Enlargement sizes for prints from film and digital

[rhaytana__tim_adams_]

What kind of print sizes can be expected from high end digital bodies,

with or without the help of aftermarket Photoshop tools?

 

I recently printed 18 x 12 enlargements of 35mm shots on an Epson

2200, and was pleasantly surprised by the results. The scans were at

4000 ppi. I can see the grain, but in other respects the shots are

about as sharp as 8 x 10s. For a full frame shot with a bigger

printer, I gather I could go as high as 24 x 16 and still produce a

240 dpi print, with as much or nearly as much sharpness.

 

What kind of prints could I expect with a Canon 20D or a Mark II, or a

D2H or D2X? I realize that these are very different cameras, but I

would be shopping in the high end if I were ever to replace my film

body, and thus would be choosing between one of these products.

 

One reason I'm asking: friends often bring photo questions to me,

although I'm hardly an expert. I have said that one remaining

advantage of film is that it offers potentially greater reproduction

size, unless compared with a digital body like the $8,000 1DS Mark II.

I want to stop saying this if it isn't true! I have read that Moose

Peterson has coaxed very large blow-ups from D100 files massaged with

an aftermarket plug-in, but don't know if this is more fact than hype

or more hype than fact.

 

I have no emotional attachment to a brand name or to film or digital,

and earnestly hope that I don't prompt film vs. digital sparring.

[digitmstr]

>>I have said that one remaining advantage of film is that it offers potentially greater reproduction size<<

 

Mm...first of all, are you talking about a traditional print? A print from a scan?

 

If you compare film size to *equal* sensor size the digital image will reproduce better enlargements.

 

But, even a smaller sensor size, like the one if the 20D or 10D will produce cleaner enlargements if properly executed.

[digitmstr]

That is, cleaner enlargements than a 35mm film.

[jtk]

There is no limit to what you can produce if you recognize that grain is irrelevant at a certain distance...that is, no matter how obvious the grain at one distance, it diminishes with further distance.

 

It's quite reasonable to print huge murals from 35mm through conventional optical enlargement....common 4000ppi scans are sharper than optical enlargement.

 

Interpolation application such as Genuine Fractals make huge enlargements especially reasonable.

[daniel_taylor]

"One reason I'm asking: friends often bring photo questions to me, although I'm hardly an expert. I have said that one remaining advantage of film is that it offers potentially greater reproduction size, unless compared with a digital body like the $8,000 1DS Mark II. I want to stop saying this if it isn't true!"

 

All things being equal, my 10D shots will enlarge better/further than my 35mm work. Some of my ISO 50/100 slide work scanned on my local lab's Imacon will hold its own. But a faster film or lesser scanner won't stand a chance at sizes like 16x20 or greater.

 

I've got ISO 800 8x10 half-frame crops (sports), and full frame 16x20's from my 10D that rival or surpase many of the ISO 100 and 400 film 16x20's I see at local art fairs, technically speaking.

 

Of course if you're willing to step back far enough, you can go to just about any size with either.

[bob_a]

Looks like a contender for the 2nd prize for the most misguided and irrelevant question.

 

Seriously, what type, brand and model of film? E.g, Reala may be better than some supermarket film. Scanning and printing on an Epson? Are you comparing your scanner/printer combo with a dSLR/minilab?

[john_amiet2]

TRhis whole question, and the answers, are a 'tin 'o worms'. Impossible to answer! Best used for bait when fishing.

 

Sorry, that's the red wine talking, but the parameters need to be pinned down much more before it can mean anything.

[fred_bonnett2]

Tim:

 

The answer depends on the kind of quality you expect. I find I can get acceptable 8x10s from a 6 or 8 MP DSLR and acceptable 11x14s from ISO 100 color negative film. Of course with film I get wider exposure-latitude as well as other benefits.

 

You often read that someone claims to get great 16x20s from 6 or 8 MP DSLRs --- but they never claim to get great 8x10s from 1.5 or 2 MP bodies. Both are, of course, is the same pixel density per square inch of print.

[rhaytana__tim_adams_]

Thanks for the feedback, and I apologize for omitting important details. I use a Canon FS4000 to scan at 4000 ppi from the film. My work is of the PJ type and usually indoors, so I load Fuji 800 Press or occasionally 400 Press in my F100.

 

Of course, Bob, I regret that you found the question misguided and irrelevant. To me it's very important. If it would cost $8000 for a 1DS Mark II to get the kind of enlargements I can expect from film, then I have an $8000 argument for sticking with my F100. But Daniel notes that 16 x 20s from his 10D look better than equivalent size shots on ISO 400 and 100 film. A new 20D sells for about $1,300. For me, a $6,700 difference is not pocket change.

 

I should mention that I haven't shot digital, yet, and am not familiar with digital performance at high ISO settings. In some ways, I'm a tyro. I do know that the 18 x 12s from Fuji 800 look better than I'd hoped.

[robert goldstein]

I cannot speak to the enlargeability of digitally captured images, but I have found that most 35mm film is limited to 12x18 full frame, and that assumes using an ultra-sharp lens and a tripod. Certain slide films (e.g. Astia 100f and Provia 100f) look very good at that size and can probably go even larger. There are many variables to consider, as mentioned by others, one of the most important being one's own personal standards. What might be splendid to one observer would be unacceptable to another.

[vito]

I just had a 13 x 19 enlargement printed from a Nikon D70 shot (6MP). It looks better than what I used to get by scanning film at 5400 dpi.

 

The file was modestly but accurately sharpened. This is where digital definitely has advantage. Sharpening slide scans is a guessing game at best, a lot of times you are just sharpening grain, making the picture look spotty (especially visible in sky areas and such).

 

Also, your subject is important. Enlarging digital portrait is easy, but landscape is not. Anything that has fine texture, like fabric would look better on film.

[cliff_batson]

Tim,

 

I think the "real-world" answer to your question is that photos taken with a Canon 20D can look great 16x20... especially if you look at them from a normal viewing distance. Professionals all over the country are selling 16x20 portraits every day that were taken with these cameras.

 

In my home I have a black and white 16x20 of my wife that was taken with my Canon 10D. My friends tell me that the portrait is gorgeous - and I agree. Now, if you walk right up to it and look at it from a few inches away, you'll see that it lacks the smoothness of fine film. Truthfully, I wish I had shot it on my Hasselblad 500 ELX (that I haven't used in well over a year). But, it's a beautiful portrait, nonetheless.

 

For Christmas, I bought my wife a little consumer digital camera - the Canon Powershot A85. One day I shot a portrait of our cat with this camera by available light from a nearby window. It is unbelievably sharp. Really. I have it hanging on the wall printed as an 11x14 and it looks as good as anything I ever shot on film. I'm not exagerating when I say that. Sure, you could put your nose on the print and tell that it wasn't shot on an 8x10 view camera... but, from even a few inches away, that picture is simply amazing - and the camera only cost $300. Of course, the lighting was beautiful, I sharpened it a little in Photoshop, increased the saturation a bit, applied a textured overlay, etc... in other words, I tweaked it. It gets a lot of attention when somebody sees it hanging on the wall.

 

I love my Canon 20D and I plan to sell my 10D to upgrade to a second 20D body. I'm 44 and have shot 4x5 view cameras, Hasselblads, Mamiya RB67, 35mm (of course), and now an 8Mp digital camera. There's no doubt that fine-grained film, especially with a larger negative, can produce prints that are better than any 8Mp camera. But, you will be very surprised at the quality of print you can get with the Canon 20D.

 

Go for it, ASAP! You'll be glad you did.<div></div>

[daniel_taylor]

"Thanks for the feedback, and I apologize for omitting important details. I use a Canon FS4000 to scan at 4000 ppi from the film. My work is of the PJ type and usually indoors, so I load Fuji 800 Press or occasionally 400 Press in my F100."

 

At these ISO's a 10D or 20D will have a large advantage. Especially if you use a product like Noise Ninja in post processing. A 10D ISO 400 shot is already as clean or cleaner than ISO 100 film. Run it through Noise Ninja and it's pretty much impossible to tell from a straight ISO 100 shot. 8x10's look like they came from 645, not 35mm.

 

And the 20D is cleaner to begin with.

 

Again, films like Velvia or Provia will hold their own when enlarged via a drum or Imacon. But anything less in film or scanner, and the DSLR's will just pull away.

[rhaytana__tim_adams_]

It certainly sounds like one needs to spend far less than I'd thought to get great results from digital at large enlargement sizes.

 

The pre-purchase flow chart for me is:

 

a) Find out as much as I can online first.

 

b) Rent the camera-lens-flash combo that interests me most, at least for a weekend and preferably for a week.

 

c) Buy.

 

I have other questions about the differences between film and digital SLRs, but they would be off topic in this thread. Thanks once again for the valuable and thoughtful responses.

[floyd_long]

I enlarge prints in PhotoShop CS with awesome results. I dare you to tell the difference between PhotoShop and Genuine Fractals when you do it this way. Open image size. Change document size to desired finished print size and change resolution to 250. Notice the pixel dimension at the top. Cancel and close the window. Open again. Enter 250 in resolution and this time change the document size to percent. Increase percentage until the pixel dimensions are the same as before you closed the previous window. Hit OK and your done.

[emre]

Floyd: Why not just set the desired resolution (250ppi in your example) and the image size in one swoop? The result will be the same. No need for voodoo...

[robert goldstein]

There was recently a post on the digital camera forum involving a well done, though limited, comparison of the 20D and a 5400dpi scan of Velvia. There was no doubt that the Velvia scan had more detail and looked more natural, but the 20D image was cleaner. This is what makes people think that digitally captured images look "better." There is less noise, even if there is less detail. Whether this is truly better is a matter of personal preference.

[robert goldstein]

Forgot to note that the above-mentioned comparison involved 35mm Velvia, but I cannot remember which version.

[jtk]

I'm currently shooting Velvia, but in truth it's a ridiculous film to use in a format that, long ago, was intended for action. It's a motion picture format, after all. IMO if it can't make an important image at 400-1200 ei, it's not adequate. Same with digital, for that matter...