SLIDE FILM PRINTS?!?!?!

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>What is the viewing distance? That is always the first question that comes to my mind.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>With 35mm and a Nikon Scanner you can get good 20x30 prints with care - when I had a flatbed I found the results from 35mm disappointing. With MF you can go much larger - a scanned image on velvia from one of my Fuji GX680s (6x8) is significantly higher resolution than from my 5DII. If you are prepared to stitch two slides (the fuji has front lens movement so you can shift, shoot then shift again and join the two shots) you can go very big. With a panorama on my GX680 I have gone as large as 6 feet by three and the quality is still very high. The issue with scanning larger format film is getting it flat and avoiding Moire patterns. I found my Epson could get good results but only with a significant investment in time with the Nikon the process is much quicker but I scan wet. Be aware that MF high resolution scans are very large - a 16 bit Tiff at 4000 dpi from my Fuji is 500 - 600 MB so you need a powerful computer with a lot of RAM to process the images. Some of the panoramas I have shot are over 1GB. The image size form a 4000dpi Nikon 9000 scan of a Fuji 6x8 negative is almost 12000x 9000 "pixels".<br>

B&W is higher resolution but I have never found the scanning process with B&W as good as the wet printing process. With negative film a good scanner and workflow can get very good results from a low speed negative film although for fine art and landscape type stuff I prefer a film like Velvia 50 or 100 and tend to expose it slightly slower (e.g. 40 and 80 ISO)</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>Great question, Lannie; I wish I had thought to ask it. ;)</p>

<p>Seriously, folks... there are many ways to achieve the goal and many have been thoughtfully presented. But the viewing distance, and the definition of "good/acceptable" print really should be clarified.</p>

<p>I really respect Dave's contribution (and, yes, I was being imprecise about latitude and dynamic range) but many great 8x10 and larger images have been made with 35mm. (I compeletely support, despite what I just said, the use of larger formats!)</p>

<p> p.s. One of the comments/suggestions that may have come-and-go warrants reiteration: master printers have been a key to success in the past. They are getting more difficult to find but with good direction (meaning LOTS OF IT, and CLEAR direction) even a mediocre printer might get you what you want/need. My approach has always been oriented to good "capture" of my "vision" and then manage the skills of others to get it onto paper.</p>

[kparratt]

<p><em>I'm a fine art, landscape photographer.</em><br>

To Dave Redman's words:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Then really, if you want to use film, ditch 35mm and get yourself a medium format rig. ... // ... Or for $400 and the trouble of lugging the extra weight, you could get a Mamiya RB-67 kit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I will agree totally, ... with the additional suggestion: for the same $400, you could actually pick up a 4x5 and a few bits and pieces. Of course for colour you will have the processing problem to solve, until you do that yourself too. Scanning a 4x5 on a V700? Nice. For the time being, a roll film holder 6x7 or 6x9, and stick with your normal processing channels, just to keep things moving. But once you start working with image plane adjustments, even the benefits of modest lens tilt, you'll never look back. To cost of a good shift lens to provide the same function for either 35mm or medium format is way more than a good basic 4x5 now.<br>

I know this is a deviation from the original question, .. or maybe not so much.<br>

<em><br /></em></p>

[brian_alworth1]

<p> My own rule of thumb after years of printing: For 35mm I don't go any larger than 8 x 12 (inches). With 645 shots: 16 x 20. With 6 x 7: about 24 x 30. With 4 x 5...haven't met the limit yet. This is using Velvia slide film, scanned on a drum scanner and printed on a top-notch printer by a pro lab. There are a lot of otherwise decent photographers in my town that use their own scanners and try to print with their own printers, and their stuff looks like crap, pardon the french.<br>

I echo the above sentiments about going larger format....once you've seen a good 6 x 7 Velvia slide on a light table, it's hard to go back. The problem now seems to be that manufacturers may be about to pull the plug on 120 film.</p>

[guy_e]

<p>THIS +1! :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Whatever you do, dont be like the guy I saw at the Porcupine Mountains last year during Fall Colors season, on an overcast day, with a 4x5 camera shooting Portra 160NC, because he had read that neg film has better dynamic range , and that saturation can always be added in post. Wrong on so many accounts. First off, a portrait film is designed to reduce facial blemishes, such as pimples or flushing, and so has reduced red sensitivity. Try shooting a sunset with a portrait film, and those reds will be bleached away. Same for red leaves in Fall! Second, it was a low contrast, overcast day. You want the extra contrast of slide in such cases for extra pop. Lastly, he had never tried out his film in advance, or experimented with film types before his trip. He took everything on the advice of what he had read online.<br /> Dont be that guy!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ok... my $.02... I just discovered that, with the right software, my V700 can supposedly produce some nice HDR type scans. I just upgraded to the latest version of Silverfast (v8), and it includes a multi-exposure mode that supposedly does a couple of passes over the slide / neg, changing the intensity of the bulb for each pass. I haven't actually _tried_ that mode yet, but am intrigued that this may actually solve part of the problem of gaining maximum dynamic range from an exposed negative or slide. Worth looking into if you're locked into a flatbed solution.</p>