How much can a good photgraph be "blown up" ?
When you print or scan your negatives and crop or enlarge, how much magnification should you images tolerate? 50%, 100%, 200%???
It depends on your intended viewing distance. For example, if you are enlarging for a billboard you can tolerate a very high magnification.
I have three 35 mm color negatives, 1"x1.5" that I had professionally enlarged to 24"x36". Two of the negatives have had two prints each made by different labs. At two or three inches grain can be seen if one looks really carefully.
Will this work for every color negative, probably not. But then not every negative is worth blowing up 24 times.
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.
When you scan and view your shots on the computer at what percentage would you expect the image to "fall apart"?
What I am trying to determine is how to evaluate my shots/negatives. For example if I look at a shot at at 100% crop should it still look good?
I hope my question is making sense...I do understand that if the viewing distance is billboard distance at 2 feet the image would probably look like crap.
While there may be "correct" sizes based on math or what not, I think the real answer is based solely in the eye pf the photographer. I helped print some 35mm tri-x negs to 9'x6' (yes, that is feet) and frankly, they looked amazing. Just my two cents.
"Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it." -Paul Strand
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The way I was taught to use a scanner, scanning at over 100% quickly starts destroying "image quality". 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.
However, I'd ask at HybridPhoto.com, not here. You will get better answers and tick off fewer people.
Last edited by 2F/2F; 09-10-2009 at 08:22 PM. Click to view previous post history.
"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)
In general, modern emulsions can almost always take 10x enlargement. Slower and sharper films can take more.
Originally Posted by stradibarrius
From a practical standpoint, much depends on the image, your technique, processing, etc. The more enlargement you use, the better your original has to be.
Lets see, 50% would be a one- half reduction; thats OK. 100% would be a contact print. Thats OK also. 200% would be my favorite; that is a 16x20 from an 8x10 negative
I occasionally enlarge Minox to 16x20. That would be 4600% and it the physical limit of my equipment.
I don't understand your question very well Barry. I will take a guess. When I scan my negatives or slides, I hope to be able to view it at 100% and the image still looks good. Some of my images do but many don't look good at 100%. To view the whole image on my computer screen, although my monitor is 2048x1536, I have to view it at about 25 to 33%.
For maintaining good detail in a good negative at a close viewing distance could go to 8-10x. I've done images where those technical quality measures are pretty useless, I have a 35mm Tri-x neg of a horse that i enlarged to around 20x30. Printed it as lith and it worked out well, but it is a lot harder, I'm sticking to medium format and up for nor s that I don't need to deal with film flatness and tiny negatives, My current favorite seems to be a Hassy, I sometimes use LF, but the hassy gets all the good shoots. I'm actually thinking about dumping my Tachihara 90 and 150mm wit a bunch of holders.
Bottom line - MF will suit most of your work unless you shoot a lot of architectural shots then it is the movements and not the film size.