Sigh. Pretty Sure I Need A New Camera...Confirm or Deny

chaselton

About four years ago I bought my first DSLR, a Nikon D40 kit from KEH (grade NEW or LN). It was and is a great starter camera, but as I moved from sharing the occasional picture in forums to signing up with SmugMug, I noticed a problem I've ignored until now.

That problem (and maybe it's not one) is limited print and display sizes. I shoot in RAW and edit in GIMP and even with minimal cropping the largest SmugMug will display my photos is "Large." More importantly, when I've requested photos printed from Imagekind, I can't order the larger sizes.

After doing some research I've got a hunch that, in order to take photos I can print in larger sizes, I'll need a camera with a) more megapixels and/or b) a larger sensor. Am I right?

If not, let me know what settings I need to tweak in the D40 to produce photos I can print in larger sizes.

Richard

The D40 can produce 6 Mpixel images, which is more than enough to produce large prints. I suspect that you have your camera set to produce medium or small images, which lets you get more pics on a card but limits the number of pixels. Set your camera to large (check the documentation), and make sure that you are not doing anything in GIMP that downsizes the images, like saving the converted JPG at too low a quality level.

Sam

chaselton wrote: »

About four years ago I bought my first DSLR, a Nikon D40 kit from KEH (grade NEW or LN). It was and is a great starter camera, but as I moved from sharing the occasional picture in forums to signing up with SmugMug, I noticed a problem I've ignored until now.

That problem (and maybe it's not one) is limited print and display sizes. I shoot in RAW and edit in GIMP and even with minimal cropping the largest SmugMug will display my photos is "Large." More importantly, when I've requested photos printed from Imagekind, I can't order the larger sizes.

After doing some research I've got a hunch that, in order to take photos I can print in larger sizes, I'll need a camera with a) more megapixels and/or b) a larger sensor. Am I right?

If not, let me know what settings I need to tweak in the D40 to produce photos I can print in larger sizes.

The answer is a definite YES & NO!

A newer camera with newer sensor technology and additional MP will capture more detail which will allow more post processing and printing options.

I have printed 20"X30" images from my original 6MP rebel without ant issues.

It really boils down to what you want and your budget.

Sam

chaselton

Richard wrote: »

The D40 can produce 6 Mpixel images, which is more than enough to produce large prints. I suspect that you have your camera set to produce medium or small images, which lets you get more pics on a card but limits the number of pixels. Set your camera to large (check the documentation), and make sure that you are not doing anything in GIMP that downsizes the images, like saving the converted JPG at too low a quality level.

Not sure if you caught this in the original post, but I always shoot in RAW.
Also, when I edit in GIMP I always save the JPG at 100% quality. Even with these camera and GIMP settings, I'm still unable to order the larger prints at Imagekind...which blocks sizes based on the uploaded image quality.

Sam wrote:

The answer is a definite YES & NO!

A newer camera with newer sensor technology and additional MP will capture more detail which will allow more post processing and printing options.

I have printed 20"X30" images from my original 6MP rebel without ant issues.

It really boils down to what you want and your budget.

Er...the 'definite YES & NO' answer is confusing to me...

ziggy53

chaselton wrote: »

... I shoot in RAW and edit in GIMP and even with minimal cropping the largest SmugMug will display my photos is "Large." More importantly, when I've requested photos printed from Imagekind, I can't order the larger sizes. ...

A Smugmug "Large" displayed image is up to 800 pixels wide and up to 600 pixels tall (respecting the aspect ratio and image orientation). Your camera is able to record images of 3008 pixels wide by 2000 pixels tall.

I suspect that your GIMP process is incorrect and limiting your output resolution.

Try another RAW converter first. RawTherapee is free and supports your camera, and RawTherapee has a wonderful RAW demosaicing engine, with a noise reduction section that's among the best available. There are versions available for Windows, Mac and Linux. Make sure to match the correct version to your computer too; so if you have a 32 bit OS, match that to a 32 bit version of RawTherapee.

http://rawtherapee.com/downloads

The latest Windows 64 bit files are at:
http://www.visualbakery.com/RawTherapee/Downloads.aspx

Printed at 240 dpi you should expect print sizes up to 12 1/2" on the long side, that still look very nice. Simpler subjects may print nicely much larger (partly because your viewing distance is typically further for large prints).

ziggy53

Visiting your site, I see that you are just barely cropping many of your images and that you are realizing much of your camera's resolution potential:



From this information your current workflow looks fine, if you are otherwise happy with the RAW processing.

I can't understand why your printing is being limited unless you are trying to print mural sizes. You may wish to contact the SmugMug Support Heroes for some help:

http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/emails/new

chaselton

Richard wrote: »

The D40 can produce 6 Mpixel images, which is more than enough to produce large prints. I suspect that you have your camera set to produce medium or small images, which lets you get more pics on a card but limits the number of pixels. Set your camera to large (check the documentation), and make sure that you are not doing anything in GIMP that downsizes the images, like saving the converted JPG at too low a quality level.

ziggy53 wrote: »

Visiting your site, I see that you are just barely cropping many of your images and that you are realizing much of your camera's resolution potential:



From this information your current workflow looks fine, if you are otherwise happy with the RAW processing.

I can't understand why your printing is being limited unless you are trying to print mural sizes. You may wish to contact the SmugMug Support Heroes for some help:

http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/emails/new

I'm not sure what size "mural" is. I do, however, want to be able to have the option of printing 20"x30" and poster sizes.

I'll contact SmugMug using the link you provided...thanks, by the way...but I'm also running into this problem on Imagekind...another site I occasionally use for printing. If it's not a limitation of my camera, what could it be?

ziggy53 wrote:

Try another RAW converter first. RawTherapee is free and supports your camera, and RawTherapee has a wonderful RAW demosaicing engine, with a noise reduction section that's among the best available. There are versions available for Windows, Mac and Linux. Make sure to match the correct version to your computer too; so if you have a 32 bit OS, match that to a 32 bit version of RawTherapee.

I tried using RawTherapee when I switched to x64 Windows and was having problems getting GIMP to work. I found it complicated and tricky to use, plus I couldn't figure out how to integrate it with the version of GIMP I finally got to work with 64-bit Windows.

ziggy53

chaselton wrote: »

I'm not sure what size "mural" is. I do, however, want to be able to have the option of printing 20"x30" and poster sizes. ...

Here is the "Imagekind" page with recommended print sizes:
http://www.imagekind.com/printing.aspx

... and the "SmugMug" page with recommended print sizes:
http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/93359

There is a considerable discrepancy between the two recommendations. So what's a person to do?

As I mentioned before, simple subject matter generally allows larger print sizes than complicated subject matter with lots of fine detail. While both sites have their recommendations, I believe that it's best for each individual to determine their own criteria for image quality. As such, it's really important that you print some of your images at size, so that you can see for yourself the results.

Dreadnote

For what it's worth, with Perfect Resize 7, previously Genuine Fractals, you can upsize your file to more or less any size you want. Does a pretty clean job for a pretty small price - much less than the price of a new camera. It's either $49 or $149 depending on which version you get. They do a free trial to.

chaselton

ziggy53 wrote: »

Here is the "Imagekind" page with recommended print sizes:
http://www.imagekind.com/printing.aspx

... and the "SmugMug" page with recommended print sizes:
http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/93359

There is a considerable discrepancy between the two recommendations. So what's a person to do?

As I mentioned before, simple subject matter generally allows larger print sizes than complicated subject matter with lots of fine detail. While both sites have their recommendations, I believe that it's best for each individual to determine their own criteria for image quality. As such, it's really important that you print some of your images at size, so that you can see for yourself the results.

Sorry for taking so long to respond...primary job is insanely busy.

I got a reply from a SmugMug support hero...I opened a support ticket with them and attached a photo...and it turns out that screen size plays a part in determining the largest size displayed when the photo is clicked in the gallery.

Another interesting bit of info I discovered from the SmugMug support email was the difference between size in MB and size in MP. It looks like I have more research to do; I need to find if there's a correlation between the two.

Lastly, based on your info ziggy53, I know I have more work to do. I assumed that the display/print size was a common standard between sites...especially since with Imagekind some print sizes are blocked based on what photos you upload. Now it seems as though I'll need to order several prints in different sizes to determine what sizes to offer...which could get expensive fast. It makes me wonder how photographers here evaluate/determine the best size for each photo...but I'll post that as a different question in a more appropriate forum.

chaselton

Coda: Also, while I am relieved that a new camera isn't something I need, I'm also secretly disappointed that I can't justify the purchase of a Canon T3i or T4i :-(.

ziggy53

As long as you have maxed out image quality by virtue of the best optics and have appropriate lighting, you "can" achieve additional scene detail through a more modern camera with a lower-noise imager and more pixels.

You can also get more accurate color rendition (including smoother color transitions) with more pixels, because Bayer image chips, like those used in Nikon and Canon cameras, only represent partial color and luminance information per each photosite. With an R-G-B-G filter arrangement, that means that "all" of the photosites are having to interpolate color and luminance information to form each pixel in the demosaiced image. Having a lot more photosites can help the statistical accuracy for both color and luminance in that you increase the data available for statistical sampling.

I'm just saying that if you have very good lenses and lighting which allows low ISOs, the next step for image quality improvement is more megapixels, so long as you don't swamp the imager with noise. If you're looking for permission to purchase a new camera body, you have my permission*, as long as you have discretionary income available and balance the body with good lenses and good light. (Notice how I keep stressing these points.)

*(... and my permission is worth exactly what you think it's worth. )