Back in the day we would make bigger prints than that from 35mm, but the standard practice was to make an inter negative first, 8x10. Did some sports pics for a newspaper lobby that were 12 feet tall. Viewing distance is everything. This was at a commercial lab. I think that is the true value of analog, even when it "breaks down" (grainy etc) it often does so in a beautiful way. When you reach the limit of a digital file the break down is much less attractive. In my opinion of course.
35mm to 18 ft by 60 ft
Early in the process of getting started with digital technology at Kodak, I made an 8" wide digital internegative used to make Neil's actual Cheetah Colorama; it was the only way the final display print actually looked like the Kodachrome original. The traditional internegative film approach made a print that lacked the 'true' Kodachrome look . See http://www.montanusphotography.com/n.../coloramas.htm or http://bit.ly/QQ2xYQ
Thankyou, Prof_Pixel for the Neil Montanus link.
I've always been fascinated with the Coloramas, but have depended mainly on the Kodak website for examples. Your link is fascinating.
Originally Posted by MattKing
i had never heard of a colorama before
that was a fun video !
Here's what Grand central Station looked like with a Colorama picture. I remember a few myself when I went through the Station years ago. Very impressive. Don't recall thinking or noticing grain but you're standing pretty far away.
All that is really needed is a good clean digital file which captures all the sharpness and detail of the original. It doesn't even need to be that big, as the RIPs can "inflate" a file to the correct dimensions almost without flaw. It's amazing.
Originally Posted by Patrick Robert James
Also, the implication that one of the world's truly great photographers would try to pawn off substandard prints on unsuspecting rubes is rather insulting, isn't it?
All you really need is a good clean negative and someone who knows what to do with it. Your end enlargement will contain detail from the negative and not a few million pixels which a computer decides to insert which were never in the original to start with. Digital imaging it is but it is not photography.
Making a print that big from anything shy of an immaculate 8x10 sheet of film is equivalent to hitting
a moth with your windshield going 85 mph. It's a pretentious fad going ape right now in galleries and public venues at us totally dependent upon the "normal viewing distance" myth. If anything deserves to
be blown up big, it should have truly dramatic social consequences, and hey, that ole fuzzy shot of the
Marlboro Man has been blown up twenty feed wide many thousands of times, and has indeed probably
killed more people than any other photograph in history, so I guess it would count. And now vintage
works are being blown up by generations who have no knowledge of what the original photographer
might have intended - no respect for either their own style or era. Disgusting! But just give it a few more years and every esthetic lemming out there will be blindly following some other silly trend, which
will probably consist of Minox contact prints next time around!
LOL... I've never seen an original image scene in real life that was made up of film grain. Both film and digital simply sample real life scenes.
Originally Posted by richard ide
BTW, many digital images today contain far more than simply 'a few million pixels".
I've seen the actual Colorama display images 'up close and personal', and believe me, the grain was large!
Originally Posted by Alan Klein