35mm beyond 14x17
in [35mm]
|
Prev: Nikon PB-6 Bellows
Next: - Mandate - Rust Never Sleeps
From: HeroOfSpielburg on 17 May 2007 09:50 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!
From: Nicholas O. Lindan on 17 May 2007 11:22 "HeroOfSpielburg" <ventudg(a)hotmail.com> 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
From: Philip Homburg on 17 May 2007 11:34 In article <1179409828.565646.240360(a)w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, HeroOfSpielburg <ventudg(a)hotmail.com> 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
From: Ken Hart on 17 May 2007 12:23 "HeroOfSpielburg" <ventudg(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1179409828.565646.240360(a)w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.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.
From: Nicholas O. Lindan on 17 May 2007 13:53
"Ken Hart" <kwhart(a)aec.nu> wrote > "HeroOfSpielburg" <ventudg(a)hotmail.com> 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 |