# How much can a good photgraph be "blown up" ?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 3 123 Last
• 09-10-2009, 05:40 PM
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%???
• 09-10-2009, 06:35 PM
Denis K
It depends on your intended viewing distance. For example, if you are enlarging for a billboard you can tolerate a very high magnification.
• 09-10-2009, 07:09 PM
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.
• 09-10-2009, 07:15 PM
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.
• 09-10-2009, 07:17 PM
2F/2F
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.
• 09-10-2009, 07:32 PM
Bruce Watson
Quote:

When you print or scan your negatives and crop or enlarge, how much magnification should you images tolerate? 50%, 100%, 200%???

In general, modern emulsions can almost always take 10x enlargement. Slower and sharper films can take more.

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.
• 09-10-2009, 07:48 PM
ic-racer
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.
• 09-10-2009, 08:17 PM
Chan Tran
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%.
• 09-10-2009, 09:49 PM
Mark Fisher
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.
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 3 123 Last