Jump to content

Printing from digitial


Rob1379

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I've amassed a collection of snaps from by X-E3 that I would like to print.  I'm getting slightly scuppered by frame sizes.  They are in 3:2 ration - however does this mean that i will be able to fit into a frame of this ratio  (e.g. 6inch by 9 inch) with no danger of the edges of the photo showing?  Or, is there an art to either cropping it, or getting a slightly smaller frame?

 

Secondly:  Shooting with the X-E3, with 4000 x 6000 resolution - what's the largest I can reasonably expect to print to?  My penchant is for landscapes, and viewing will generally be from 2+ metres away.


Thank you

Rob

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I've printed up to 30 x 20 from a 6mp file way back in 2005.  With the 24mp files, you can easily do 30 x 20 and larger!  I've seen 40 x 30 and bigger at a Fuji show in NYC.  Of course, we photographers tend to pixel peep.  So if you stand back 3-4 feet the image, assuming you used proper shot discipline, will be amazing.  At home I print 13 x 19 weekly but yeah you can go pretty large.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 3/25/2019 at 1:35 PM, Sharkey4711 said:

May I ask if you are printing the images yourself or sending them to a printers?

Are you displaying in frames/on boards with no surround or other?

Will you be printing the whole frame or are you planning to crop regularly?

More questions than answers, but bear with me;)

Hello all,

 

Thank you very much for your answers, and I apologise for the long period of silence from me!  I had an issue with getting alerts to tell me that a reply had been left...

 

In reply to Sharkey4711

I will be sending them to a printer.  I have been using Snapfish (I am in the UK).  They have been a decent price, and the quality has been fine for standard/ small prints. 

Question - any recommendations for a decent printer for larger prints?

 

I will be displaying in frames - likely with a mount.

 

Regarding whole frame / cropping - likely will depend on how my photo looks!  Assume more than likely that I will not be cropping.

 

Thank you all for your help,

 

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Ahoy ye hearties! Hoist ye yon Jolly Roger and Cascade away. NGC 1502 The Jolly Roger Cluster:

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

      This is the equivalent of 43 minutes, 40 seconds of exposure. NGC 1502 is a neat little cluster located in the Camelopardalis Constellation. This region of space was thought to be fairly empty by early astronomers, but as you can see, there is a lot there. Kemble's Cascade (a.k.a. Kemble 1) is named for Father Lucian Kemble, a Canadian Franciscan friar who wrote about it to Walter Scott Houston, an author for the Sky And Telescope magazine. Houston named the asterism for Fr. Kemble and the name "stuck". NGC 1501 is the Oyster Nebula. A longer focal length telescope is needed to bring this one into good viewing range, but it is well worth the effort. NGC 1502: https://skyandtelescope.org/online-gallery/ngc-1502/ Camelopardalis Constellation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelopardalis Kemble's Cascade (and NGC 1501: The Oyster Nebula): https://www.constellation-guide.com/kembles-cascade/ Arrrrrr Matey.
    • Looking for input; there are some decent deals and might want to take advantage to expand my lenses for my 100s already own: 110/2 32-64 35-70 100-200 + TC   Shooting mostly family shots, bringing my kit to capture family outings indoors and out. Tracking the 63/43 effective FLs on the two, but has anybody used both? Would the 55 (covered by two zooms right now) be redundant? Would the 80 be too similar in character to my 110 for portraiture?
    • See what I mean? Two instantaneous ads. Worthless.   
    • What's the deal Fuji X Forum? I'm noticing there are seldom replies to any topics - except for advertisements posted as replies. Really lame. Anyone else noticing the only reply they receive to a question is an advert?  🤠 fotomatt in Colorado  
×
×
  • Create New...