Enlargements

[jpperry]

Hello all, I imagine this has been asked before but I was unable to find the answer using the search function. My question is what is the best way to have enlargements made from 35mm film. Is it best to take the negative to a camera shop that does enlargements or to take the developed print to one of the Kodak Picture Maker machines and have it do it myself? Also, all other things being ok (noise and blurred lines in the image) what is the ideal size of an enlargement from a 35mm SLR? Thanks for your help, I have a few photos that I would like to frame and would like to know the best way to go about it.

Joe

[cyberlord]

Don't scan the print!

Take the negative to a pro if you want good results.

8x10 will give very good results.

I have never done larger than this so I have no idea so hopefully others will chime in.

Tim

[greghalliday]

The best way to enlarge prints is definitely from the original negative. You lose some fidelity in the printing, so scanning the print usually magnifies the problems. I suppose on the enlargment size, there is no real upper limit. It just will depend on image viewing distance. I have recently seen a 40x60 inkjet print from a slide taken with an F100. It all depends on what you will accept in the final image.

[payn817]

I made a 8x10 from a negative of Fujifilm Superia Xtra400 today, and there's no sign of grain, or softness at all. The largest I've ever done on 35mm was 11x14, but I would imagine anything larger may start to loose detail.

But, mostly what greg said. It depends on your standards, and viewing distance.

[freygr]

Hello all, I imagine this has been asked before but I was unable to find the answer using the search function. My question is what is the best way to have enlargements made from 35mm film. Is it best to take the negative to a camera shop that does enlargements or to take the developed print to one of the Kodak Picture Maker machines and have it do it myself? Also, all other things being ok (noise and blurred lines in the image) what is the ideal size of an enlargement from a 35mm SLR? Thanks for your help, I have a few photos that I would like to frame and would like to know the best way to go about it.

Joe

You can get very good enlargements depending on what equipment used. I have scan my 35mm negatives with a Nikon CoolscanII and have printed excellent 8 by 12 full frame prints ( the printer was a Epson C-80 using Epson Heavyweigth Mat Paper). And then I have seen another person try to do the same and end up with kaka. You really need to find a professional lab if you can't print them your self as the quality at Wallmart and other one hours can very from excellent to poor.

I have found that pigmented inks and the Espon Heavyweight Mat paper last. I had a print in a southern facing window for two years, and it was not even faded but the mat board was shot.

I've seen some 35mm negatives printed at 16 by 24 inches but the photo was taken with a ISO 50 color film. The upper limit depends on the grian of the film used and the quality and composition of the photo.

[jpperry]

Thanks all for the help, I'll be taking my negatives to the local shop and get some enlargements made.

[PhotoGirl]

this is a really interesting topic and have wondered about it myself!

But now I've got a question too, what if you don't have the negetives anymore and only the photo? So if you want to make it bigger, would a lab do a better job than the Kodak machine or about the same?

[another view]

Scanning from a print will never give you the quality that you'll get from scanning the film itself. That little tiny negative has a ton of info in it - scanning it at about 2700dpi would be a good start but scanning a print above 300dpi would likely be overkill. Higher dpi may just pick up the grain itself and actually look worse than a lower dpi, it takes experimenting to see what looks best. And it can be different from shot to shot.

If you have to scan a print and need the absolute best you can get, it's probably best to take it to a lab - but the result might not be much better than a self-service kiosk at the one-hour place.

About 35mm print sizes - twice I've had 16x20 prints made. The quality wasn't as bad as I had feared, and at the difference that you'd normally look at a print this size (a couple/few feet away) they looked pretty good. They definately would have looked better with a larger negative though (medium format). The bigger the print, the bigger technical problems become - such as sharpness (focus is absolutely critical and also talking about camera shake) and exposure (lightened negs show more grain).

[PhotoGirl]

thanks, another view.