Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,228   Posts: 1,532,715   Online: 805
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42
  1. #21
    hoffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,869
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by ROL View Post
    Oh, in that case, you must give it a go. There's nothing about the image itself at 8x10 that suggests you can't do it. Just make certain the client is rational about the final result.



    Only 9 or 10?!? . Trial and error is often the best (and only) way to learn. My normal scale–up from 8X10 to 11X14 is 50%, with a 100% increase from 11X14 to 16x20. Going straight to 16X20 that means starting with 150% more light during enlarging for basic exposure and burns, depending on your light source and negative. Then figure it out from there. Of course, making an 11x14 first will be extremely helpful (and less costly) in fine-tuning the direction of your print. Hope you kept printing notes from the finished 8x10.
    Yes, I do keep notes from all my print sessions. The good thing about this one is as you see it, that is a straight up print. There was a second print that had a slight pre-flash to tone down the whites a bit, but it turned it muddy and lost the impact.

    If I do print this optically, I had considered using 8x10 test prints to map it out before going full scale (I.E., set the enlarger to the final print size, but then print a handful of 8x10’s of a few key spots).

    Cheers and thanks for everyones comments!

  2. #22
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,855
    Images
    32
    I once sold a 20x24 from a 35mm neg. The quality depends entirely on how good the neg was to begin with. Tripod, cable release, hold breath, hope no breeze picks up. Actually it was a hand held shot where everything hit just right. I've never done it since(1979).
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum
    BTW: the big kid in my avatar is my hero, my son, who proudly serves us in the Navy. "SALUTE"

  3. #23
    Ryan Montgomery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Portadown, Northern Ireland
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    11
    I regularly sell 20x16 & 20x24 prints from a 35mm neg, both colour and black and white. When it's matted and framed, the first thing people do is hang it and step back. It's very important to think about the final viewing distance. Admitedly I scan all my negs and send them off to print at this size, I only offer 8x10 or 12x16 hand prints because I find bigger to be a pain in the ass.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    As Ryan mentions you must also consider viewing distance. If you have your nose a foot from a 16x20 print you will see grain. But in reality who is going to do this. The size of a print should be proportional to the viewing distance. Books on printing often have this information.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  5. #25
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Viewing distance is proportional to print size. Format does not matter once it's past a certain threshold resolution. 35mm is past that threshold.
    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

  6. #26
    Ryan Montgomery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Portadown, Northern Ireland
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Viewing distance is proportional to print size. Format does not matter once it's past a certain threshold resolution. 35mm is past that threshold.
    Your signature would disagree!!

    If the image is sharp there is no reason to limit the display size, I'll quite happily print up to 20x30 from a good 35mm neg. On the other hand, I'm very against printing OOF images, I often hear people saying, "It's not quite in focus, but I'd print it up to 8x10...". Artistic focus (holga etc) is a whole other ball game.

  7. #27
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Well, to be honest I made the comment so someone wouldn't change the format in the discussion to 8 or 16mm or something :-). I think you know what I'm saying though - there's not a huge difference, resolution wise, between 8x10 and 20x24 once it's being viewed. People will move in or out. Intimacy of print changes with size though.
    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

  8. #28
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,067
    Quote Originally Posted by BradS View Post
    I saw a Galen Rowell print that had to be 2 feet by 3 feet. It was made from a 35mm negative. I have to admit, it did not appeal to me but, the man made a decent living shooting 35mm and enlarging to sizes that most would consider "not doable form 35mm".

    I say try it and see...but if you are not comfortable with the result, do not show it to the potential customer. Only show work that you feel good about. Only show your best. I'd also try 11x14 as a possible compromise (it is also closer to full frame for 35mm).
    I have several 35mm negatives that I have used to make 24"x35" prints and framed them for others.
    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.

  9. #29
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,981
    my lack of interest in the Galen Rowell print had nothing to do with size and everything to do with content.

  10. #30
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,170
    I recently made a 16x20 of this Drogo bodied 330 ( http://www.coachbuild.com/index.php?...g2_itemId=9256 ) for the folks that are restoring it back to original. They wanted the print big to analyze the detail of the bodywork and trim. In fact it was this same picture...HELP...internet police...someone stole my picture! Seriously, though, that which you see on the screen is a low resolution scan (through the negative preserver!) and is, of course, intended to be downloaded to every computer that happens upon the site. That is why I posted it to one of the automobile forums a few years ago; so people can see the car. Whereas the print I sold to the folks was composed of silver and paper fibers and you hold it in your hands. It is a totally different thing.

    The print was grainy, but had fantastic resolution. The taking lens was a 50mm Fujinon and the enlarging lens was a 45mm HM-Apo-Componon-S which I obtained just for the instance of making 16x20s from 35mm.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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