How large can 35mm be enlargened... re doux

From the various helpful responses to my two previous questions, am I right in saying that, by and large, an enlarged print from a negative looks real good. An enlarged print from a slide looks even nicer! But, you pay extra for it.

And because it's a slide, there is no manipulation of exposure, contract, and color rendition.

A print from a slide costs about the same as a same-size print from a

negative at the lab I use (NorthLight, in Chattanooga, TN). Exposure

can be manipulated easily, also dodging and burning. Contrast

control is more difficult and usually requires a mask, which also

makes it more expensive. As for color rendition, it can certainly be

adjusted. However, one of the primary reasons for shooting slides is

to get the color you want on the original, rather than being left to

the vageries of a color printing technician's taste.

<p>

NorthLight will work with you by mail. Here's their website, if anyone

is interested. I recommend them highly as a very good, very

professional lab.

<p>

http://www.northlightimaging.com/

Jim,

<p>

When I lived in Japan, I got some very good result from slide film

there on Fuji's direct paper. I was very shocked at how good they

looked after my disappointments in the States. Contrast was always

the problem... either black shadows or burned out highlights, but in

Japan, they did great work.

<p>

When I returned to the States, my lab advocated a inter-negative from

the slide. They re-photographed the slide on negative stock, but the

difference was it was made into a 4 X 5 inch negative. The resulting

print was excellent.

<p>

I shoot slides for all of my serious work, but if I know I want

prints, I go with negative film. It just removes more of the

variables in my opinion. One other thing... in my opinion... no

slide film of 400 ISO can match the quality of print film of the same

speed. The potential quality of a slower film can be canceled by

camera shake or not being able to use the lens' optimum aperture.

For on the fly, journalistic type shots, I like ISO 400 print film.

I have enlarged Kodachrome 200 to 16x20 on Ilfochrome material and

the prints looked good. Might have been able to go to 20x24 before

grain became a real issue. However, if I wanted really big prints,

I'd have them scanned on a drum scanner and printed on a LightJet

printer. I've seen 35mm taken up to 4-feet wide using this method

with absolutely no grain visible.

<p>

I have no idea what you mean by, " no manipulation of exposure,

contrast, and color rendition." With Ilfochrome I make a contast

mask (90% of the time), use low contrast material, and make color

adjustments - including color burning/dodging - to get the final

print.

How large can 35mm be enlarged? It really depends on the viewing

distance (assuming sufficient care in making the picture). Let's

assume that you consider an 8x10 satisfactory when viewed at 10

inches. Then an 11x14 viewed at 14 inches will look the same, as

will a 16x20 from 20 inches, and so on. Presumably a larger print

will be viewed at a greater distance. From this line of reasoning, a

35mm shot could be blown up to a 30 foot billboard, to be viewed at

30 feet or more. So you could say there's no limit!