If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
35mm beyond 14x17
Hello,
This is a subjective question, mostly. I have an art show next week and wanted to blow up a negative to a pretty large size, long print about 20x40, for the fascade of my booth. The staff at the print shop said beyond 14x17, it doesn't look very nice. I imagine that the grain gets really large, and the color dots start separating? I dunno, maybe it looks kind of cool, and the fact that it's over three feet long overpowers any negative reaction from graininess? I'd just try it for the hell of it but a print that large costs me over 120 dollars, so I'd like some feedback first. Any and all opinions, thanks! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
35mm beyond 14x17
"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote
This is a subjective question, mostly. I have an art show next week and wanted to blow up a negative to a pretty large size, long print about 20x40, for the fascade of my booth. The staff at the print shop said beyond 14x17, it doesn't look very nice. Depends on how far away the viewer is: Mark 40 inches on the wall, stand at the viewing distance, and hold a print up so it just covers the 40" marks. If the print is far enough away - say a 4x6" print at 12" - it may look ok. If a 4x6" print is 3" from the tip of the nose then your 40 incher is going to look pretty awful. With Tech Pan and the old Ektar 25 it was possible to get 16x24's that looked acceptable at a 2 foot viewing distance. 35mm enlarged to ~40" wide produces a ~40 x 24" print. I dunno, maybe it looks kind of cool That's a sure sign it looks really crappy to anyone else. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
35mm beyond 14x17
In article . com,
HeroOfSpielburg wrote: This is a subjective question, mostly. I have an art show next week and wanted to blow up a negative to a pretty large size, long print about 20x40, for the fascade of my booth. The staff at the print shop said beyond 14x17, it doesn't look very nice. I imagine that the grain gets really large, and the color dots start separating? I dunno, maybe it looks kind of cool, and the fact that it's over three feet long overpowers any negative reaction from graininess? I'd just try it for the hell of it but a print that large costs me over 120 dollars, so I'd like some feedback first. It depends: - on the viewing distance - on the film used - on the subject I have a lot of prints at 16x24" and that works quite well. I have fewer prints on 20x30" and those are no problem either (except that they are too big to handle easily). Of course, 40" is quite a bit bigger. For me, a digital 20x30" print costs less than 10 euros, so it is easy to experiment. Note that at those sizes, sharpness is quite a bit different from what you can get away with at smaller sizes. There are big differences in grain. Some consumer color negative films have ugly grain, whereas the now discontinued Kodak Supra 100 had really nice grain. Typically, grain will be visible in sky. But with films that have nice grain that should not be a problem. Sometimes, dark areas (that cannot be rendered as black) also create problems. -- That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
35mm beyond 14x17
"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote in message ups.com... Hello, This is a subjective question, mostly. I have an art show next week and wanted to blow up a negative to a pretty large size, long print about 20x40, for the fascade of my booth. The staff at the print shop said beyond 14x17, it doesn't look very nice. I imagine that the grain gets really large, and the color dots start separating? I dunno, maybe it looks kind of cool, and the fact that it's over three feet long overpowers any negative reaction from graininess? I'd just try it for the hell of it but a print that large costs me over 120 dollars, so I'd like some feedback first. Any and all opinions, thanks! It depends on the shot. Exposure must be right on, focus must be right on, and there can be no camera shake. That said, I've got a shot of sunset on the Gulf of Mexico, taken on board a ship, handheld, and about a stop underexposed. The 20"x30" print (printed optically on standard RA-4 color paper) looks great. When you get close to the print, you will see the grain. I routinely print 16x20 prints from 35mm. If the neg is good, the print can be good. I'd be willing to bet that the local print shop can't make a print over 14x17. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
35mm beyond 14x17
"Ken Hart" wrote
"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote This is a subjective question, mostly. I have an art show next week and wanted to blow up a negative to a pretty large size, long print about 20x40, for the fascade of my booth. The staff at the print shop said beyond 14x17, it doesn't look very nice. I'd be willing to bet that the local print shop can't make a print over 14x17. 1) Their equipment is only big enough for 14" paper 2) They can, they just think it looks bad to their eyes, and they assume the customer has the same quality standards. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
35mm beyond 14x17
In article . com,
HeroOfSpielburg wrote: This is a subjective question, mostly. I have an art show next week and wanted to blow up a negative to a pretty large size, long print about 20x40, for the fascade of my booth. The staff at the print shop said beyond 14x17, it doesn't look very nice. Hero- Based on my experience with 35mm slide projectors, a 40 inch image can be quite good. If grainy, it can still look good from a distance if the grain is sharply focused. I wonder if the print shop personnel base their assessment on other enlargements produced on their equipment, not just your negative? Is it possible their enlarging lens is not very good? Perhaps you could pick out some detail of interest, and have that portion of the negative enlarged as if it were to be 20x40, but printed on small paper. The amount of degradation should be apparent on a small section, such as 4x5 or 8x10. I suspect you will find that a well-printed 20x40 print would be appreciated by people approaching your booth from a distance. When they are close enough to see its faults, there should be other things to attract their attention! Fred |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
35mm beyond 14x17
"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote in message ups.com... Hello, This is a subjective question, mostly. I have an art show next week and wanted to blow up a negative to a pretty large size, long print about 20x40, for the fascade of my booth. The staff at the print shop said beyond 14x17, it doesn't look very nice. I imagine that the grain gets really large, and the color dots start separating? I dunno, maybe it looks kind of cool, and the fact that it's over three feet long overpowers any negative reaction from graininess? I'd just try it for the hell of it but a print that large costs me over 120 dollars, so I'd like some feedback first. Any and all opinions, thanks! As others have said, depends on the film, quality of the neg and the viewing distance. I've done a couple of 32"x48" prints and quite a few 24"x36" & 20"x30" prints from 35mm. Fuji Superia 400 & Kodak Gold looked horrid, even at 20x30. Reala and Velvia went to 32x48 with quite acceptible quality - yeah a close look shows lots of grain, but it's still controllable. HP5 prints quite nicely to about 24x36. As others have said too, it is important that the print is focussed at the grain level, which means a _very good_ enlarger, or if you are doing it digitally, a _very good_ scanner. Some of my prints have been done optically, some digitally - I think I actually prefer the digital stuff. But a warning - a typical flat-bed film scanner is barely good enough for decent 8x10s. Scans from a Fuji Frontier system at their best resolution (and most labs won't do this for you because they take forever to do) will do just nicely. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
35mm beyond 14x17
"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote in message ups.com... Hello, This is a subjective question, mostly. I have an art show next week and wanted to blow up a negative to a pretty large size, long print about 20x40, for the fascade of my booth. The staff at the print shop said beyond 14x17, it doesn't look very nice. I imagine that the grain gets really large, and the color dots start separating? I dunno, maybe it looks kind of cool, and the fact that it's over three feet long overpowers any negative reaction from graininess? I'd just try it for the hell of it but a print that large costs me over 120 dollars, so I'd like some feedback first. Any and all opinions, thanks! In my opinion, it all depends on how far away from the finished print the observers will be. Sure. It will be grainy. But you would be able to see the grain on the film with a magnifying glass, too. So, the grain won't matter if the observers are far enough away. You should ask the guys at the printing shop how far they were away from the finished print when they made the observation that, "Beyond 14 x 17 it won't look good." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
35mm beyond 14x17
HeroOfSpielburg wrote:
Hello, This is a subjective question, mostly. I have an art show next week and wanted to blow up a negative to a pretty large size, long print about 20x40, for the fascade of my booth. The staff at the print shop said beyond 14x17, it doesn't look very nice. I imagine that the grain gets really large, and the color dots start separating? I dunno, maybe it looks kind of cool, and the fact that it's over three feet long overpowers any negative reaction from graininess? I'd just try it for the hell of it but a print that large costs me over 120 dollars, so I'd like some feedback first. Do it if you're willing to waste (or not get great value) for your $120. From far enough back it will look okay, even good. Up close the grain might even look good depending on the subject matter and how the shot was made. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
35mm beyond 14x17
On May 17, 3:50 am, HeroOfSpielburg wrote:
Hello, This is a subjective question, mostly. I have an art show next week and wanted to blow up a negative to a pretty large size, long print about 20x40, for the fascade of my booth. The staff at the print shop said beyond 14x17, it doesn't look very nice. I imagine that the grain gets really large, and the color dots start separating? I dunno, maybe it looks kind of cool, and the fact that it's over three feet long overpowers any negative reaction from graininess? I'd just try it for the hell of it but a print that large costs me over 120 dollars, so I'd like some feedback first. Any and all opinions, thanks! Well first off $120 for a 20x40 print seems a bit on the high side. If they are going to scan and print from a scanned image you could easily print a small part of the image at the same scale as what a 20 x 40 print would end up being, say a 8 x 10 print. And if you can get a good scan of the film there are places that can make the print a lot cheaper, I got a 30 x 60 print from these folks for $30 http://www.elcocolor.com/poster_special.htm You could get a 30x40 from them for $20 and then cut to size and save a lot of money. Scott |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
is this 35mm? | plavi | 35mm Photo Equipment | 4 | April 4th 07 04:33 AM |
The end is near for 35mm? Or is it? When is the end? | j | Digital Photography | 117 | October 7th 06 05:25 PM |
35mm C vs 35mm N mamiya 645 lenses | Stacey | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | May 16th 04 07:06 AM |
WTB: 35mm "Old" Tri-X Pan (400) | ChrisPlatt | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | July 19th 03 02:20 AM |
WTB: 35mm "Old" Tri-X Pan (400) | ChrisPlatt | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | July 19th 03 02:20 AM |