Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,960   Posts: 1,558,254   Online: 1005
      
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 105
  1. #21
    AgX
    AgX is online now

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,785
    Quote Originally Posted by bdial View Post
    The other factor in all this is the proper or optimum viewing distance for the size of print.
    Yes,
    This is something often forgotten in discussions around enlarging, grain and resolution.

    For every lens/film size combination there is a `optimum´ viewing distance. Which means the viewer will get the same perspective impression as the photographer looking at his groundglass.
    Sometimes this viewing distance could not even be achieved by an unaided viewer. Sometimes the proper viewing distance will not show any grain issues. Sometimes the chosen viewing distance will not show an out of focus effect the photographer had mind. Sometimes the viewer is rather forced to obtain a certain viewing distance, as in case of a photo book.

    This whole matter is quite complex...

    (by the way, the
    `optimum´ viewing distance = factor of print enlargement X focal length of taking lens
    [factors the common viewer does not know however])

  2. #22
    donbga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Mick Fagan View Post
    Charles, when Ektar 25 professional came out, the lab that I worked in was asked by Kodak Australia, to make a same size picture (life size) of a standing model dressed in a striking floral dress.

    This was then printed by the dozen, mounted on 10mm foam core and placed in photo outlets around Australia.

    I know this because I printed some of them using a 10"x10" horizontal mural enlarger with a 135 film negative original, held between glass for optimum results.

    You had to see the lack of grain and the tightness of colour to believe just how good this film was.

    That film was a revelation, although I believe it was a monster of a headache in manufacturing in whichever Kodak plant made it.

    I believe it was pretty much on a par with B&W Tech Pan, also a 25 ASA film.

    On a personal level, I standardised my colour work around Ektar 25 professional for quite a few years. An absolutely outstanding film!

    Mick.
    I agree with Mick. This film was stunning.

    As far as optical enlargements are concerned, the quality of the final print depends on the quality of the taking lens and the enlarging lens. If you use excellent optics at both ends you can go very large with 35 mm film. Yes you will see grain but the image will still look sharp when viewed from the proper viewing distance.

    Of course making internegs on 70 mm film and using an oil immersion carrier are advanced techniques that allow mural sized prints to be made.

    Helmut Newton's big enlargements shot on Tri-X look great. I know these were made optically since at the time that I viewed those prints digital enlargements were not available or widely available.
    Don Bryant

  3. #23
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,297
    Quote Originally Posted by Mick Fagan View Post
    I was using a 50mm lens.

    One of the more interesting results of doing, or having a go, is that you are often surprised at the results.

    The exposures for the previous mentioned Ektar professional film, life size enlargements, would have only been a few minutes, probably no more than 5 minutes.

    When doing normal mural enlargements it was not uncommon to have 15 to 20 minute exposures. Some of us borrowed large type books for the visually impaired from the library and would sit to one side of the projected beam and read by the scattered side light emanating from the enlarger.

    Mick.
    Yes you are right Mike, as long as you step back and view from the appropriate scaled distance the 'diffraction-limited resolution' should appear to be the same as a smaller print.

    RP lines/mm = 1500/N (1+M)

    N = F number on lens
    M = Magnification
    RP = resolving power

    So,
    10x print at f8 = 17 lines/mm
    100x print at f8 = 1.8 lines/mm

    When viewed from 10 times the distance the resolution (again, just based on diffraction) will be similar. I had made the somewhat common mathematical mistake of assuming constant viewing distance.

  4. #24
    Chazzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,864
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Mick Fagan View Post
    Charles, when Ektar 25 professional came out, the lab that I worked in was asked by Kodak Australia, to make a same size picture (life size) of a standing model dressed in a striking floral dress.

    This was then printed by the dozen, mounted on 10mm foam core and placed in photo outlets around Australia.

    I know this because I printed some of them using a 10"x10" horizontal mural enlarger with a 135 film negative original, held between glass for optimum results.

    You had to see the lack of grain and the tightness of colour to believe just how good this film was.

    That film was a revelation, although I believe it was a monster of a headache in manufacturing in whichever Kodak plant made it.

    I believe it was pretty much on a par with B&W Tech Pan, also a 25 ASA film.

    On a personal level, I standardised my colour work around Ektar 25 professional for quite a few years. An absolutely outstanding film!

    Mick.
    The print that I was speaking of was also Ektar 25. I agree that it was an amazing film. Now you have me wondering just how large a print could be made from that negative and still look satisfactory to me!
    Charles Hohenstein

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    third stone from the sun
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    723
    I recently made 45" x 65" b/w rc prints from 35mm negatives and I think the results look fantastic no matter what the viewing distance may be. The film was delta 3200 stand developed in highly dilute rodinal. For the enlargements I used a perfectly aligned durst 138, a glass carrier, and a 50mm rodagon g. The negs are quite thin but proved a perfect match for my roll of ilford digital rc (not a multigrade paper). Exposure times were in the neighborhood of 4' with a 500 watt bulb. This is so much more fun than starting with a 4x5 copy neg! The photographs are startlingly sharp even at this size enlargement. The notion of a limit for enlargement for a 35mm neg strikes me as an arbitrary restraint that moldy old figs proscribed in the photo how-to manuals of decades past.

  6. #26
    Jersey Vic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Columbia County NY
    Shooter
    Holga
    Posts
    3,919
    Images
    187
    I've made 20x24's from TriX (d76 1:1 and Diafine) negs using a very stable, alligned LPL diffusion head enlarger and I was very happy with them.
    That being said, I view them as intended from several feet away.
    Holga: if it was any more analog, you'd need a chisel.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    458
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by bdial View Post
    The other factor in all this is the proper or optimum viewing distance for the size of print. If you blow up a 35 mm frame to 16x20 and look at from say, a normal reading distance, it will look soft and show lots of grain, regardless of the camera, lens, film, exposure, developer or whatever else.
    That's not to say those factors aren't important, they are, and a soft or poorly exposed negative will never look "good", big or small.
    unless of course that was the photographers intention(softness) or if the subject matter is so dominant that tech issues take second to the power of the subject matter.
    Last edited by gerryyaum; 09-06-2008 at 06:49 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    458
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by frotog View Post
    I recently made 45" x 65" b/w rc prints from 35mm negatives and I think the results look fantastic no matter what the viewing distance may be. The film was delta 3200 stand developed in highly dilute rodinal. For the enlargements I used a perfectly aligned durst 138, a glass carrier, and a 50mm rodagon g. The negs are quite thin but proved a perfect match for my roll of ilford digital rc (not a multigrade paper). Exposure times were in the neighborhood of 4' with a 500 watt bulb. This is so much more fun than starting with a 4x5 copy neg! The photographs are startlingly sharp even at this size enlargement. The notion of a limit for enlargement for a 35mm neg strikes me as an arbitrary restraint that moldy old figs proscribed in the photo how-to manuals of decades past.
    sounds fascinating would love to see the print and the process of making it. I agree with the old fig thingy also, there is no limit on the print size, it is up to each photographers choice of what he wants the taste and feel of images to have.

  9. #29
    Anscojohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,727
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Poohblah View Post
    i was just wondering what you guys typically consider the limit of enlarging 35mm film. i've noticed softness on my prints starting at 8"x10", but that's what i get for examining my prints with a loupe.
    ******
    A. Adams once wrote he thought a totally acceptable 8x10 enlargement could be made from a 35 mm negative shot on a film like Panatomic X, developed in a soft-working developer like D23.
    John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

  10. #30
    Poohblah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    433
    thanks for the feedback guys.

    i am totally willing to make prints larger than 8x10 from a 35mm negative - the only reason i was examining the sharpness of my prints was to try and find a good fine-grain b/w film that stands up to enlargement well. 400 speed film (or faster) seems to be able to take more enlargement because i expect the grain to be there. however, i think the enlargement lens may be more of a factor than the film or camera's lens since the prints from my fine-grain negs are soft before i see grain (true? or am i a dunce?). in fact, the 8x10s i have made so far are great from a standard viewing distance.

    I recently made 45" x 65" b/w rc prints from 35mm negatives and I think the results look fantastic no matter what the viewing distance may be. The film was delta 3200 stand developed in highly dilute rodinal. For the enlargements I used a perfectly aligned durst 138, a glass carrier, and a 50mm rodagon g. The negs are quite thin but proved a perfect match for my roll of ilford digital rc (not a multigrade paper). Exposure times were in the neighborhood of 4' with a 500 watt bulb. This is so much more fun than starting with a 4x5 copy neg! The photographs are startlingly sharp even at this size enlargement. The notion of a limit for enlargement for a 35mm neg strikes me as an arbitrary restraint that moldy old figs proscribed in the photo how-to manuals of decades past.
    oh i am sure! but that wasn't really my original point, i was just so impressed with the sharpness i got on small enlargements with 50 speed film that i wanted to replicate it with larger prints and i was wondering where you guys usually find the limit to be before you run out of resolution. i would love to make enlargements that big, if only i had the resources (large tubs, large easels, etc.)

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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