Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,720   Posts: 1,670,077   Online: 860
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21
    EASmithV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,925
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    128
    You think that's good, check out Bluefire Police film That stuff is crazy. More resolution than your lens.

    http://www.frugalphotographer.com/ga...nlargement.htm
    www.EASmithV.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."— Dorothea Lange
    http://www.flickr.com/easmithv/
    RIP Kodachrome

  2. #22
    EASmithV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,925
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Ektagraphic View Post
    I have heard of 20X30 prints from Kodachrome shot with Leica.
    Those must be gorgeous.
    www.EASmithV.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."— Dorothea Lange
    http://www.flickr.com/easmithv/
    RIP Kodachrome

  3. #23

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    509
    Quote Originally Posted by Anon Ymous View Post
    If the maximum print width coming from a frontier is 8", a 135 frame is 24mm wide, and it prints at 300dpi, then it must be scanning at 2540dpi. Frankly, I don't really know; it's just some common knowledge, some data gathered from google and a bit of math.
    hopefully this doesn't get the thread shut down....you are correct in that it prints at 300dpi per output size. I think there is a little over scan going on too for borderless prints, just like overenlargement in optical minilabs. For example, when scanning for a 4x6 inch print, the resulting file is 1228x1818 pixels, where as an 8x12 is 2433x3637.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by EASmithV View Post
    You think that's good, check out Bluefire Police film That stuff is crazy. More resolution than your lens.

    http://www.frugalphotographer.com/ga...nlargement.htm
    Oh man....

    That stuff is awesome!

    Thanks for bringing that up!

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    441
    Images
    1
    To the guys who were comparing Gold 200 to Reala, why would you do that? The results of Gold 200 to me is like Kodak's version of a Friday afternoon off.
    If you would rather shoot some Kodak film, you've got to compare something as good as Reala to a good Kodak Neg. :-)

    Jed

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    348
    Oh I wasn't saying that Kodak don't make some great neg films, they do, it's just that sometimes Gold is the only thing you can find when you run out and you're desperate. Both Kodak and Fuji make some amazing films, films that even 15 years ago we would have drooled over the idea of.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Klosterneuburg, Austria
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    97
    It is even more suprising that top-quality large format lenses can achieve an abosute resolving power like a high-grade 35 mm lens!

    Neither enlargements nor high-resolution scans can resolve (!) the actual resolution of film, but a microscope will show the limits. Modern ultra-fine grained, ultra-thin emulsion color films such as Provia 100F will capture details far beyond practical use, as single blades of grass; but with large format film, you will capture the nerves of single leaves at the same distance.

    Color offset prints in books from Kodachrome 25 and 64 in the 1970s and 1980s revealed that with Leitz or Zeiss lenses, 35 mm photography delivered an image quality sufficient for double-sided illustrations in folio format. It depends on the lens, of course, but also on the film grain and the thickness of the emulsion layers.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinz_Anderle View Post
    It is even more suprising that top-quality large format lenses can achieve an abosute resolving power like a high-grade 35 mm lens!
    If anything, the contrary.
    It is remarkable that small diameter lenses can achieve an absolute resolving power equal to that of high-grade larger lenses. And often they can not.
    Not because they just are not good enough. But simply because they simply can not.

    Color offset prints in books from Kodachrome 25 and 64 in the 1970s and 1980s revealed that with Leitz or Zeiss lenses, 35 mm photography delivered an image quality sufficient for double-sided illustrations in folio format. It depends on the lens, of course, but also on the film grain and the thickness of the emulsion layers.
    Here we are are very close to the origin of the 35-mm-format-lenses-are-better belief.
    The burden of proof was on Leitz that the tiny format they chose for the Leica could deliver sufficient quality. (And they could, as long as you did not demand the impossible, i.e. expect the same image quality larger formats deliver.)
    The mere fact that their lenses had to be good to even come close to what larger formats produced with great ease, somehow has become inverted over time, now appearing as a believe that the lenses are better.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    328
    Images
    7
    35mm worked for Galen Rowell and his work has been the most influential for me out of any colour photographer. Pretty much all his images were shot on Kodachome 25 or Velvia.
    RIP.
    http://mountainlight.com/gallery.nepal/images.html

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,696
    Images
    15
    The 35mm format is excellent for reversal-to-Ilfochrome printing if you adopt an holistic approach to quality from image conception to finished frame job and display. Working within its limits and using the best quality optics you can afford, I am absolutely certain people can do the same thing I am doing with 35mm, if only they adopt the discipline and drive. A lot of people think my framed 30x45cm Ilfochromes were shot with large format, but no — not ever.

    I am not a fan, never have and never will be, of the reversal-to-scan and print methodology — lasers, inkjets, Pegasus or whatever they call it. Gamut loss from the reversal palette to RGB is too great and bothersome to try and correct. Only Ilfochrome will carry through the image faithfully.

    Correcting some odd observations, large format lenses do have the defining edge in resolution and linear sizing for printing, but how many people actually print to the enormous Ilfochrome image sizes from large format — which is to say, getting the very, very, very best result from their investment? Here in Australia, I know of some very, very wealthy photographers who print mega-expensive panorama Ilfochromes from 6x12cm. Good on them. Way to go. The whole point of shooting reversal film, especially, on large format is lost — a travesty — if you only scan and output to inkjet, laser or whatnot, too often as an after-thought to a lot of effort. If big Ilfochromes from LF don't appeal, stick with 35mm and work within your budget and the format's boundaries.
    Last edited by Poisson Du Jour; 05-08-2010 at 01:56 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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