work.
PdF
I don't think that any Canon or Nikon is actually able to give the same quality of results.
I don't see the interest to buy a Canon MarkIII for 3% of my work.
QUOTE (eronald @ Dec 27 2007, 05:16 PM)
average
Edmund
Edmund
Well, there's the problem right there. If you want to by the term "average" then that would be an 8.5x11 or smaller. Look at any magazine and check the % of single page to two page spreads and you'll see that anything bigger that 8.5x11 is unusual. The size of the vast majority of commercially used images is 8.5x11 or smaller. Most stock agencies sell most of their images for 1/4 page size.
So, if you want t poll based on "average" then that's just about useless because for 8.5x11 and smaller, I doubt there would be much if any difference between your average medium format back and a 1DsM3.
QUOTE (Schewe @ Dec 28 2007, 11:44 PM)
Well, there's the problem right there. If you want to by the term "average" then that would be an 8.5x11 or smaller. Look at any magazine and check the % of single page to two page spreads and you'll see that anything bigger that 8.5x11 is unusual. The size of the vast majority of commercially used images is 8.5x11 or smaller. Most stock agencies sell most of their images for 1/4 page size.
So, if you want t poll based on "average" then that's just about useless because for 8.5x11 and smaller, I doubt there would be much if any difference between your average medium format back and a 1DsM3.
So, if you want t poll based on "average" then that's just about useless because for 8.5x11 and smaller, I doubt there would be much if any difference between your average medium format back and a 1DsM3.
Agree
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.