A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

35mm beyond 14x17



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 17th 07, 02:50 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
HeroOfSpielburg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default 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  
Old May 17th 07, 04:22 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,227
Default 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  
Old May 17th 07, 04:34 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Philip Homburg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 576
Default 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  
Old May 17th 07, 05:23 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Ken Hart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 154
Default 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  
Old May 17th 07, 06:53 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,227
Default 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  
Old May 17th 07, 06:58 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Fred McKenzie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default 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  
Old May 17th 07, 10:23 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Doug Jewell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 141
Default 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  
Old May 17th 07, 10:57 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,361
Default 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  
Old May 18th 07, 01:34 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old May 18th 07, 01:59 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Scott W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,131
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.