Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,817   Posts: 1,581,640   Online: 777
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,878
    Images
    23
    there are a lot of factors involved ..
    so "it depends"
    you can easily enlarge with an enlarger
    or a numeric gadget and make very large images ...

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    It depends on how big the print appears from the distance it will be viewed at.

    A print the size of the moon will look the same as an 8x10 print, when both are viewed from respective distances that make them both 'cover' the same proportion of our field of view.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    70
    One photographer once said to me that negative from his RB67 could be enlarged indefinitely. You just look bigger pictures from a greater distance.

  4. #14
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    How far can you move back? Anyways, it's not so simple - and by all means bigger is quite often not better.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    Depends on what makes a print good.

    Somethings look best in small sizes and you really can't enlarge them.

    Some times all the "defects" from enlarging improve the image. Grain etc can be a positive.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    I always scan at 100%, and adjust other parameters (ppi, etc.) to fine tune the actual size of the image. If I ever needed it larger, I would upsample in a dedicated program like Genuine Fractals, not when I scan. However, I have never needed to scan at more than 100% at 4,000 ppi for a desired print.
    As a professional graphic designer, I have to say this isn't good practice. No application can create detail in an image that is not there. Scanning a MF neg, for example, at low resolution and then blowing it up is something like taking a picture of a MF photo in 35mm and blowing it up. You should scan at the highest resolution practicable for the application you intend. If you need a higher resolution later, it's far better to rescan it at a higher resolution.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by mrdarklight View Post
    No application can create detail in an image that is not there.
    Where did I state to try and do that? I said exactly the opposite: Do not reduce or enlarge using the percentages on the scanner. To scan at 100%, to use variations in ppi while scanning to control image size, and to use a dedicated resampling program if other changes beyond the capability of the scanner are needed are the things I suggested. I did not suggest scanning at low resolution and upsampling unless the limits of the scanner are reached (1x1.5 in. @ 4000 ppi for my particular scanner), and I never claimed that upsampling creates detail. I simply said that if you must upsample, don't do it during scanning, as there are choices that will give much better quality.

    How far a good photograph can be blown up is 100% subjective, unless criteria are listed.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 09-11-2009 at 05:00 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  8. #18
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,229
    Images
    34
    I guess I just dont get "scanning", To me, scanning a negative involves a light table, loupe, and a negative. At that point, enlargement size is determined, and how much grain visibility is factored in. If graininess is part of the "look" I'm after, then I shoot for max enlargment. If minimal grain is desired, then I limit enlargment to where the grain is almost visable. The process is very subjective, its a matter of personal taste, and what you want to portray.
    Rick

  9. #19
    stradibarrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    163
    I am shooting both MF and 35mm so this question is about both. Of course with all things being equal the RB67 negative will look better than the negative from my Nikon 35mm.
    Chan seem to understand my jibberish as I tried to ask the question.

    For us to communicate on this forum and share our images we have to somewhere along the line convert to digital. I am not trying to start a digital vs. analogue thing here I LOVE my film cameras. I love the experience of processing my on film and I do have an enlarger so I can print my on B&W images. But again for us to share on this forum we have to convert to digital.
    So to try and narrow my question down more, after scanning my negative at what % should I be "reasonably expect to view the image? I will ask the question on the Hybrid forum as well. But I have learned to trust the advice of my of the talented people on this forum. Sorry again for asking this question. The more I shoot film th moe I lose interest in my digital gear.
    "Generalizations are made because they are generally true"
    Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradibarrius
    website: http://www.dudleyviolins.com
    Barry
    Monroe, GA

  10. #20
    Monophoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,691
    Images
    44
    For many years, Kodak had a display in Grand Central Station in New York that was called the "Colorama". This was a 18x60 FOOT backlit transparency. For most of the 40 years this was in place, the images were created using a larger format original, but there was a classic instance in the 1970's when Kodak bragged that they had used a 35mm Kodachrome transparency to create the image.

    That means that they enlarged a 1 x1.5 inch film chip to create an 18x40 foot display transparency - an enlargement of over 200X (that's 20,000%).

    As Denis points out, a critical factor that governs how much an image can be enlarged is what is the viewing distance. In the case of the Colorama, the display transparency was hung high over the main hall of Grand Central Station, so viewers were 60-80 (and that's just my guess) feet away. If they had been closer, they likely would have been able to see some image deterioration, but at that viewing distance, the granularity in the image was smoothed out to an acceptable degree.
    Louie

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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