OT: Think big… 100x70cm enlargement: how to go about it?

Interpolation software is the key.
Almost every Durst ‘Lambda’ digital photo lab uses it to up-size your files to print out at 1200mm wide. Have a look here for a pointer or three: http://www.fstoponline.com.au/tech_prints.html

Good luck,
Yowie
————————–

My advice would be not to use negative film, use slide film instead. A fine-grain slide film (say 64 ISO) should do the job. A building isn’t going to move so a tripod is also reccomended.
Remember, slides are intended to be shown very large, and a large print from a slide will almost always surpass a print from a negative. —

Ron.

Branko Vukelic wrote in message

I need to do a poster 100x70cm (39.373×27.56in) at 300dpi. I also need to make a photo at that size (or maybe even larger!), but I only have a 35mm camera… It’s a building I need to shoot, so I’d like some margin beyond the 100×70 size to allow for perspective correction and such.
So the "Mission Impossible" is to enlarge the 35mm negative shot to the full 100×70 size (or more). 1. Can it be done? 2. How?

One of the pieces of advice I got was to make a 100×70 photo and scan it. Or make a smaller sized, say 70×50 photo and scan that at a higher resolution. The most unlikely solution is to pay a lot of cash for high-quality negative scanning. What do y’all think?

—
Branko Vukelic ()

WHAT???? why is slide better than neg? compare the same speed and there is f all difference ohh except that shooting neg gives the amature alot more room for error.
My advice is to shoot neg. Get a drumscan and bob’s your uncle.

"RTM" wrote in
message

My advice would be not to use negative film, use slide film instead. A fine-grain slide film (say 64 ISO) should do the job. A building isn’t going to move so a tripod is also reccomended.
Remember, slides are intended to be shown very large, and a large print

from

a slide will almost always surpass a print from a negative. —

Ron.

Branko Vukelic wrote in message

I need to do a poster 100x70cm (39.373×27.56in) at 300dpi. I also need

to

make a photo at that size (or maybe even larger!), but I only have a

35mm

camera… It’s a building I need to shoot, so I’d like some margin

beyond

the 100×70 size to allow for perspective correction and such.
So the "Mission Impossible" is to enlarge the 35mm negative shot to the full 100×70 size (or more). 1. Can it be done? 2. How?

One of the pieces of advice I got was to make a 100×70 photo and scan

it.

Or make a smaller sized, say 70×50 photo and scan that at a higher resolution. The most unlikely solution is to pay a lot of cash for high-quality negative scanning. What do y’all think?

—
Branko Vukelic ()

Because slides are intended to be hugely enlarged, so the grain is much finer and the detail is much sharper and the colour is more ‘vibrant’. Take a 35mm slide and project it up to say, 6 feet wide. Then take a 35mm negative and project it up to 6 feet wide then tell me you can’t see the difference in quality, sharpness, grain, clarity etc.
—

Ron.

Frogiswrong wrote in message

WHAT???? why is slide better than neg?

Frogiswrong wrote:

WHAT???? why is slide better than neg? compare the same speed and there is f all difference ohh except that shooting neg gives the amature alot more room for error.
My advice is to shoot neg. Get a drumscan and bob’s your uncle.

"RTM" wrote in
message

My advice would be not to use negative film, use slide film instead. A fine-grain slide film (say 64 ISO) should do the job. A building isn’t going to move so a tripod is also reccomended.
Remember, slides are intended to be shown very large, and a large print

from

a slide will almost always surpass a print from a negative. —

Ron.

Branko Vukelic wrote in message

I need to do a poster 100x70cm (39.373×27.56in) at 300dpi. I also need

to

make a photo at that size (or maybe even larger!), but I only have a

35mm

camera… It’s a building I need to shoot, so I’d like some margin

beyond

the 100×70 size to allow for perspective correction and such.
So the "Mission Impossible" is to enlarge the 35mm negative shot to the full 100×70 size (or more). 1. Can it be done? 2. How?
One of the pieces of advice I got was to make a 100×70 photo and scan

it.

Or make a smaller sized, say 70×50 photo and scan that at a higher resolution. The most unlikely solution is to pay a lot of cash for high-quality negative scanning. What do y’all think?

—
Branko Vukelic ()

Err, I do not require "more room for error", thank you. 🙂

As long as I remember how to use the light meter correctly, all should be fine.

—
Branko Vukelic ()

RTM wrote:

My advice would be not to use negative film, use slide film instead. A fine-grain slide film (say 64 ISO) should do the job. A building isn’t going to move so a tripod is also reccomended.
Remember, slides are intended to be shown very large, and a large print from a slide will almost always surpass a print from a negative. —

Ron.

Branko Vukelic wrote in message

I need to do a poster 100x70cm (39.373×27.56in) at 300dpi. I also need to make a photo at that size (or maybe even larger!), but I only have a 35mm camera… It’s a building I need to shoot, so I’d like some margin beyond the 100×70 size to allow for perspective correction and such.
So the "Mission Impossible" is to enlarge the 35mm negative shot to the full 100×70 size (or more). 1. Can it be done? 2. How?

One of the pieces of advice I got was to make a 100×70 photo and scan it. Or make a smaller sized, say 70×50 photo and scan that at a higher resolution. The most unlikely solution is to pay a lot of cash for high-quality negative scanning. What do y’all think?

—
Branko Vukelic ()

Thanks, Ron. That sounds logical. As for scanning the slides, any suggestions? What type of service should I be looking for?

Oh, yeah. See, in my country it’s not such an easy task to get a 64 ASA dia. In case I end up using the 100 ASA slide film, would that still be sufficient?

—
Branko Vukelic ()

I really can’t advise on which services are best, as these are outside my experience so I’ll leave that to someone who knows that side of things better. I have only done ‘home scanning’ of my own slides.

As for the 100ASA slide film that should be absolutely fine for the size of enlargement you are talking about. Its only a difference of one ‘stop’ so there should be no problem there.
The end image would be something in the order of about 30x magnification, where as a 10×8 inch image from 35mm is (roughly) around 6 or 7 times magnification so to make an image as large as you require from negative film would really bring out the grain.
Consider that slides are meant to be projected up to around, say, 1.5 to 2 metres, and so are better suited to the kind of enlargement you need in this case.
—

Ron.

Branko Vukelic wrote in message

Thanks, Ron. That sounds logical. As for scanning the slides, any suggestions? What type of service should I be looking for?
Oh, yeah. See, in my country it’s not such an easy task to get a 64 ASA dia. In case I end up using the 100 ASA slide film, would that still be sufficient?

—
Branko Vukelic ()

RTM wrote:

I really can’t advise on which services are best, as these are outside my experience so I’ll leave that to someone who knows that side of things better. I have only done ‘home scanning’ of my own slides.
As for the 100ASA slide film that should be absolutely fine for the size of enlargement you are talking about. Its only a difference of one ‘stop’ so there should be no problem there.
The end image would be something in the order of about 30x magnification, where as a 10×8 inch image from 35mm is (roughly) around 6 or 7 times magnification so to make an image as large as you require from negative film would really bring out the grain.
Consider that slides are meant to be projected up to around, say, 1.5 to 2 metres, and so are better suited to the kind of enlargement you need in this case.
—

Ron.

Branko Vukelic wrote in message

Thanks, Ron. That sounds logical. As for scanning the slides, any suggestions? What type of service should I be looking for?
Oh, yeah. See, in my country it’s not such an easy task to get a 64 ASA dia. In case I end up using the 100 ASA slide film, would that still be sufficient?

—
Branko Vukelic ()

Thanks again Ron.

—
Branko Vukelic ()

I was not implying that YOU weren’t capable of shooting slide film. I was stating that neg film was the best film to shoot and why. If you are indeed a "professional" then why are you shooting 35mm for such a large job. And why are you here asking for help???

"Branko Vukelic" wrote in message

Frogiswrong wrote:

WHAT???? why is slide better than neg? compare the same speed and there is f all difference ohh except that shooting neg gives the amature alot more room for error.
My advice is to shoot neg. Get a drumscan and bob’s your uncle.

"RTM" wrote in
message

My advice would be not to use negative film, use slide film instead. A fine-grain slide film (say 64 ISO) should do the job. A building

isn’t

going to move so a tripod is also reccomended.
Remember, slides are intended to be shown very large, and a large

print

from

a slide will almost always surpass a print from a negative. —

Ron.

Branko Vukelic wrote in message

I need to do a poster 100x70cm (39.373×27.56in) at 300dpi. I also

need

to

make a photo at that size (or maybe even larger!), but I only have a

35mm

camera… It’s a building I need to shoot, so I’d like some margin

beyond

the 100×70 size to allow for perspective correction and such.
So the "Mission Impossible" is to enlarge the 35mm negative shot to the full 100×70 size (or more). 1. Can it be done? 2. How?
One of the pieces of advice I got was to make a 100×70 photo and

scan

it.

Or make a smaller sized, say 70×50 photo and scan that at a higher resolution. The most unlikely solution is to pay a lot of cash for high-quality negative scanning. What do y’all think?

—
Branko Vukelic ()

Err, I do not require "more room for error", thank you. 🙂
As long as I remember how to use the light meter correctly, all should be fine.

—
Branko Vukelic ()

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:04:52 +1100, "Frogiswrong" wrote:

WHAT???? why is slide better than neg? compare the same speed and there is f all difference ohh except that shooting neg gives the amature alot more room for error.

Why is slide better than neg? You mean apart from the fact that it’s sharper, has less grain, has more accurate colour reproduction and is more amenable to blowing up to large sizes?

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Frogiswrong wrote:

I was not implying that YOU weren’t capable of shooting slide film. I was stating that neg film was the best film to shoot and why. If you are indeed a "professional" then why are you shooting 35mm for such a large job. And why are you here asking for help???

Why am I asking for help?

See, I did a little maths, and figured that shooting 6×6 doesn’t fit the budget. 6×6 neg price + 6×6 scanning price… That’s just too much for my client.

Simple as that. No money, no ride. 😉

"Branko Vukelic" wrote in message

Frogiswrong wrote:

WHAT???? why is slide better than neg? compare the same speed and there is f all difference ohh except that shooting neg gives the amature alot more room for error.
My advice is to shoot neg. Get a drumscan and bob’s your uncle.

"RTM" wrote in
message

My advice would be not to use negative film, use slide film instead. A fine-grain slide film (say 64 ISO) should do the job. A building

isn’t

going to move so a tripod is also reccomended.
Remember, slides are intended to be shown very large, and a large

print

from

a slide will almost always surpass a print from a negative. —

Ron.

Branko Vukelic wrote in message

I need to do a poster 100x70cm (39.373×27.56in) at 300dpi. I also

need

to

make a photo at that size (or maybe even larger!), but I only have a

35mm

camera… It’s a building I need to shoot, so I’d like some margin

beyond

the 100×70 size to allow for perspective correction and such.
So the "Mission Impossible" is to enlarge the 35mm negative shot to the full 100×70 size (or more). 1. Can it be done? 2. How?
One of the pieces of advice I got was to make a 100×70 photo and

scan

it.

Or make a smaller sized, say 70×50 photo and scan that at a higher resolution. The most unlikely solution is to pay a lot of cash for high-quality negative scanning. What do y’all think?

—
Branko Vukelic ()

Err, I do not require "more room for error", thank you. 🙂
As long as I remember how to use the light meter correctly, all should be fine.

—
Branko Vukelic ()

—
Branko Vukelic ()