I had no idea 35mm could carry that resolution!
I've just had some old transparencies printed up by Peak Imaging in the UK. A few 35mm slides I had printed up to 18x12". I wasn't expecting much, the largest I've ever had 35mm enlarged to was about 10x8", but my word, they look great! I have some provia, some velvia and some K25, usually taken with either Olympus, Nikon or Tamron lenses, on a tripod, mirror locked up etc. Grain hardly visible, really sharp and lovely colours. It's forced me to re-evaluate my opinion on the quality of 35mm. There is an amazing amount of detail in there.
Mind you, the prints from my 6x7 slides from my RB67 are...well you can guess!
How are you having them printed? As Ilfochromes? Or scanned and then RA-4?
I know that there is an awful lot that can be done with transparency film to get it to scan to look like a million bucks, but after having seen some Cibachrome projection prints from both 35mm, 6x6 120, and 4x5 all I can say is I wish I had more cash to print some of my own transparencies that way. Wow.
"Make good art!"
- Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera".
- Yousuf Karsh
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit".
It was scanned then RA-4, but that still looks great.
RIP software can work magic in preserving and enhancing quality, it's not an area for discussion on APUG though
Originally Posted by xtolsniffer
so did you have drum scans made of the slides? From personal experience, they are leaps and bounds better than any other type of scan done. But this is for another site, no more from me
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
They were probably actually printed with a digital minilab, like the Fuji Frontier. These machines have a built in film scanner and they then use lasers to expose regular color paper, which is RA-4 processed like normal. The results can be very very good.
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
Does all the silver get washed away in a chrome positive - leaving only the dye cloud? Or only some of the silver?
Yes, we can't mention any form of non-analog here on this site. Everything you've said is irrelevant.
One thing we noticed back in the late nineties was that the d_gitization process tended to INCREASE the apparent format of the film by one entire step. 35mm became as good as 645, 645 as good as 6x7, 6x7 as good as 4x5. And then the film manufacturers started to modify the film bases to improve scanning even more. Of course, this depended entirely on the scanning technology.
Personally, I have found today's 35mm films, such as Fujichrome Velvia 100, Fujicolor 160S and Kodak Portra 160NC to be so incredibly fine and sharp that my desire for larger formats has been substantially thwarted. Most of the time, it's not the stupid film, it's the stupid photographer.
Have to agree that the quality of modern colour films is outstanding from Fuji and Kodak and 35mm negs and transparencies are remarkably fine grained.
Match that up with something like a Fuji Frontier and the enlargements are even better.
These machines include RIP type software, Ilford uses a Frontier for it's B&W print service and having seen the quality of their printing service the poor reputation of digital minlab quality is well in the past.
Originally Posted by chriscrawfordphoto
While I can get sharp 12"x18" 35mm prints from the scan and then print via RA-4 process, I still get better larger print by having the work done at an all optical custom photofinisher.
I have a number of 35mm C-41 negatives that I have had printed 24"x36" and are still sharp and sometimes the grain can be seen if you push your nose into the print. This all depends on the film, the processing, the printing and the phase of the Moon.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.