rickp Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 For what it is worth Fine Art America say it should be 100 DPI minimum, and presumably they would play a little safe, not wanting large prints returned too often, Hi, I'm curious about where FAA makes such a statement. I could not find one, but I did find several images that would have to be printed at 85 - 90 PPI to meet the size that was offered for sale. You can determine the print resolution for images with the close-up preview enabled, because that view tells you the pixel dimensions of the underlying image. Regards Lionel If you go to "Default Settings", in "Behind The Scenes", there is an explanation to the right of the boxes for Default Print Prices. Also, if FAA do not think the IQ is good enough when an order is placed, they will not print it - that was mentioned somewhere on the FAA Forum I think, which makes sense, as they wouldn't want to be sending out crap products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionel Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 For what it is worth Fine Art America say it should be 100 DPI minimum, and presumably they would play a little safe, not wanting large prints returned too often, Hi, I'm curious about where FAA makes such a statement. I could not find one, but I did find several images that would have to be printed at 85 - 90 PPI to meet the size that was offered for sale. You can determine the print resolution for images with the close-up preview enabled, because that view tells you the pixel dimensions of the underlying image. Regards Lionel If you go to "Default Settings", in "Behind The Scenes", there is an explanation to the right of the boxes for Default Print Prices. Also, if FAA do not think the IQ is good enough when an order is placed, they will not print it - that was mentioned somewhere on the FAA Forum I think, which makes sense, as they wouldn't want to be sending out crap products. Thanks - I'll go take a look. Regards Lionel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionel Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Well, I've been to that page before, obviously did not do a good job of remembering what I read. But it did not take me long to find an image being offered at a lower resolution - 4122 px available at 48", approximately 86PPI. I was very surprised when I first saw FAA offering prints at such resolution. It reminded me that there's a whole theory of visual acuity based on the human eye's angular resolution and viewing distance, which is why those highway billboards are printed at 50PPI. It makes me wonder about the value of really large images, measured in pixels, and it's a short step from there to the same question about large format photography. Regards Lionel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted May 7, 2014 Author Share Posted May 7, 2014 I have finally spoken to the designer and he is looking for prints up to 50 x 40 |(cm I assume, waiting for a response) or about 20 x 16inches. So that should be no problem for my Canon 1Ds3 or even my Fuji X-T1. But he needs 20+ pics and I only have a couple of days free. Fortunately many are repeats but with different product! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickp Posted May 8, 2014 Share Posted May 8, 2014 Well, I've been to that page before, obviously did not do a good job of remembering what I read. But it did not take me long to find an image being offered at a lower resolution - 4122 px available at 48", approximately 86PPI. I was very surprised when I first saw FAA offering prints at such resolution. It reminded me that there's a whole theory of visual acuity based on the human eye's angular resolution and viewing distance, which is why those highway billboards are printed at 50PPI. It makes me wonder about the value of really large images, measured in pixels, and it's a short step from there to the same question about large format photography. Regards Lionel If it was printed on canvas at that size it may well be OK - canvas is a lot more forgiving than a glossy print. I'm sure that if the quality was not going to be good enough though, even on canvas, FAA would not let the sale go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted May 23, 2014 Author Share Posted May 23, 2014 My pictures are in place at The Old Volunteer public house in Carlton, Nottingham - 12, all at 18x12in. They look fine but I think the designer printed them using a laser printer or ink-jet, they don't quite have the saturation of a photo print. But they are fine as decor in a dark pub. Anyway I had compliments on them. They would have gone much larger if it had been necessary. Thanks for the advice everybody. At least I have a "commercial" assignment in my portfolio; now just need to earn enough to buy a new set of strobes - I fried my cheap 20 year old ones on this job! Obviously not designed to be left running all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 They're not Minilite 200s, perchance? Mine recently fried the decoupling capacitor across the switch and it was an easy fix. £2 off ebay if you don't blanch at the sight of a soldering iron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted May 23, 2014 Author Share Posted May 23, 2014 No they are old Jessops Powerflash so I am not too worried but as I have used them so rarely in last 10 years it is not a surprise. I was setting up to do more studio work before I got this job. I have taken one apart because my guess was either flash tube or the main capacitor - the flash was getting weaker and weaker. I have only had a quick look but I will give them a better going over at the weekend as I am not all afraid of using a soldering iron on electronics (I already have a suitably fine one). The capacitor across the switch is an interesting thought. First impression was that there was no obvious overheating of any of the components, Any thoughts how to test a flash tube? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 IME ailing flash tubes occasionally fail to fire. 'Occasional' becomes 'usual' and finally 'always' over a fairly short period. That's what happened to mine- I always got a full-power flash, when I got one at all. To test one you probably need a working head! A weak flash does suggest a main capacitor. Presumably you didn't get a ready light. Components do have a limited life, they can dry out. Mine smoked alarmingly, though, which doesn't sound like what happened to you. Fortunately monoblocs are much cheaper than they used to be. Incidentally, as they were the Multiblitz agent, the replacement tubes were the only things I've ever bought new from Hasselblad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Noyce Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Probably end up getting payment in kind - oh what a shame . Will I have to put one bottle in five aside for the taxman? Payment in kind is still payment and should be declared Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted May 23, 2014 Author Share Posted May 23, 2014 IME ailing flash tubes occasionally fail to fire. 'Occasional' becomes 'usual' and finally 'always' over a fairly short period. That's what happened to mine- I always got a full-power flash, when I got one at all. To test one you probably need a working head! A weak flash does suggest a main capacitor. Presumably you didn't get a ready light. Components do have a limited life, they can dry out. Mine smoked alarmingly, though, which doesn't sound like what happened to you. Fortunately monoblocs are much cheaper than they used to be. Incidentally, as they were the Multiblitz agent, the replacement tubes were the only things I've ever bought new from Hasselblad. Sounds as though it could be the flash tube and I assumed working electronics would be required to test it. I will take the other one apart as that was the one that had failed in use but I had charged it so did not want to poke around in it - not with a potentially fully charged 1600uF capacitor. The ready light was coming on but wondered if it might not be holding enough charge to fire the flash tube. Thinking about it, lack of smoke or smell probably points at the flash tube rather than failed capacitor. As you say monobloacs are a lot cheaper and more capable than they were so I am not going to worry too much. I probably only need a couple of fairly basic 200W/s units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.