Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,225   Posts: 1,532,670   Online: 803
      
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 51 to 59 of 59
  1. #51
    eddym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,927
    Images
    26
    I saw the Salgado exhibit here in PR a few years ago. The prints were huge, and they were powerful! And you didn't need to get close to them to check the grain to be impressed by them. They were very powerful, grain or no grain.

    I have printed a few 35mm HP5+ negs to 20x30. They are grainy, but they are PJ shots, not landscapes.
    Grain is good. Grain is your friend. Without grain, you'd be stuck with (whisper it!) pixels!
    Eddy McDonald
    www.fotoartes.com
    Eschew defenestration!

  2. #52
    tiberiustibz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tufts University
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,750
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by ebwitwicki View Post
    What is the largest print that can be enlarged from a 35mm negative? With 400 iso.
    Oh hell here we go again. I'm going to say...as high as your enlarger will go.

    Depends upon what you will accept for graininess/want for graininess. Look at the top of your page at the quote:

    "That is called grain. It is supposed to be there." -Flotsam

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    98

    lens

    Quote Originally Posted by rob champagne View Post
    which enlarger lens are you using?
    Rob,

    My lens is a Minolta CLE 50mm 2.8, I was told it was a good one when bought if from MXV. The camera lens is a Nikon AIS prime 50mm, so I think thats OK. Maybe its because it was a handheld shot at 1/60?

    Cheers

    Ritchie

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Carnie View Post
    I saw people weeping in sorrow/sadness , at George Eastman House viewing a Salgado exhibit and all these prints were 20x24 and larger from 35mm camera.
    The only weeping I can see over my prints would be at the fuzzy focus, inept dodging, and botched spotting. I have a lot to learn!

    Ritchie

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by thomsonrc View Post
    Rob,

    My lens is a Minolta CLE 50mm 2.8, I was told it was a good one when bought if from MXV. The camera lens is a Nikon AIS prime 50mm, so I think thats OK. Maybe its because it was a handheld shot at 1/60?

    Cheers

    Ritchie
    As you will see from one of the merged posts in this thread, enlarging lenses are designed to work within a range of magnifications and have an optimum enlargement factor. When you use the lens at smaller than optimum enlargement factor, then its generally no discernable difference because you have not enlarged very much. But when you go over its optimum, the performance decreases. Typically the optimum is around 10x but it really depends on the lens. I don't know what it is for your lens but 16x12 would be the upper limit for a 10x lens printing full frame from the neg. If you have cropped the neg then you may be pushing your luck. Also being hand held at that speed is not going to give perfect sharpness.

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Magnificent Rockies
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    537
    Images
    1
    Thomson,

    That Minolta CE 50mm is one of the best. I own two and they both beat the sox off my Nikkors, Rodagons and Componons. IIRC, the Minolta is designed to be optimal at 12X-15X, Eugene Smith used Minolta gear and praised it highly.

    Rob is right on with his suggestions. Add to the top of that list "use a solid tripod!"

    The majority of softness in 35mm work is caused by handheld camera shake, pure and simple. If you're using good prime lenses, then I would most definitely point a finger at camera shake. Unless, of course, you have both/either a defective enlarger lens and/or a defective prime lens, which is highly unlikely.

    And at 12x16 you are going to see some grain. Tweak your habits/techniques until that grain is sharp, shoot from a tripod as often as you can and that will be the best of 35mm. I might add if you are seeing sharp grain but soft image edges from good lenses, that definitely points to camera shake.

    Also, make yourself a test neg by scratching fine lines in some exposed leader and project that in your enlarger to check for sharp focus across the negative. This can also be a source of unsharp prints.

    Try some shots with the tripod and some handheld of the same subject and enlarge those and you will see how large a difference there is in sharpness.

    Good luck,

    Fred
    Last edited by Fred Aspen; 04-15-2008 at 08:06 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #57
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    This is one of those questions with many reasonable answers. You have to answer it for yourself, through your own experimentation.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  8. #58
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,650
    Images
    14
    To add to Robs good tips, use a glass carrier and make sure the enlarger, negstage , lens, and easel are all aligned and the negative is centered to the lamp and lens and easel blades


    Quote Originally Posted by rob champagne View Post
    As you will see from one of the merged posts in this thread, enlarging lenses are designed to work within a range of magnifications and have an optimum enlargement factor. When you use the lens at smaller than optimum enlargement factor, then its generally no discernable difference because you have not enlarged very much. But when you go over its optimum, the performance decreases. Typically the optimum is around 10x but it really depends on the lens. I don't know what it is for your lens but 16x12 would be the upper limit for a 10x lens printing full frame from the neg. If you have cropped the neg then you may be pushing your luck. Also being hand held at that speed is not going to give perfect sharpness.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Aspen View Post
    Thomson,

    If you're using good prime lenses, then I would most definitely point a finger at camera shake.

    Fred
    Good point, the grain is sharp, the image isnt. So it must be the shakes. Actually after looking at the print again now I'm happier: from a couple of feet it looks fine, and I quite like the grain.

    Thanks for your suggestions, Fred and everyone else.

    Ritchie

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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