slide project for previewing print size?

[max_steinhardt]

<p>Is a slide projector a reliable indicator of how a print would look in terms of grain and sharpness? I was just looking at a 35mm slide at around 2 feet by 3 feet, and even close up the grain and sharpness was fine. Prevailing wisdom on the subject, however, is that a massive enlargement of that size from 35mm wouldn't be great. I'm not actually interested in an enlargement that big, I'm just trying to determine if other people have wildly higher standards of grain and sharpness than i do, or if a projector is not a good way to preview what a print will look like.</p>

[diegobuono]

<p>I suppose it is a quite good way to preview will look like in terms of sharpness and grain, but not in terms of contrast, which is noticeable greater in the prints.</p>

[max_steinhardt]

<p>ah, i knew there had to be something to it, thank you very much.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

I think the reverse is not true, a print is not a good indicator of how a slide would look, unless it's a humungus print.

[Alan Marcus]

<p >We view slides by projection. The light from the projector transverses the colored dye of the slide and is focused by the projector lens onto a screen. Assuming the side is correctly exposed and processed, the scale of tones seen on the screen can max out to 256:1.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >We view prints on paper by light that radiates out from a light source, usually behind the observer. This light must transverse the colored dye on the print. After the passage through the dye, the strikes a white subcoat and is reflected backwards towards the observer. The light again must transverse the dye. Thus the light makes two transits. Assuming the print is correctly exposed and processed, the scale of tones seen will be a maximum of 64:1.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thus the print on paper in handicapped by a reduced scale and appears far more contrasty than a well projected slide.</p>

[max_steinhardt]

<p>Is it right to assume that the greater contrast applies to the grain itself, thus making it have a harder, more noticeable edge?</p>

[Alan Marcus]

<p >Contrast is the variations in tone between two or more parts of the image. The perceived contrast of an image can change dramatically with viewing conditions. A print will appear darker when viewed with a white surround and lighter if the borders are black. The contrast of a color transparency is higher in a pitch back room as apposed to a semi illuminated projection theater.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Grain in photographs is a tiny thing. What you are seeing and calling grain is the clumping together of oily dye globules. With color materials, the best way to control contrast is lighting ratio, color balance, and in the case of prints, how they are mounted and viewed.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Contrast is a complex subject and we must also take into account optical flare. Flare in the camera lens is devastating. We also must deal with flare in the slide projector condenser lens and projector lens. In the print we must take into account flare in the projection lens that produced the enlargement.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Grain is not the foremost factor. </p>

 

[max_steinhardt]

<p>Ya know, i think this is just one of those things I'm just going to have to try. One of my semi-local labs has a half off sale for RA prints in 24x30 to 30x40. I think That I can lay down a few bucks to satisfy my curiosity.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Steinhardt.....</p>

<p>I would give you a qualified "yes". Most screens are beaded. The beading bounces light all over, making the image brighter and easier to see in a room that is not completely dark. However the beading also degrades sharpness and obscures grain. A high quality lenticular screen would give you a better indication of what printing would look like if done through glass. Of course today, very little printing is done through glass. Most of the printing is done by scanning the film at high speed and then digitally printing on silver halide-type paper. As far as I know, none of the high speed printing machines even use scanners employing PMTs. That must also be taken into consideration.</p>

<p>For a while, just a few years back, I was able to have film printed locally by large commercial printing machines, where one employed through-the-glass printing, and the other was digital. The through-the-glass print looked much more like a projection of the same size on a small tight lenticular screen that I had. Being older, the through-the-glass prints looked more realistic to me. I searched my mind for a word that would better describe my impression than "realistic," but that is not quite what I mean, even though I can't think of that better word. It could just be that I spent a lifetime looking at glass enlargements, which make the new digital printing look different to me in a negative way. That doesn't mean they are worse, just different. I am of an older generation that gets used to things.</p>

<p>For instance, from the end of World War II up to about 1960, Buick went to great lengths so that when you looked at a new Buick and sat in the driver's seat, you felt the comfort of being in your older Buick. They even scented the upholstery the same. Of course, when you looked at its price competitors, like the Chrysler, the placement of the controls was different, the seating contour was different, the softness, even the scent was different, and Buick hoped you would feel more awkward and then feel "back home" again in the Buick showroom. Buick sold a lot of cars in those days, especially for a high-priced example. So I don't fault their logic. I suspect my dislike of things digital could be influenced by the same type of 1930s-1950s socialization. </p>

<p>There you have it, so much about so little,</p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

[Alan Marcus]

<p >The best way to preview a slide and make an assessment as to how it might look as a print…. Place a sheet of white paper on your desk. Illuminate the white paper with a strong light. Hold the slide at an angle so it is view via light reflected from the white paper. This is a tried and true method. </p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Have the big one made I recently had a 20X30 made from a Scan from my V700 and it is beautiful.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The best way to evaluate the quality of a print is from a print.</p>

<p>You can preview a large, expensive print by making one or more smaller prints of various portions of the image at the same magnification. If you don't have an high quality photo printer, you could take the cropped enlargements to a minilab.</p>

<p>Conversely, a projected slide is a poor way to evaluate quality. Projectors are not really that sharp, and most screens are textured in a way that further obscures detail on close examination. Let's not confuse the ambience of a darkened room with a projector, nor romantic notions of the virtues of slides, with objective observations.</p>

[max_steinhardt]

<p>I hear ya Tom. Being 25, I can look at the prints made from when I was a kid and compare them to the prints I get now, and all the old glass prints seem to have a certain smoothness that I just don't perceive in the digital prints, even though they were made with the same lenses and camera. Some day I'd like to get into the whole wet darkroom thing, but even then a print as large as 24x30 would cost a lot more than the $37 it would cost me with this sale, due to the fact that I would have to buy more than one sheet of paper. I usually try not to think about the whole digitization faze of the process, as it is a large consideration to take in, and if the print is full of both grain and digital noise.... well that would suck. In the end though, I'm thinking that at less than $40, it is worth the gamble to know once and for all how big 35mm can go to.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I have enlarged Kodachrome 25 as far as 80 inches.... But had posters made from lesser negatives larger.... Think about it it is distance from the screen and the way something is viewed.... Who looks at a print that size from 1 foot? Like I said go for it....</p>

[max_steinhardt]

<p>Alan, I just tried that out, and the slide still looks awesome.</p>

<p>Edward, This is my first slide projector. I have little romantic feelings for film, I just like it because it has absolutely nothing to do with a computer (well except the obvious forum posting). I was frankly shocked at how sharp the image was at 6 inches to 2 feet away from it. I had always assumed it would look something like a digital image viewed at 10X it's original size, but it looked soft like the world does after an optometrist dilates your eyes.</p>

[max_steinhardt]

<p>Yeah Larry, at this point I'm totally going for it. The spot I'm thinking of hanging it has about a 5 foot minimum viewing distance due to furniture, and i doubt people will spend much time even that close to it.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Go to a gallery and see how shitty some of the enlarged Digital pictures look and are for sale.... Max I think you are a new friend of mine.</p>

[max_steinhardt]

<p>Awesome...Can i barrow some money? I swear I'm good for it... in fact I'm a Nigerian Prince, my accounts are just being transferred.</p>

<p>In all seriousness, I think it is important to understand your medium, and since "how big can i print 35mm film" seems to be one of those unanswerable questions, I'll just have to find out for myself. Thank you to everybody for all the information and opinions =).</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>LOL no money but I may have a roll of AGFA 25 with your name on it...</p>

[max_steinhardt]

<p>Wow, thanks! Next time I'm in your area, I'll swing by and pick it up. Judging by your tombstone pictures, I'm guessing you're in Tennessee or Kentucky. If the rate I am in that area stays constant, I'd say I'll see you in... 22 years =).</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>LOL</p>