Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,211   Posts: 1,531,992   Online: 1134
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,298
    Thanks Walter, Dave and Donald.

    Yes, I'm planning on having the shortest width of the mural prints a minimum of 40", so they can be considered "mural sized".

    I will first experiment with my current film/developer combination and see how the print quality is. If it's not meeting my approval, a film/developer change will be made to better suit this printing process.

    All the best,

    Ryan McIntosh
    www.RyanMcIntosh.net

  2. #12
    garysamson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    219
    Images
    26
    I certainly do not want to start a pyro developers war on this thead, but I have made many enlargements from Ilford FP4+ and Kodak Tmax 400 films processed in PMK Pyro that produced excellent sharpness and virtually no grain. A 40 inch wide print would only be a 4x enlargement from an 8x10 inch negative - grain should not be much of an issue with most conventional or pyro based developers at this enlargement magnification.

  3. #13
    RobertP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,130
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by garysamson View Post
    I certainly do not want to start a pyro developers war on this thead, but I have made many enlargements from Ilford FP4+ and Kodak Tmax 400 films processed in PMK Pyro that produced excellent sharpness and virtually no grain. A 40 inch wide print would only be a 4x enlargement from an 8x10 inch negative - grain should not be much of an issue with most conventional or pyro based developers at this enlargement magnification.
    Wouldn't a 16x20 from an 8x10 be a 4x enlargement? So wouldn't a 40" enlargement be an 16x enlargement?

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    360
    What if the neg is scanned and printed digitally? Same grain issues? The reason I ask is that I have a project where they want the ulf negs scanned and then made into 20 x 30's or 30 x 40's...I developed in pyro hd. I have 8 x 10's and 7 x 17's (which would be 14 x 34, or 21 x 51 ratio's roughly).

  5. #15
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,401
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    155
    This reminds me of the whole "can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up" type of question.

    Galen Rowell get's (got) away with murals from 35mm chromes! If your picture is worth looking at........is the question that is about a billion times more important than whether grain structure of an 8X10 pyro neg will hold up.

    People don't stand 6 inches away from a mural with a magnifying glass! This entire discussion seems idiotic to me. 5X7 has always seemed like overkill to me for enlarging. 4X5 is probably plenty.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    27
    In line with what Jim said, the 'best' developer will be one that gives a robust negative with strong contrast and perhaps maybe too much grain for an 8x10 print. It will probably be printed on higher than normal contrast paper as well. The larger the print the more contrast is necessary and the farther you must stand back to see the intent of the picture. Else there will be no perception by the viewer of three dimensionality.
    But as Jim already said, the photo has to be worth looking at.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Glen Ridge, New Jersey (a suburb of New York)
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1

    Enlargement sizes

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertP View Post
    Wouldn't a 16x20 from an 8x10 be a 4x enlargement? So wouldn't a 40" enlargement be an 16x enlargement?
    Nope. Enlargement comparisons are usually linear comparisons, as it is the degree of linear magnification which gives an indication of the progressive degradation of the image. 16"x20" represents a 2X enlargement of an 8"x10" negative (even though the resulting print has 4X the area.)

    Obviously, others may disagree, but I have found that my 4"x5" PMK Pyro negatives look very good at 4X--i.e. 16"x20". In fact, I have begun using PMK even for my 6cm x 7cm roll film negs. in enlargements up to 11"x14" and even in digitally-processed images up to 13"x19"--admittedly with FP4+ rather than something coarser grained. This represents a magnification of almost 7X. The grain was visible, but I thought the improvement in acutance and tonal gradation was worth it. I would also agree with those who point out that viewing distance has something to do with the grain criterion, especially for a mural. You'll never confuse the result with a contact print, but you wouldn't anyway. The only format I would definitely not recommend Pyro for under any circumstances is 35mm.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    If grain is a major issue for mural size prints I would advise changing film, not developer. Although some developers give finer grain than others these differences are nuances compared to the significant difference in films. Also, the developers that give the finest grain do so at the expense of sharpness, the best example being Microdol-X compared to Rodinal.

    In any event grain should not be an issue with a ULF negative, regardless of developer, unless you are going to be making murals measured in feet, and at that point viewing distance and detail are factors of even more importance than grain. In any event, one can easily go 3X-4X with an FP4+ ULF negative of 11X14" in size and still maintain critical sharpness and minimum grain even at the optimum viewing distance of ten inches or so. And at that point you already have a 44X56" print.

    Sandy King
    Last edited by sanking; 11-19-2006 at 01:05 PM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin