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

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by jim_ford, Oct 23, 2000.

  1. 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.
     
  2. 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/
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. Al, BTW, did you live in Tokyo? What lab did you use?
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. 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!
     

Share This Page