Same and different kettles of fish at the same time. Also, I just posted some relevant comments in
another thread.
There are many factors that are common for sharp images: Correct shutter speed, aperture, exposure, camera support, mirror lockup, etc and lens quality.
The FX sensor is larger than DX and other things being equal, will have greater low light sensitivity and greater dynamic range. However, DX and FX cameras can have differing resolutions which is a bit like having finer or coarser film grain. A camera with higher resolution at a given sensor size will in general have smaller sites and less low light capability. However, it's not a simple relationship because the capability of the processing engine can make a big difference too.
The first requirement for print sharpness is to have a well-exposed image. Then all digital images benefit from sharpening, though it's also possible to mangle an image by over-sharpening it. This applies to both digitally-sourced and scanned images. Sharpening is mainly
modifying the contrast characteristics, it's not generally feasible to sharpen an inherently unsharp image. Most digital cameras have an anti-aliasing filter over the sensor to prevent
moire. Capture sharpening can ameliorate that and is best done by a utility (including Lightroom or Adobe Camera RAW). Creative sharpening is then when you sharpen the image by eye including overall sharpening and sharpening or blurring appropriate parts of the image. You need to be careful not to create haloes or artifacts from the sharpening. Finally, there is output sharpening which is dependant on your intended form or output, web, matte print, glossy print. Once again, this is best done by a utility. Correct sharpening to print on matte paper, for example, may appear oversharpened on screen. You can make sharpening as complex as you like. The simplest way is probably to use Lightroom which has a system of sliders that is easy to understand. Adobe Camera RAW will be the same but Lightroom is better for multiple images.
Generally, it's better to shoot RAW on a digital camera. This gives you much more latitidue for exposure and tonal range though it has no effect on sharpness.
It's highly desirable to profile your monitor with a good colorimeter. Otherwise, the screen will be too bright and the colours and tones will not be accurate and you'll waste a lot of time testing. You're still likely to need to do test prints but it's a lot easier to start from close. If you don't already have one, I'd suggest an Eye One Display Pro.
That also gives you the capability, should you so desire, of soft proofing in Photoshop. This gives you a reasonable accurate view on screen of what your print will look like so you can adjust your file accordingly. Useful but optional.
The size of the file can be a factor in print resolution, especially if you have a heavily cropped image. However, you can upsize digitally-sourced images by up to a factor of about two, though not scanned images. Resolution for printing of the file should be 180dpi or more.
Digital printers don't vary that much in resolution. They vary in maximum print size, whether they can take roll paper, durability (pigment ink printers better), colour gamut and dynamic range. A new top range printer will give great quality but the cheapest printer will stil give very good quality. Printing an image to a higher resolution will make more of a difference on glossy paper.
You can get better quality with a digital print than a darkroom print and though it may seem complex at first, it's actually much easier and quicker to get there. (You can spend a lot of time post-processing in front of a computer, though). And there is the great advantage that you don't have to remember how to dodge and burn each print individually, once your file is right you can print it again and again.
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:26 pm