The Lumix Diaries: Printing Large Photos
Printing Large Photos – A Comparison of the LX100, GH4, and D800
The Lumix Diaries sets out in a test of printing large photos, mainly to see how large we can print from a Lumix GH4. A few weeks ago I received a question from one of our readers. Roberto Facchini wanted to know about printing large photos from the 16-megapixel Micro Four Thirds sensor camera, the Panasonic Lumix GH4. At the time I had recently printed several 24 x 36 inch black and white images that I felt were more than acceptable, and in fact I can confidently say were absolutely stunning. I had used the Lumix GH4 and the Olympus 45-150mm F/2.8 lens.
This image “Raven Spirit” is one of my fine art prints from the Yellowstone Collection. The image size is in this photo is 24 x 36 inches and was shot with the Lumix GH4 and the Olympus 40-150mm F/2.8 lens. The details in this image are spectacular.
I could see detail in the branches of the trees and in the snow as if it had come from a much higher megapixel camera. That said, I had not shot the same image with any other system so I decided to do a real world test.
Equipment Used
For the test shoot I borrowed a 28mm F/1.8 Nikkor lens for my Nikon D800 camera from Bozeman Camera. For the GH4, I used the Leica Summilux 15mm F/1.7 lens which when multiplied by two it is a 30mm F/1.7. Both lenses were very close in focal length and speed. Finally, I decided to throw my Panasonic Lumix LX100 into the mix which has a fixed zoom and non-interchangeable 24-75mm F/1.7-2.8 lens. All of the images were shot at F/8 for the most optimum aperture.
Software Workflow
I loaded each camera’s photos into my Lightroom library and then took them out to DXO Optics Pro 10. DXO worked its magic, optimizing the images based on camera and lens calibration needs. I tweaked each just a bit for optimum exposure and then sent the images over to my Lightroom library as Tiffs. Next I sent them on to my assistant Jill where she ran them through Perfect Resize, the former Genuine Fractals.
All three prints, Lumix GH4, Nikon D800 and Lumix LX100 on a large table, but not large enough, in our studio.
She then sharpened them with Nik Sharper Pro and used a sharpening setting to be viewed at two feet away. Sharpening for this close of a distance is not what we would normally do for a print the size of 40×60 inches, but we were planning to be reviewing them within inches for this test.
Printer
Dan taking a large 40×60 inch print off the HP Z3200 printer.
One of the reasons I decided to do these tests was my access to a very large printer, the HP Z3200. I’m very fortunate to have such an amazing printer right here in our studio and I know many of our readers aren’t that lucky. Even though prints of this size aren’t cheap to produce, even when you own all of the equipment, It’s by far cheaper than having to send these photos out to a printing house. So we fired up the Z3200 and ran our tests on HP’s Professional Satin Photo Paper.
Sample Images
Lumix LX100
Montana’s Paradise Valley bathed in evening light during early summer. Panasonic Lumix LX100
This little camera did amazingly well but when compared to either the Lumix GH4 or the Nikon D800 it was no contest. I was actually quite surprised since I’ve used this camera a great deal and thought it would do better. The rock in the foreground looked very strange and blotchy. Many of the blades of grass were pixelated. If we looked at this print from four to six feet as intended for a print 40 x 60 inches I would maybe be a bit less critical. But the goal was to look at all images from 12 to 24 inches and then make a comparison. Unfortunately this little camera failed this test.
Lumix GH4 with 15mm F/1.7 Leica Summilux lens
Evening light bathes Paradise Valley, Montana. Panasonic Lumix GH4 with 15mm Summilux F/1.7
For a Micro Four Thirds camera I was very impressed to see the details and sharpness in a print the size of 40 x 60 inches from the Lumix GH4. Was it as good as my Nikon D800? In short, no. But the grasses showed no pixelation. They just weren’t as sharp, and the lichens on the rock looked a bit blotchy but not nearly as bad as the LX100.
Nikon D800 with 28mm F/1.8 lens
Evening light bathes Paradise Valley, Montana. Nikon D800 with 28mm F/1.8
My Nikon steals the prize in this test but I was actually less surprised than I thought I would be. The Nikon produced the most sharp and intricately detailed image, as I expected; however, not as big of a difference as I had expected between the D800 and the GH4. I was actually quite surprised. Even so, the D800 image was definitely sharper than my GH4 but not as sharp as I had thought the 36-megapixel file would be.
Conclusion
So there you have it. In the test of these three cameras printing large photos, the winner was the Nikon D800, second was the Lumix GH4 and far back in third was the Lumix LX100. Results that were basically as I had expected although I thought the LX100 would have done a bit better. Even though the Nikon D800 is hands down the finest image in detail and sharpness, that doesn’t mean you can’t go very large with the Lumix GH4. As I mentioned at the head of this blog post, I’ve printed 24 x 36 inch prints from the GH4 that hold details and color that are worthy of museum quality presentations. This was a great test and I thank Robert Facchini for inspiring me to get out make this test happen.
So the question for all of you is, how big is big enough? The Lumix GH4, with a superb quality lens like the Olympus 40-150mm or the Lumix Vario 35-100mm F/2.8, 12-34mm F/2.8, Leica 15mm F/1.7, or the Leica Nocticron 42.5mm F/1.2, will all produce gorgeous prints up to 24 x 36 inches. But how many of you print that big even once a year? I doubt there are many. Most of us are posting our images on social media, many of our Explorers are creating books, and I’m shooting Lumix gear for magazine publication and some fine art prints. Even the GH4 now produces better quality images than I saw with medium format in the film days. The argument is almost useless but I’m happy Robert asked the question so I was able to spend an evening in the Paradise Valley of Montana finding the answer.
I would love to hear from any of you who have an opinion on how big is big enough. When printing large photos, do many of you print as large as the images I did for this test, 40 x 60 inches? What are the sizes most of you print at? Please add your voice to the comments below.
John PackardOn May. 17th, 2017
I am commenting in the GH5 Facebook page with someone who is claiming a 12X9 print from the GH5 is inferior to a 12X9 print from a 36MP camera. He is also implying a 60-inch print will not be good. Have you tried this comparison with the GH5 yet? Thanks.
Daniel J. CoxOn May. 18th, 2017
John, I tried finding the conversation you refer to so I could join in. Would appreciate you posting the Facebook address here if you can. In regards to whether one would see differences in a 12×9 inch print between a GH5 and a 36MP camera; I would suggest even a suspicious observer would not. At 60 inches, I would say yes, you would see a difference. However, I’ve printed images as large as 60 inches on the long side, produced with the Lumix GH4, and though there is a bit less detail when viewed within inches of the print, at normal viewing distances, it’s virtually not discernible. But the question is, how often do people produce 60 inch prints? I almost never do and I own a 44 inch printer that can easily do 60 inch prints. My question to photographers, who argue the GH5 or any other MFT camera can’t compete with larger sensor cameras, is; what are you doing with your pictures? I have
several prints in my home that are as large as 24×36 inches and nobody ever complains of any kind of lack of quality. You just can’t see it, even when as close as six inches. I will admit that if you need the absolute ultimate quality beyond 24×36 inches, a full frame, 36MP or larger sensor camera will be the way to go. But most photographers have fallen for the media hype that they need cameras and lenses that produce quality they will never use. The spend loads of money and carry massive lenses and bodies, all with the idea that they need it to get great images. I’m here to argue 98% of them do not need it.
John PackardOn May. 18th, 2017
Hi Daniel- Thanks for your response. Here is a link to the FB conversation: https://www.facebook.com/groups/pansonicgh5/?multi_permalinks=1711032072529827&comment_id=1711438515822516¬if_t=like¬if_id=1495058875109801 The fellow making the claims in my previous post is “Soufou Lee”. The post was made by “Ross Grieve”. Would love your input on this one.
Dennis LindenOn May. 19th, 2017
Well, my 2 bits here is that I have a series of 9×15 inch prints hanging in my offices. They are all made using proper inkjet printing technique, Epson hi-res on Luster paper. I have used a D800, a Sigma dp2, a D7200, and a Gx85. Regardless on my self deprecating pixel peeping I can say the following: Pixels on the monitor do not equal picoliters on paper; Unless you print, you really don’t know how the image will really appear. In the last 10 years, no one says that one image looks better or worse based on which camera, lens or sensor took the image. You must use proper printing methods, but that’s a whole lot of discussion. I am about to get some printed up to the 24×36 inch size, and I doubt that sensors used will have any correlation to the final prints.
Michael FasanoOn May. 5th, 2017
Great article! I do video and photography as a hobby and I was originally considering some full frame options for an upgrade to my Canon cropped sensor. The more I read, the more I’m convinced that a quality 4/3 is the way to go. The cameras and lenses are so much cheaper and lighter! I can get all the video options I want while still being able to take great photos.
Daniel J. CoxOn May. 5th, 2017
It’s real Michael. I’ve been pushing the MFT’s limits since the beginning in 2008. It just keeps getting better.
MichalOn Feb. 22nd, 2016
Isn’t the problem with LX100 related to its 12.7 Mpx multiaspect sensor?
Daniel J. CoxOn Feb. 25th, 2016
Not sure Michal. I personally think the most notable disadvantage is the fixed zoom lens.
ChrisOn Feb. 7th, 2016
Do you think the difference between MFT and the Nikon would be even less apparent for portrait photography and the like?
Daniel J. CoxOn Feb. 7th, 2016
Chris,
Virtually all the full frame cameras are overkill for most people including portrait photographers. I know many portrait specialists who are shooting the Lumix system having sold their Nikon and Canon gear and have never looked back. A truly great portrait lens is the Lumix/Leica 42.5mm F/1.2. MFT equivalent of 85mm F/1.2.
ChrisOn Feb. 8th, 2016
Thanks for the reply Daniel. I actually have a GH4 and a set of the Voigtlander 0.95f primes including their 42.5mm – bought initially for video but I am also getting into photography on the side so am glad it’s up to the task!
Daniel J. CoxOn Feb. 8th, 2016
Chris, it’s such a shame that Olympus gets all the press on the stills side of these MFT cameras. Panasonic is building some of the best technology of all still photo camera companies, things like touch screen AF, 4K Photo Mode, descent to great higher ISO’s 12 FPS burst rate, stellar lenses like the 42.5mm Leica, DFD predictive AF, and many more options. You won’t be disappointed.
Tim AugerOn Jan. 17th, 2016
I wonder why the LX100 shot looked more pixellated? Were you shooting jpegs (in which case I suppose the in-camera conversion might be the culprit)? If you were shooting raw and uprezzing sensibly both the Panasonics should have looked similar from that point of view. That said, a lot of the sample shots from the LX100 that I have seen have looked rather disappointing, particularly around the edges. I’m not sure the lens is that great. Incidentally, as someone else has pointed out, f/8 is not the optimum aperture for M43. Generally 5.6 looks better.
Daniel J. CoxOn Jan. 17th, 2016
Agree with your assessment of the LX100 Tim. I think that was the biggest surprise of this test for me was a lack of quality in the LX100 file. I also felt it was a bit pixelated. It did come from a RAW file so I’m not sure if we went wrong on our end printing or what. Might be a great reason to try it again. Thanks for your input.
Randy KokeschOn Sep. 22nd, 2015
I’ve been thinking about replacing my D800 with a D810 or possibly switching to a micro four thirds system. I was wondering what your opinion is on how the 4/3 cameras handle noise in night photography, such as photographing Aurora or situations when photographing wildlife in low light, requiring higher ISO settings?
Daniel J. CoxOn Sep. 22nd, 2015
All good questions Randy. Unfortunately, low light and night photography are probably the only areas the Lumix line of cameras are not going to compete with a full frame Nikon. That said, I do feel they can compete with a Nikon D810 in the noise category due to it’s much larger sensor. If you were going to compare it to the D750 or D4, Nikon would certainly win. Not so sure about a D810 unless you re referring to the Astro model. I’m currently in South Africa and we plan on doing night photography. I bought the Olympus 12mm F/2 just for this trip to use with my Lumix GX8 and GH4. Getting faster lenses is going to help the smaller MFT sensor but how much I’m not sure. I’ll be writing the shoot up for the Blog so stay tuned. Olympus is also supposed to be working on a 12mm F/1.0 which I will buy the second it’s announced and that will really be helpful for the auroras or night sky photography.
Without a doubt the full frame cameras are certainly the ultimate for low light and night photography. That said, the MFT cameras do so much more. I do see the possibility of myself owning a full frame camera for the things you mention, auroras and night visions, with one wide, fixed focal length lens like a 24mm F/1.4. For everything else I’m more than happy with the quality and overall performance of the MFT Lumix system for wildlife and other photography. Time will tell when the Lumix system will catch the Full Frame systems in this unique section of photography. I do predict it will happen. Yes, Full Frame will also move forward but the thing I constantly ask myself and others is “how much do you need” for what we use our pictures for? Is the price of a $3000.00 body worth it? Is the weight and bulk worth it anymore? I say no. But you may feel differently. Thanks for the question. Hope you and the new Mrs. are doing well. Hope to see you again sometime soon.
GuidoOn Jul. 28th, 2015
Hi Daniel,
as former professional and owner of a HP Z3100 44″ I did this test already one and a half year ago – when I switched from Canon FF to Olympus mFT (after 23 years with Canon). I was also impressed about the amazing high IQ of mFT compared to my 5D MKII. After that test I sold all the rest of my bulky Canon gear and got happy with Olympus&Panasonic.
Since then I am telling photographers that there is absolutely no need for a bulky FF equipment in an amateurs hand. But nevertheless the marketing dep. of CaNikon and Sony are effortless, telling photographers you need to have FF. And most of the amateur photographers believe in that because they never did a real test comparison like you and I did. They are pixelpeeping in 100% views and claiming noise. Yes there is more noise and its more grainy! But who the heck is viewing real world pictures in 100% with your nose on the screen? In real world no one.
At least you will be confronted with the crop reserves you have with FF. Yes right. But crop should be an exception! I learned that a picture should be composed in the viewfinder – almost filling the whole frame. But if you look at many pictures of amateurs – they are composing afterwards on their monitor with cropping like hell.
So I really appreciated your teaching work.
paul stuartOn Jul. 28th, 2015
hi daniel its a shame you did not have the newly announced gx8 to compare with its 20 mpix sensor against the d800 ,ive never really had a problem with 16 mp in either of my gh4 or omd em-1 mainly because i never print above a4 although i have 20 sheets of a3+ waiting to be used and i bet that 16 mp would still be enough for this size print.As some one pointed out more mp give you more crop capabilities ie shooting a 3:2 ratio will give 18mp your preferred ratio with the new panasonic sensor .
its good to see m43 still performing well for its smaller size against much larger and more expensive cameras .
still waiting for that long anticipated long tele zoom for wildlife more so than mp
Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 28th, 2015
Paul, thanks for your input. Hoping we won’t have to wait too long for the new lens. I’m currently in Florida at a Lumix Luminary meeting and I’ve seen the GX8. It’s impressive but I’m hopeful to test my Olympus lens with it to see if we get in body IS when a non Lumix lens is used. I’m crossing my fingers. What a huge gif that will be if it works. Stay tuned.
JamesOn Jul. 28th, 2015
This is a really useful test, thank you!
What bothers me about my E-M1, compared to A7r, isn’t so much detail, but noise at base ISO and less dynamic range. The extra resolution is nice when printing big, but generally more useful to allow a crop to, say, a square format without losing too much resolution.
Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 28th, 2015
Thanks James. I agree a Full Frame sensor is the ultimate in quality but I’m printing 24×36 inch prints and sometimes even larger from the GH4 which is equal to the EM-1 quality. Thh problem I have with Sony full frae cameras as well as Nikons and Canon is; Full Frame sensors require full frame sized lenses. I’m interested in excellent quality that MFT gives me as opposed to the ultimate quality full frame provides. Even for 24×36 inch prints, which is larger than 99% of those taking pictures produce, the quality from my GH4 is superb. I’m loving the vast reduction in size of cameras and lenses the Lumix system has provided. Thanks stopping by to add your voice.
Mike CromwellOn Jul. 11th, 2015
Dan:
I too have printed 24×36 images from a GH4 and professional lens and have gotten great results. I have one such image hanging in a hallway in my home so the viewer will be close to the print while walking by. The sharpness and tone is almost indistinguishable from the prints using my D800.
Mike
DeanOn Jul. 11th, 2015
Thanks, again, for providing us valuable “real world” information. Your practical approach to answering questions is refreshing. Who cares about Imatest calculations and DMax? The question is “What does it look like?” not “How does it measure?” Your observations (especially considering your eye for detail, color, composition, and subject matter) are an invaluable addition to the discussion of print and image quality comparisons. The inescapable conclusion is that M43 is certainly “good enough” for almost any reasonable application. I’ve seen many “crappy” photos hanging on display taken with Phase One, Nikon, Canon, Leica, and Hasselblad equipment. It’s not the “gear” that makes a photo great; it’s the photographer using the tools (photo equipment after all is only a “tool”) he/she uses. What you have clearly demonstrated in this and other posts is, in the hands of a competent, skilled, creative, and artistic photographer, M43 “tools” are more than sufficient to create great photos! I personally have compared shots taken with my Nikon D810/85mm f1.4 to those taken with my OMD E-1/Panasonic Leica 42.5mm 1.2 and find virtually no difference in any respect (both on a 27″ Mac screen and 17″ x 22″ prints made with my Epson P3880). And, while your comparison used wide angle prime lenses, the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 Pro (with and without the 1.4x extender) can stand up (and usually stuns) in comparison to any lens in its focal range. The newest M43 Olympus Pro lenses continue to amaze (and upcoming “tools” from Panasonic will no doubt add to the trend).
The bottom line has always been: The best camera is the one in your hands when the opportunity to take a great photo presents itself. M43 (and others like the X-T1 from Fuji) make it much easier to have a great camera/lens in your hands when you want it most. Their size, weight, and ease of use (not to mention being significantly less expensive) make it “fun” to photograph. (When was the last time you said it was “fun” to lug 50 lbs. and tens of thousands of dollars of Nikon or Canon gear around?) My Olympus cameras with Olympus and Panasonic lenses remind me of driving a Porsche 911! (My Nikon gear was like driving a Mercedes S500!) The Porsche and Mercedes will both get you to the same place in style, but driving the Porsche will put a crazy smile on your face!
Shooting with an E-M1 and 12-40mm f2.8 Oly Pro (or I suspect a GH4 and 12-35mm Pany) is a whole lot of fun! The smile gets bigger when I think about all the money I got for my Nikon D810, D4s, and 24-70mm on eBay! And, who in their right mind would rather lug around a Nikon or Canon 70-200 f2.8 after holding the exquisit Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 in the palm of his/her hand? Carry an Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 Pro (with or without the extender) vs a Nikon or Canon 200-400 f4? No contest.
Panasonic and Olympus are revolutionizing photography. What a fun ride!
Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 11th, 2015
Wow Dean. My thoughts exactly but you put it in to words that can’t be beat. Thanks for such a wonderful description of exactly how I’ve felt about this new world of small, compact, relatively cheap super professional gear many of us are enjoying now. You nailed it to a tee. Hey what about Tanya?:)
SteveOn Jul. 11th, 2015
Very interesting especially if you take normal viewing distance into account. It would have been interesting to add a DX size sensor into the mix from a D7200 or Sony a6000, I wonder how close that would have been to the D800?
Eric BowlesOn Jul. 10th, 2015
Good post, Dan. Thanks for taking the time and effort to actually produce large prints. It gets away from a theoretical discussion when you have a large print in hand.
I’ve had several discussions recently about lens resolution, sharpness and print output. One of the key distinctions on lens sharpness is that lenses are typically sharpest in the center of the frame and at specific apertures and focal lengths. There is wide variation among lens designs – and not all lenses are appropriate for landscapes. Some excellent wider lenses are designed for portraits and center oriented subjects at shallow apertures, while others are designed for landscapes with sharp corners and top performance stopped down to f/8-f/11 or so. For zoom lenses it’s even more complicated in that there are often focal lengths that are soft – typically at the short or long extreme. For example, the Nikon 16-35 is soft at 35mm, but otherwise is pretty good in the corners at most focal lengths and apertures. The Nikon 24-70 is soft at 24mm, but otherwise pretty good across the frame at a wide range of apertures and focal lengths.
KurtOn Jul. 10th, 2015
Thanks for sharing these results. It would be very interesting to see whether shooting at a smaller aperture on the LX100 and the GH4 would close the gap a bit more. F8 is definitely a bit past the sweet spot for those cameras and lenses.
Trent AndersonOn Jul. 10th, 2015
After reading your post I went into my guest bathroom (small) to look, more critically, at the 43 x 19 inch print on canvas of a photo I took last month in Iceland with my GH4 and Olympus 40-150mm (with teleconverter). The grass in the photo is so sharp that I feel as if I could pass my hand through it. No complaints from this camper!
Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 10th, 2015
Agreed Trent. The lead image on this Blog post, the Raven print hanging on my wall, was also shot with the GH4 and Olympus 40-150mm and at 24×36 inches it too has more detail than I could of only hoped for. It is stunning. Glad to her you’re getting similar results.
Nick HawkesOn Jul. 10th, 2015
Thanks for publishing the results of this large print comparison. I’ve read about Olympus doing something similar at trade shows with side-by-side comparisons of large prints produced by Oly Micro4/3 cameras and fullframe DSLRs. My own prints (17″ on the shorter side) produced by Micro4/3 cameras are indistinguishable from what I was producing with my older Nikon DSLRs. One minor point to bear in mind with respect to your comparison: You shot at an equivalent focal length but not an equivalent aperture for your test. As a result the Panny 15mm was about two stops beyond its sharpest aperture (f/4 according to Lenstip and DXOMark) whereas the Nikon 28mm was shot much closer to its ideal aperture. This difference usually wouldn’t be worth worrying about but in a test like this one with such a big enlargement, it might have made a visible difference.
Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 10th, 2015
Good point Nick. I must say that the evening I was shooting this test I was in a rush as the sun was setting and I missed setting the same apertures. Interestingly, I did not know the 15mm is supposed to be it’s sharpest at F/4. I’ve never heard of lenstip but will check them out. I have to admit that I’m not as technical as some others are but I do get out and do what I call real world rests. Your input will make me check some of these other sties out to make my tests a bit more accurate. Thanks for your insight.
Jay MurthyOn Jul. 9th, 2015
Dan, thank you for such a detailed and thorough review. I have one foot in the micro 4/3 world.. It’s only a matter of time , probably very soon that my migration will be complete.
Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 9th, 2015
Thanks Jay. Looking forward to seeing you this week in Svalbard.
Roberto FacchiniOn Jul. 9th, 2015
Thank you very much for your answer Daniel, really comprehensive and interesting. I got the answer I needed. Until what point you get high-quality prints with the Panasonic Lumix GH4: 24x 36 inch is an excellent result, and you can go further.
I agree with what you write, in most cases are sufficient prints or “image formats” smaller than those that you have proposed. My curiosity comes from the fact that recently in my work (I’m not a professional photographer, but I use photography in my work) I see my images printed very large (for example for the setting up of the natural parks visitors centers, even 70×100 inch) or I have the need to perform magnifications of small parts of a photo (in environmental and wildlife monitoring, for example). For these reasons I wanted to know how far you can go with the Micro4/3 sensor of GH4.
For my needs I think that the two systems (FF and M4/3) can coexist, in order to give an answer to all the “photographic needs”, waiting technology surprise us with something even more extraordinary.
Thanks again and congratulations for your interesting blog and website, and your photos of course.
A friendly greeting from Northern Italy!
Roberto
Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 9th, 2015
Glad to help Robert. It was a great test for me as well. Thanks for the inspiration to get out and do it.
Mk82On Jul. 9th, 2015
Very nice post about the big prints that can be hanged on the wall.
My biggest print that I have done from 4/3 sensor (16mpix) is 1 pixel per square millimeter, so 4308x3456mm and that translates of course to 4.3×3.4 meters.
It was viewed from other side of a metro station, so about 3-4 meters typically as people didn’t stand just edge of the platform. And it hold very very very very nicely its sharpness and details, even when viewed from 1m distance when it got out and transported.
And I know that if I would have used 36mpix beast it would have looked the same, only from very close distance (under 1m) and above each other comparison the 36mpix would have won but when you can’t compare directly you don’t see the differences.
But how many not just can print so big as you did, but can actually hang such print on the wall?
I have just two walls where I would put 60×40″ print without it looking odd and I at least live in house that has 365m2 and walls are only 2.4m high.
I would not print larger than 40″ at longest side and that is actually fairly difficult to get positioned anywhere as the framing etc would take 10″ extra. Typical ones are around 24″ and that is big too.
Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 9th, 2015
Great input. Printing to this size really is an exception for 99% of all photographers. And, as you said, even when it is necessary most likely he finished print will be at a distance that nobody could tell the difference.