Jump to content

large prints from 35mm film?


Recommended Posts

I am a new film shooter (coming from digital) and I have an EOS-1 body

with a selection of lenses. I will be shooting pictures for some guys

in my camaro car club, and would like to have them blown up to poster

size (maybe around 15-25 inches in the largest direction).

 

They will be both color, and black and white. What film would be best

for this? I assume the lower the ASA/ISO the better quality of the

blow up. would 100 be good enough? or should I go lower? These will

be outdoors, so shutter speed shouldn't be a problem, I'll be using a

tripod anyway.

 

How sharp can I expect large prints to be from a 35mm negative?

 

I have printed 11x17 images from the digital world, with fairly sharp

results, but I don't know much about film. I assume a 35mm film print

be sharper than a 6 megapixel (processed properly to print large)

digital image?

 

thanks for any advice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If I were you, I would use Fujichrome Provia 100. This is a color-reversal film (slide film) that has the finest grain of any I know of. I know a lot of commercial guys use this film because they use it to make huge enlargements like you are planning to do. When you get your film processed, they will be in the form of slides. Then you'll want to get in touch with a pro-lab like A&I and tell them you want a print made from it "so-and-so" big. If they ask you if you want an interneg tell them no. The slide will get scanned, but from there it should be a wet chemical procces to generate your big print. Do this, and you'll blow everyone away with your pictures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I print at 16x20 no problem, some could go larger, but that's the paper size I like. Film, well, how are your post production abilities and how deep is your wallet? If there are no people in your car pictures, then I'd go for Velvia 50, Provia 100, or Astia 100 with a warming filter. Velvia is grainer, but the saturation might be a nice trade off for the accuracy and fine structure of Astia. Then a high rez scan and a SCI lightjet print. That's the expensive top of the line route, in my opinion. The poor mans route would be Reala 100@80. B&W would be PanF50 in Rodinal 1:25. or Agfa ApX 100. F8 minimum and a tripod...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And everyone forgets that there are a lot of good color negative films out there. Color negative has the best color reproduction when making prints, and excellent grain and sharpness.

 

You really ought to try it sometime.

 

Next time you go to Cinemax, remember that the original film was color negative - positive.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, wet prints. Do you think a colour neg wet print can beat a drum scanned/lightjet slide? Come on...

 

Cinema viewing can't be included here as a comparison as it's additive light, not subtractive like a print on a wall, which we are discussing. I may as well compare a 4x6 print to a 4x5 chrome on a light table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow! so many options to choose from! hehe! I'll look into those films, thanks!

 

For color shots, there will be no people in the picture, just a vehicle and a nice background. The colors should probably be close to real life

 

For black and white, I'll be going for a bit of contrast. Should I use filters (red or orange) when I'm shooting vehicles? I mean, will it mess with the look of the paint and reflections? (will it make a dark car look light, or a light car look dark?)

 

We won't be getting TOO expensive here, this isn't a professional shoot, just something for anyone in the club who wants blow ups of their cars. I won't be keeping any of the money for myself, I'm asking exactly what it costs me to do have the prints made (because I'm apart of the club, I'm the photographer). I would hate to ask the guys for more than $25 per picture, is that a reasonable price to get things done with good results?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, as far as filters and B&W film, the result will depend on the colors in the particular scene. Read up on filters on this site... basically, a colored filter used with B&W film lets its own color through and blocks light that is "opposite" in color. So a red filter would let red light through but block the blues and greens somewhat. That's why a blue sky looks very dark when you use a red/orange filter. So if you used a red filter for every shot, regardless of the colors in the scene, a red car would come out looking very light but a blue car would be very dark - not necessarily the result you'd want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest that you talk to your lab of choice and ask them about their preferences and recommendations on slides vs. negatives and specific films. It's a shame that this subject is such a can of worms, as some posts in this thread already show. More worms follow:<p>

 

<a href="http://photo.nemergut.com/equipment/film/film.html">http://photo.nemergut.com/equipment/film/film.html</a><p>

 

Specific material on UC 100:<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008MjU">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008MjU</a><p>

 

Note especially the last few posts in this thread:

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007lgo">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007lgo</a><p>

 

In your place, I might tempted to rent a 1Ds, but would still advise checking with the lab for their recommendations in this vein.<p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel,

 

Even though I am currently using color neg for your situation I would choose a fine grained chrome film.

 

If you like the saturated sureal colors of velvia then use that, if you want a more natural color pallette use Astia. Send the chrome off

to Laser Light photographics ( laslight.com ) in Santa Cruz. Bill Nordstrom is the best printer I have ever worked with. They will drum scan your 35mm slide and make a large print on a chromira that will be stunning. I have no affiliation with them but I have tried several west coast outfits and I find them the most attentive detail. They are also a smaller outfit with a little more personal touch then say sending it to Aandi ( who also do excellent work I might add ).

 

The reason I dont reccomend neg in this situation is because Color Neg doesnt drum scan as well and if you want Monster size prints from a small piece of film like 35mm and are willing to pay for it then slide film is your best choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys;

 

I'm really amazed by all of these answers. Some wrong, all opinion.

 

First. Motion picture, indeed all of projected and reflective images in photography is subtractive. The only additive images we see are color TV, and they actually obey the same rules as subtractive believe it or not. Just invert the dye curves and it works.

 

Second. Show Daniel the superiority of reflective prints from transparency compared to reflective prints from negatives with NO digital or on-easel correction applied. You will be unable to do it. That is because color negative has built in correction that starts the image out with the best tone scale and color rendition. So don't offer OPINION, offer PROOF. Side by side proof. Or, OTOH, state that what you say is your opinion and nothing more.

 

I have seen side by side, unmanipulated comparisons. You have undoubtedly NOT SEEN THEM.

 

Have fun, but don't, please don't offer your opinions as solid fact.

 

Regards to you all.

 

Ron Mowrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the sizes you suggest you should strongly consider having the film scanned with a high-quality scanner and printed digitally. With this method you can also circumvent many of the drawbacks with printing slide film conventionally, if you choose to use slide film that is. If you're having the images printed conventionally (ie. with an enlarger), then shooting the best negative film and having a master printer do the prints is necessary (obviously doing this digitally also requires high quality materials and a skilled operator, but going to size like 20" in the longest direction from 35 mm is a pain with conventional methods.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, what do you mean by unmanipulated? Is a colour calibrated scanner, monitor, and printer an example of "manipulated" workflow in your opinion? Is levels adjustment manipulation?

 

Since slide film is so bad, why does Eastman Kodak continue to make it? It can't be because people project it, they don't.

 

I'll do some tests with E100GX, Supra 200 (exposed at 100), and Nikon D70. The film will be scanned using the LS-4000. I'll scan the prints and show on-line, is that ok? I can't really guarantee that the scans will be representative of the prints though but grain and sharpness should be easy to evaluate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Second. Show Daniel the superiority of reflective prints from transparency compared to reflective prints from negatives with NO digital or on-easel correction applied.

 

If you are going to do digital prints, I would opt for shooting trannys and getting drum scans. Astia is a good choice.

 

Wet prints, use neg. film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rowland, first, I have to say I read and educate myself with your posts. You're the most experienced here, in theory, practice and most importantly, your chosen profession. BUT...your advice of offering fact over opinion should apply to yourself as well. Anyone that has printed large images today, with all technical abilities available without budget boundaries, knows that the best image quality for large outputs from the small format is with a drum scanned slide and a lightjet print. Why you brought up a projected imax film, 69mm, for comparison here still confuses me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ilkka;

 

I didn't say slide film was bad. I said it was not as fully corrected as was negative film. But there are details that need mention.

 

Negative film is intended for printing, slide film is intended for viewing the original. Grain and sharpness of original images from equal speed films should be roughly equivalent whether they be neg or pos, but the prints from neg if unmanipulated, should be superior than prints from positives.

 

As it turns out, negative sharpness and grain, as well as color, are all better than positive film in the duplication process as well as in the camera original. This is why motion picture studios use ECN instead of ECO. The prints from the negative can be projected to larger sizes than the positive from positive prints before the image breaks down. The negative is better because more can be done in the original to correct the image than can be done in reversal materials. There are built in color and sharpness 'masks' that positive film cannot use. Even ECO, an in-camera reversal film could never equal ECN for quality. Part of that is due to the problems associated with reversal processes themselves.

 

Nevertheless, reversal films are excellent. But, this considers that you view the original by projection rather than obtain prints. Color negative assumes you view a print, either reflection or transmission.

 

A color negative print compared side by side to an Ilfochrome, for example will beat it hands down.

 

By manipulation, I mean that the tone scale should not be manipulated in the scan. No lightening or darkening, no contrast adjust. Just a straight scan. Then, if you have a color chart in the scene such as a MacBeth, one pic unadjusted can be shown side by side with one set adjusted so that the MacBeth neutral scales match. Therefore, you would have 4 prints. Two adjusted, and two unadjusted to compare.

 

Many scanners have default correction software that 'corrects' transparency images for unwanted color absorptions and etc. They also don't do as good a job scanning color negative due to the need for finding a 'white' or 'grey' point for reference and due to the fact that many scanners just are not optimized for color from negatives, but are for scanning transparencies.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric;

 

I brought up Imax to show the potential of enlargement from a color negative. It equals or exceeds that of any positive imaging system. And the color is better.

 

I have posted comparisons here before. I do not fail to state when my opinion and my facts are being presented, nor have I failed to present examples when necessary. I also don't comment at all in areas that are outside my expertise.

 

Here is a comparison of Fujichrome, Kodachrome, Vericolor, and Ektachrome. This was posted recently when someone suggested that Kodachrome had the best tone scale and color reproduction, but it should illustrate the point for you of using comparisons. Unfortunately, grain and sharpness comparisons don't scan well.

 

Ron Mowrey<div>008XBb-18371684.jpg.0776e0c3c1a64138631a913e6e2486d4.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. I'm not trying to butt heads here Rowland, as I hope you contribute to one of my naïve questions in the future. But I stand by my first post, well within 'my expertise' of printing. It's of my opinion, which I disclaimed in my first post, that anything going poster size for optimal quality should be drum scanned and printed via a lightjet. It doesn't get any better. Fact, not opinion.

 

With the choice of stocks, and knowing I'm doing 'poster size prints' before leaving the house, it wont be from colour neg. Your post below mine contradicted this, with an inclusion of projected movie stock twice the size in format to back it up. Odd.

 

How would you get a 30x40 print from 35mm Rowland?

 

 

If one's only going to a one hour mini lab, to hand out enlargements to your buddies, then fly at it with Reala on a Frontier, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric;

 

I don't disagree with you about the drum scan being good.

 

I'm trying to explain that a drum scan of a color negative and a color transparency should both be very good in quality, but under optimum conditions, the color negative should (SHOULD) enlarge to a bigger image with less grain and better sharpness. Overall, the negative should give better tone scale and color reproduction.

 

This is inherent in the films and their respective processes.

 

Very often, negative scans are inferior to transparency scans, according to the chat here on PN, and in my own experience. I suppose it is due to the fact that scanner hardware and software is has been optimized for transparencies, and thatis because they are easier to optimize for as the image is right there for comparison purposes for the hardware and software engineers.

 

I shoot both 35mm negative and transparency materials. My prints are far better from negatives, all things being equal. That holds up to the largest size I have routinely made, 20x24.

 

I also shoot 6x7, 645, and 4x5 in both positive and negative. The grain in large prints goes down, as you would expect, as size of the original goes up. Grain goes up, and sharpness goes down as film speed increases. This is true of positive and negative.

 

Throughout this though, negative holds a commanding lead in all of the tests that I have run starting in the 50s and up through the present regardless of methodology, as long as the tests are 'fair' and equivalent.

 

Even when you mix digital with film, negative is preferred. ILM (Lucas films) uses ECN original mixed with digital to do special effects. AFAIK, they don't use positive films anywhere in the chain, and the same is true of all other major film producers at Hollywood. I have seen stills from various films presented by ILM reps to EK engineers along with their criticisms about the films and requests for improvements.

 

This is not mixing apples and oranges, by bringing in motion picture. Photography is photography, and film is film. Hollywood knows quality when they see it, and they know they can get a 35mm print from a negative to blow up to the large screen sizes.

 

If you compare films from about 20 years ago and today, you can see the improvement in modern films in sharpness and grain right on the screen. The old films had a turbulent 'boil' to the image introduced by the grain and Hollywood objected. That 'boil' was even worse when reversal films were used, and the prints were not good.

 

If you see old films from the 30s and 40s, that were not enhanced, and you see a 'dupey' look to them with high contrast and color degradation, that is a positive - positive print with the concomitant losses inherent in the pos-pos curve shape and color reproduction.

 

So, I stand by what I said, all things being equal, that color negative will be better than color reversal when printed to equal sizes and using the same optimum methodology, whether wet chemistry or scanning.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

". . . for optimal quality should be drum scanned and printed via a lightjet. It doesn't get any better. Fact, not opinion."

 

Actually, that's an opinion. It may or may not be correct, but it is an opinion. I certainly agree with you on the drum scan point, but there are those (myself included) who believe that with the advent of UltraChrome inks, prints from an Epson 7600/9600 have surpassed output from a Lightjet. What is a measurable scientific fact is that the color gamut of UltraChrome/7600/9600 prints exceeds that of a Lightjet. I understand that color gamut is not the only factor, and maybe not even the most important factor in determining the quality of a print, but it is important. Lightjet prints and UltraChrome/7600/9600 prints are different, and some will prefer one over the other. But it is not an absolute that Lightjet prints are better.

 

From my own 4x5 transparencies I have had drum scanned, I have had a few Lightjet prints made up to 24x36. Prints from the same scans that I have made on my own Epson 7600 with UltraChrome inks and the ImagePrint RIP compare very favorably to the Lightjet prints. In fact, I prefer them. But that's just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, Eric;

 

You guys may be right - one or the other - or the negative camp may be better, or the wet chemistry camp may be better.

 

Jeff, you make a point that Eric offers opinion.

 

Eric, you stated a 'fact' and Jeff said it was opinion.

 

I believe that it is nearly impossible to offer proof here that one system is better than another due to the image manipulation software in all scanners and the hardware itself. All images tend to be normalized for quality, and grain and sharpness differences are very hard to show.

 

Someone stated to me on another thread that Kodachrome was better than color negative and all other reversal films. That was a no-brainer to demonstrate, so I did. (see the upload above) But doing the demonstative proofs you describe are a lot harder.

 

I can maintain that color neg is better than positive, and point to the motion picture screen as my proof with no qualms, as we all go to the movies. But 'proving' one of your methodologies is better than another is going to be hard.

 

So, guys, as I have said before, offer your comments as opinions, describe your techniques, and then let Dan make the comparison himself. That is the only way to test your opinions.

 

I have seen 20x24 prints from negatives, transparencies, and digital scans of both negatives and transparencies printed to that size by a variety of methods. A digital scan of an original film is very good. It approaches the direct film print in quality, but with a lot of software manipulation to get there. Digital originals to digital prints are also very good, but have a lot of manipulation built in.

 

The best traditional color prints still beat the best digital prints regardless of method. Go look at some of Ctein's dye transfer prints or those of Jim Browning and see if I am right or not.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. The Lighjet is what I've used most and was used as an example over (Ilfochrome?) other examples of older techiques. I also like the latest Roland prints. At least no one brought up inter-negs...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...