Large Prints

[gmb]

I intend to make shoulder portraits (studio lighting) and print them in 2

seizes. The small one would be 80cm*80cm and the larger about 1.5m*1.5m. I

want them to show as much detail as possible. I know that most will be viewed

from a distance but it is important that they are pin sharp even if viewed

from very close.

 

Questions is whether that is possible with medium format or whether I would

have to resort to large format. So far I have no experience with either.

 

Also, I whould perfer to use a digital back but could use film if that

provides better results.

 

Cost is an issue but not the decisive factor. Quality is more important.

 

Thanks.

[derek_stanton2]

"Pin sharp" will probably not be the barrier. I have a feeling the issue will be grain or

noise. But, only you can really judge what will be acceptable for your purposes.

 

I'd recommend visiting the facility that will be responsible for outputting your images.

Find out if they have displays of the size in which you're interested, and determine what

your tolerance for grain/noise is. Then find out what equipment was involved in creating

those images.

 

I'm sure you could do it with large format film. But, do you want to? I also believe one of

the newer, high res medium format backs could do it, but at a far greater cost. How do

you want to work?

[Ed_Ingold]

Prints of these sizes suggest using a 4x5 camera or larger. Even an 80cm x 80cm print is marginal for medium format for high quality (and high priced) work. Others might be "happy" with results at this size, I am not - a concession to the laws of physics which, to some, do not apply to Hasselblad and Leica.

 

You might find success with a 39MP back (q.v., http://www.luminous-landscape.com for comparisions). Unless your prices and volume will support a $30K outlay, 4x5 film would seem a better choice.

[nealcurrie]

With some subjects, 80cm x 80cm would be acceptable from medium format negs which have care put into them - but portraits probably aren't included in that list. That is a 15x enlargement with extremely minor cropping. Try printing a 35mm neg to 36cm x 54cm, and that will be the same enlargement factor as 80x80.

 

1.5m x 1.5m is simply too big for high-quality medium format. It can look O.K. with very slow film, but only from a large distance.

[robert lee]

"...the larger about 1.5m*1.5m. ... important that they are pin sharp even if viewed from very close."

 

You're intending to shoot 6x6 then? At the target size, this is essentially a 25x enlargement. No, it will not be pin sharp (meaning that the print is bounded by the resolving capability of unaided eyesight, without regards to viewing distance.)

 

10x enlargement from film is about it without heroic efforts in technique, material, and labor. B&W films like Neopan Acros or Tmax 100 are good places to start. Develop for high acutance, then high resolution drum scan, and followed by lots (and lots) of digital darkroom work.

[brucecahn]

"resort to large format"? You make it sound very undesirable. LF is the only way to make high quality large prints. I am sure this will enrage some of you, but it is a fact. Check out the digitally enhanced work of Andreas Gursky to confirm this(you must see the prints)--trash!

[dave_redmann]

Let's see: the limits of human vision for resolving fine detail are generally regarded as somewhere around one-half minute-of-angle. At close viewing distances (18 inches, a bit under 0.5 m--close but not nose-to-it--close-focus with your eyes involves other issues), 0.5 MOA works out to somewhere in the area of 7 or 8 lp/mm. Suppose you are using the very best lenses, film, technique, etc. and you somehow manage to get 70 or 80 lp/mm into your print (the combined effects of taking lens MTF, film MTF, etc. mean more than that is extremely unlikely). Given this, your maximum enlargement for pin sharp is somewhere around 10x. So to print 1.5m square, you need film AT LEAST 0.15m square, i.e., 15 x 15 cm, or about 6 x 6 INCHES.

 

Now I realize that few real-world images contain that fine detail, but even fewer real-world photos maintain 70 lp/mm to the negative and then preserve all of that in the print.

 

So it sounds like you need at least a 4x5 inch, and more probably an 8x10 inch.

[nealcurrie]

Dave - I don't think that for a print to be pin-sharp requires it to contain as much (or more) detail than the eye can resolve. If a print had 5 lp/mm, don't you think it would still be pin sharp?

 

This gets you to about 15x enlargement - which can be handled by superb lenses in the sweet spot shooting something like TechPan.

[wai_leong_lee]

I've printed 16x20's from 35 mm negs that I'm happy with (albeit not many, only the ones not affected by camera shake or subject movement). That's a 16x enlargement.

 

With medium format, one frequently shoots on tripods and can get very good results with bracketing, approaching the theoretical lpm of the film and lens. Why would a 15x enlargement from 6x6 (ie about 80 x 80 cm) not be as good as a 16x enlargement from a 35 mm neg?

[nealcurrie]

35mm negs can "generally" be enlarged slightly more than larger negs, because 35mm lenses are generally sharper and they won't suffer from as much film flatness issues (while taking and enlarging).

[mike_earussi1]

If I wanted to make enlargments as big as you do and still have them be high quality I'd be shooting 8x10 (20 cm x 25 cm) minimum! But then I'm pretty fussy about quality.

[larry_s1]

Think about shooting MF and doing high quality scans. I have done up to close to 36" from 645 (Fuji RDP slide film). But 48" (1.5m) might be a bit much.

[gmb]

Thanks to all for your helpful answers. So I think I go for large format. Next question will be in the large format forum.

[wai_leong_lee]

"35mm negs can "generally" be enlarged slightly more than larger negs, because 35mm lenses are generally sharper and they won't suffer from as much film flatness issues (while taking and enlarging)."

 

I think our Hassy/MF expert QG had something to say about this, namely that it's a myth that 35 mm lenses are generally "sharper". Do a google to find his post.

 

As for film flatness, I don't see any problem with it if your equipment is well-maintained.

 

Since we generally shoot medium format on a tripod, with careful framing and focus, I'd say even 20x enlargement should not be a problem if subject movement is not an issue.

[q.g._de_bakker]

I'll not repeat the thing about 35 mm format lenses. ;-)<br><br>But what i will repeat (i'm sure i said something like this elsewhere too) is that i've had rather large prints made of 6x6 negs, and not only they did look good, at the intended, "normal" viewing distance for such large prints, but people stepped up a bit closer to see more, and they then could indeed see more detail than they could before.<br>Now that's good enough, i'd say!<br><br>Not that large format isn;t better. It of course is.<br>But just like 35 mm miniature format sometimes is all you need, MF formats are really good enough for prints of 1.5 m. You don't really need LF, unless you want to study prints of that size with a loupe too. ;-)