I have seen messages that suggest 200dpi is a good resolution for publication quality work. What would be required to approach fine art photography? My wife is used to doing B&W 4x5 work and I wonder what resolution digital back might come close for her.

-- Mike Kelly (kellys@alaska.net), September 17, 1998

Answers

200dpi is *output* resolution. The resolution of your back would depend on how large you wanted to print. If you just want results comparable to your 4x5 film work, at approximately 50lp/mm your film is capturing an image around 10,000x10,000 pixels. That's why you can make poster-sized enlargements of those negatives without seeing the grain.

In medium format digital you'll be able to choose between scanning backs (require hot lights and stationary subjects) and one-shot b&w backs (much more expensive for the same res, and limited resolution). If you want color you will always need multiple shots or scans (same b&w equipment but with filters).

-- Ben Jackson (ben@ben.com), September 20, 1998.

Bob, that is not quite what I am asking. Given that 200dpi output res is considered by magazines to be publishable quality, what output dpi would be fine art quality. In other words, if you wanted to use a fancy hi-res dye sub printer to make prints for a gallery show rather than a magzine printing process what output res would be required to be considered adequate. I realize that your back\camera will have to have higer resolution to print larger images but the question is independent of the maxium print size for a given output res but rather what is the required output res to be considered on par with film based prints? Thanks

-- Mike Kelly (kellys@alaska.net), September 20, 1998.

Mork,

200 dpi continuous tone output is good enough for gallery work. To look at it another way: if you want large format prints from digital you'll almost certainly be using a LightJet 5000 which prints at either 305 or 152dpi.

I still think working from the film resolution makes sense: You can always transfer your digital image to a 4x5 chrome with a film recorder and print using the techniques you're used to. You only need to consider other resolutions if you are trying to get higher quality (or are willing to sacrifice quality). Either way the 100Mpixel estimate is a good baseline.

--Ben

-- Ben Jackson (ben@ben.com), September 21, 1998.

Ben, I am sorry for being so dense but would not a print used for a gallery show be a lot higher resolution than a print screened at 135 lines in a magazine? I am suprised that you say the a 200dpi image which is satisfactory for a mag would also yield an image satisfactory for a show. I would think that you would need 300-400dpi to make an image that would satisfy a "fine art" photographer. I am I missing something here?

-- Mike Kelly (kellys@alaska.net), September 21, 1998.

The difference with the mag print is that it's reduced to a halftone screen, and the pitch of the pixels in the file can cause interference patterns with the halftoning process. True continuous-tone 200 dpi looks pretty darn good. (About equivalent to the upper end of drugstore photo prints, I'd say.) For gallery-quality work though, I'd plan on going with 300 dpi. As Ben points out, the best output device for that sort of thing is the Cymbolic Sciences LightJet 5000, which prints natively at 305dpi anyway. From personal experience (looking at Fuji Pictrography output), you (or at least *I*) can't tell any difference between 300dpi and 400dpi on a true continuous-tone printer.

Bottom line, my vote is for 300dpi as a good standard for high-quality art prints.

BTW, for prints up to about 11x17, Fuji now makes an A3 (or thereabouts) Pictrography printer, and the quality of the Pictrography process is phenomenal. (You'll need to work at a bit to get tone curves set up to compensate for the Pictrography's somewhat dark calibration.)

-- Dave Etchells (detchells@imaging-resource.com), September 21, 1998.