Printing

File: DSC07715.jpg (756KB, 2000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

756KB, 2000x3000px

Really, no one ever does prints here?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	ILCE-7 v3.20
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016-08-21T22:57:08+09:00
Exposure Time	30 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Brightness	-5.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Image Width	2000
Image Height	3000
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

not printing these are you?

>>2960875
lol

Glossy, if you want super good quality for close examination, you want 300 dpi or more. Those are raw pixels, son. Your A7 can print 20 x 14" (well, 13.33") at that resolution, which I guess is in between A2 and A3 in britbong paper sizes.

If you want passable quality for a big print you look at from six feet away, 200 dpi will suffice.

I like epson luster. Glossy looks like shit.

File: _DSC5109.jpg (808KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

808KB, 3000x2000px

>>2960875
>generic troll comment
do you have anything to say in regards to printing those? or even just CC?
>>2960895
thank you, figured size-wise I could look at this sort of sizes. not looking for billboards-huge, just something that can be hanged at a wall without looking too ridiculously small.
>>2960963
>epson luster
looked it up, it seems to be some high-grade paper. do you use it on a printer of your own?

also, I'm not too bothered by noise when it's still in digital form, but once printed, does it become more annoying? should I be careful about dark scenes losing all nuances? or maybe bright aread on the contrary? ooh, and what about gamut? I guess sRGB is not too accurate to what I'll get, is it?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	ILCE-7 v1.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015-08-08T01:31:43-15:00
Exposure Time	30 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	-5.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2000
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2961433
>do you have anything to say in regards to printing those? or even just CC?

they are bad and awkward pictures. not suitable for gift.

>>2961434
>bad and awkward
okay
>not suitable for gift
that I can agree with. those pictures I'm only considering for myself.

Hey Anon.

It's really cool that you have this hobby and like taking pictures and maybe one day, if you fall in love with it, you'll pursue it to the point of having your work in exhibitions like I did. But art is such a subjective thing, and so are photographs. Unless the exchange is between art majors, collectors, or grandmas with kitschy taste - unless you can truly predict what pieces your recipients will like (if any) - please don't gift them. I feel awkward for you. I feel awkward because, though you may like these pictures (and there are some reflections of positive aesthetic qualities to them) they will probably make the recipient see you differently. I have my work in galleries, I sell prints on average between $300-600. And I would never gift any of my photographs to anyone except for a landscape picture I might have taken on a trip with my dad to my dad, who gushes over everything I do anyway. Please don't make Christmas awkward for your friends or family.

>>2961443
then youre cool.

gift pictures that people have already said "omg i love that pic woooooow". and even then, do a small print so they can put it in the kitchen and not forced to put it in some huge central space.

>>2961433
>cc

Dude, they have massive amounts of motion blur and noise, learn 2 tripod.

That's before we get onto the fact they're poorly composed, poorly edited and of absolutely nothing.

You only like them because you did them, trust bruh, people will feel hella awkward receiving these and feeling compelled to hang them.

>>2961448
Thanks for the warning, I guess.
How do you do your prints?

>>2961450
This. One of the first thing you should learn as any of artist is to not force your work on others.
Most people decorate their house in a specific way that suits them, even if they like their work they might not want to put it up.

>>2961433
>CC
they're out of focus and poorly composed. the stars are ugly as shit.
Try a much longer exposure and get star trails or something, because right now it's ugly.
Also, resize your god damn photos you fucking cunt.