I had no idea 35mm could carry that resolution!

[xtolsniffer]

I've just had some old transparencies printed up by Peak Imaging in the UK. A few 35mm slides I had printed up to 18x12". I wasn't expecting much, the largest I've ever had 35mm enlarged to was about 10x8", but my word, they look great! I have some provia, some velvia and some K25, usually taken with either Olympus, Nikon or Tamron lenses, on a tripod, mirror locked up etc. Grain hardly visible, really sharp and lovely colours. It's forced me to re-evaluate my opinion on the quality of 35mm. There is an amazing amount of detail in there.
Mind you, the prints from my 6x7 slides from my RB67 are...well you can guess!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

How are you having them printed? As Ilfochromes? Or scanned and then RA-4?

I know that there is an awful lot that can be done with transparency film to get it to scan to look like a million bucks, but after having seen some Cibachrome projection prints from both 35mm, 6x6 120, and 4x5 all I can say is I wish I had more cash to print some of my own transparencies that way. Wow.

 

[xtolsniffer]

It was scanned then RA-4, but that still looks great.

 

[Ian Grant]

It was scanned then RA-4, but that still looks great.

RIP software can work magic in preserving and enhancing quality, it's not an area for discussion on APUG though

Ian

 

[DanielStone]

so did you have drum scans made of the slides? From personal experience, they are leaps and bounds better than any other type of scan done. But this is for another site, no more from me

-dan

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

RIP software can work magic in preserving and enhancing quality, it's not an area for discussion on APUG though

Ian

They were probably actually printed with a digital minilab, like the Fuji Frontier. These machines have a built in film scanner and they then use lasers to expose regular color paper, which is RA-4 processed like normal. The results can be very very good.

 

[WolfTales]

Does all the silver get washed away in a chrome positive - leaving only the dye cloud? Or only some of the silver?

 

[Ken N]

Yes, we can't mention any form of non-analog here on this site. Everything you've said is irrelevant.



One thing we noticed back in the late nineties was that the d_gitization process tended to INCREASE the apparent format of the film by one entire step. 35mm became as good as 645, 645 as good as 6x7, 6x7 as good as 4x5. And then the film manufacturers started to modify the film bases to improve scanning even more. Of course, this depended entirely on the scanning technology.

Personally, I have found today's 35mm films, such as Fujichrome Velvia 100, Fujicolor 160S and Kodak Portra 160NC to be so incredibly fine and sharp that my desire for larger formats has been substantially thwarted. Most of the time, it's not the stupid film, it's the stupid photographer.

 

[Ian Grant]

Have to agree that the quality of modern colour films is outstanding from Fuji and Kodak and 35mm negs and transparencies are remarkably fine grained.

Match that up with something like a Fuji Frontier and the enlargements are even better.

They were probably actually printed with a digital minilab, like the Fuji Frontier. These machines have a built in film scanner and they then use lasers to expose regular color paper, which is RA-4 processed like normal. The results can be very very good.

These machines include RIP type software, Ilford uses a Frontier for it's B&W print service and having seen the quality of their printing service the poor reputation of digital minlab quality is well in the past.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

While I can get sharp 12"x18" 35mm prints from the scan and then print via RA-4 process, I still get better larger print by having the work done at an all optical custom photofinisher.

I have a number of 35mm C-41 negatives that I have had printed 24"x36" and are still sharp and sometimes the grain can be seen if you push your nose into the print. This all depends on the film, the processing, the printing and the phase of the Moon.

Steve

 

[xtolsniffer]

Yes, I think it's an RGB laser thingy. The interesting thing is that one of the slides I had printed up about 15 years ago, and a side by side comparison with the new shows that it looks much much better now. I have no idea what the old process was, possibly interneg. To be honest, I'm so impressed with the results that I don't really care how it was produced. I still do my own B+W work in the darkroom, but have never really gotten many colour transparencies printed up commercially because they were always a bit poor compared to seeing them projected, but my opinion has certainly changed now. Viva 35mm (but don't tell my MF kit...).

 

[mcgrattan]

Ironically, I had some 35mm prints back from Peak Imaging today, shot on Kodak Gold 200. I'm a little disappointed. At 12"x8" the grain is quite obtrusive in the darker shots. This isn't Peak's problem, I'm sure. I've used them lots of times with no problems. It's clearly the quality of the film. Unfortunately, Gold was all I could find on the day. Next time, back to Reala.

That said, although the grain is quite noticeable, the prints are nice and sharp, so the resolution is there.

 

[xtolsniffer]

I used to be quite happy with Gold in my early days, then I discovered Reala. After you have found something you really like it's hard to go back.

 

[Ken N]

I actually prefer Fujicolor 400 to Kodak Gold 200. I think it not only scans better, but Gold 200 just doesn't respond well to blue skies, for some reason.

 

[Ian Grant]

Have to agree Ken, I don't shoot 400 ISO colour neg films, but I commissioned some images (sisters wedding) which were shot on Fujicolor 400 and the negatives were outstanding that was 26 years ago, and Fuji films are now far better

Personally I've never particularly liked Kodak's colour films except for K25, I've always found Fuji far more natural in colour balance, and back in E3/4 days Fuji was streets ahead. in terms of contrast/colour balance. Agfa CT18, and Agfacilor neg was also better than Kodak.

Ian

 

[Ektagraphic]

I have heard of 20X30 prints from Kodachrome shot with Leica.

 

[PhotoJim]

I've gotten some beautiful 11x14" enlargements from 35mm Ilford FP4 Plus. I haven't enlarged any of my colour work that big yet, but I'm betting the slower C41 films would enlarge to that quite nicely if I used the same good technique during shooting.

I just got my first roll of 120 Kodak Ektar 100 back from the lab and the proof prints sure are nice. I'm tempted to see how a 16x16" would look from them.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Yes, 35mm slides printed to Ilfo' can show a phenomenal amount of detail if you are seriously investing in quality optics and, especially, framing (what I term an holistic approach to photography in terms of financial commitment, not a token effort). From my Velvia 50 / 100 Provia 100F 35mm trannies I print to Ilfochrome up to 30x50cm (any bigger and production expense exceeds return). I do often stat print to RA-4 process for clients to peruse/assess, but fine art finals are always produced to Ilfochrome, as I have done for 20+ years. Be it noted that printing heaps and heaps of one's beautiful trannies to Ilfochrome might be everybody's dream, but in real life it is prohibitively expensive: for me, only 4 each month get done this way, then comes the expense of MGCF jobbing, titling then the sale and thus onto the next production run.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Doea anyone know what resolution a Fuji Frontier scans at? I guess this is more of a question for hybridphoto, but since all my colour prints come via one apparently, it seems at least relevant for this forum.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Doea anyone know what resolution a Fuji Frontier scans at? I guess this is more of a question for hybridphoto, but since all my colour prints come via one apparently, it seems at least relevant for this forum.

If the maximum print width coming from a frontier is 8", a 135 frame is 24mm wide, and it prints at 300dpi, then it must be scanning at 2540dpi. Frankly, I don't really know; it's just some common knowledge, some data gathered from google and a bit of math.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Interestingly Peak Imaging ask for d*gital files to be at a final print resolution of 254ppi...

 

[EASmithV]

You think that's good, check out Bluefire Police film That stuff is crazy. More resolution than your lens.

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/gallery-extreme-Enlargement.htm

 

[EASmithV]

I have heard of 20X30 prints from Kodachrome shot with Leica.

Those must be gorgeous.

 

[bob100684]

If the maximum print width coming from a frontier is 8", a 135 frame is 24mm wide, and it prints at 300dpi, then it must be scanning at 2540dpi. Frankly, I don't really know; it's just some common knowledge, some data gathered from google and a bit of math.

hopefully this doesn't get the thread shut down....you are correct in that it prints at 300dpi per output size. I think there is a little over scan going on too for borderless prints, just like overenlargement in optical minilabs. For example, when scanning for a 4x6 inch print, the resulting file is 1228x1818 pixels, where as an 8x12 is 2433x3637.

 

[SoSideways]

You think that's good, check out Bluefire Police film That stuff is crazy. More resolution than your lens.

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/gallery-extreme-Enlargement.htm

Oh man....

That stuff is awesome!

Thanks for bringing that up!