Largest high definition 35mm print?

[DREW WILEY]

"Holding resolution" to 16x20 in the same post as a Costco print ??????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[cooltouch]

It's a large format Epson print. Costco is just the place where I have the prints done.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Still, I reply, ???????????? None of the above would be my own definition of "high definition".

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Man, I wish I had! Jim used to take all of his film to Silverworks in NY and Marc McClish is the one you see in the film "War Photographer" doing the printing.

Marc was one of Richard Avedon's assistants, he actually became his studio manager and was there for a good while...and very talented with printing...Marc also printed with Chelsea Labs which is where you see the scene in the film. This guy can print, and is a super nice fellow. I know he used the top of the line equipment though when it came to lenses.

I still remember standing there with Marc looking at the prints at Chelsea Labs...it was one of those moments
in life that you'll never forget...it was the image in the film with the boy with the shaved head...it was likely right around the time they made the film.

That is a great memory CDM. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I still would like to see one of Drew's images one of these days.....

 

[DREW WILEY]

Plenty of people have ... but not on the web (though I did maintain a website for over a decade). "Images", generically, a real prints are NOT the
same thing!

 

[cooltouch]

Still, I reply, ???????????? None of the above would be my own definition of "high definition".

I got to thinking about this some after my post and did some calculating. To maintain a 300 dpi output, my files would have to be limited to 13-1/3 x 20 inches, full frame. 30" x 45" would be for a 100% enlargement, which translates into only 133-1/3 dpi. Not exactly "high definition."

But all this reminds me of a poster-sized advertisement I saw at a camera store years ago -- probably back in about 1990 or 1991. It was a Canon advertisement for the EF 85mm f/1.2 L and the poster showed an image taken with that lens. The poster was large, too, at least 3 feet on the long side. And let me tell you, that image was sharp! Like large format sharp. And I've always wondered how Canon managed to reproduce a 35mm image to that size without any apparent loss in sharpness. What, did they have a super high-resolution drum scan made, perhaps? It has always puzzled me how they managed to produce such a sharp image at such a large size.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hallucenogenic mushrooms, perhaps.

 

[Les Sarile]

I got to thinking about this some after my post and did some calculating. To maintain a 300 dpi output, my files would have to be limited to 13-1/3 x 20 inches, full frame. 30" x 45" would be for a 100% enlargement, which translates into only 133-1/3 dpi. Not exactly "high definition."

Have you ever made a 20" X 30" print and scrutinized it for detail to see if the paper is able to resolve as much as you think? The highest resolving paper that I have tried is super glossy stock (both traditional wet print and inkjet) and it could not replicate the detail of the source image. I have found that any other stock of paper that I have tried is less capable of attaining the detail. Matte paper is much less and canvas stock obviously is the least resolving material.

 

[tomfrh]

I've found that a 200 dpi image on fuji dry print looks slightly worse than 300dpi.

 

[xtolsniffer]

I've just seen Franz Lanting's exhibition at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum. The bulk of the exhibited work is from 35mm and some prints are around the 3 feet by 5 feet mark. Obviously the grain is clearly visible, but the prints look sharp and clear, even at a 3 feet viewing distance. Actually, I like the grain, especially in blocks of out of focus colour. It adds texture to what would otherwise be a little featureless.

 

[Ian Grant]

I got to thinking about this some after my post and did some calculating. To maintain a 300 dpi output, my files would have to be limited to 13-1/3 x 20 inches, full frame. 30" x 45" would be for a 100% enlargement, which translates into only 133-1/3 dpi. Not exactly "high definition."

But all this reminds me of a poster-sized advertisement I saw at a camera store years ago -- probably back in about 1990 or 1991. It was a Canon advertisement for the EF 85mm f/1.2 L and the poster showed an image taken with that lens. The poster was large, too, at least 3 feet on the long side. And let me tell you, that image was sharp! Like large format sharp. And I've always wondered how Canon managed to reproduce a 35mm image to that size without any apparent loss in sharpness. What, did they have a super high-resolution drum scan made, perhaps? It has always puzzled me how they managed to produce such a sharp image at such a large size.

As soon as ou start having digital enlargements made you have to take into account that printer drivers and RIP software are interpolating the image so comparing to a darkroom print is not really valid as digital printing can use techniques to improve sharpness, mask grain etc.

Ian

 

[David Lyga]

If you dared to try (sorry, unperforated in 35mm) Kodak ImageLink film I think that you would rightly feel that you had ventured into large format. However, do not think that this film is 'forgiving': if the scene is low contrast it is the best film out there to use. Period. - David Lyga

 

[cooltouch]

As soon as ou start having digital enlargements made you have to take into account that printer drivers and RIP software are interpolating the image so comparing to a darkroom print is not really valid as digital printing can use techniques to improve sharpness, mask grain etc.

I wasn't really trying to make any sort of comparison between digital and analog. Keep in mind that this poster I saw was printed back in 1990 or 1991, so no digital processing was involved. I've just always wondered how Canon managed to get so much detail into such a large print. And it wasn't the sort of image you admire from three feet or more away. No, what struck me about it was the level of fine detail the print contained.

 

[tomfrh]

I'm eager to see this incredible 1991 canon poster!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I wasn't really trying to make any sort of comparison between digital and analog. Keep in mind that this poster I saw was printed back in 1990 or 1991, so no digital processing was involved. I've just always wondered how Canon managed to get so much detail into such a large print. And it wasn't the sort of image you admire from three feet or more away. No, what struck me about it was the level of fine detail the print contained.

Because it was imageset to larger film in Japan [by Nikko Graphic Arts Co.] to specifications required by their publishing arm e.g. the company's posters and particularly EF LENS WORK I to V. Publication in the 1990s was either Singapore or Japan. This imagesetting-to-plates was very common in publishing at the time (also photogravure) when the very highest quality visual impact was sought and cost was no object.

 

[rwreich]

I am happy to print 35mm negs on 8x10" paper in a borderless style. I like for my prints to show a tell-tale signature which can be slightly grainy at times. Even if the images aren't entirely sharp or if detail is lost, it doesn't matter as much as the content. High-definition, to me, means that the image was worth printing in the first place. Otherwise, I'm just as happy to look at the negs by holding them up to the light.

 

[blockend]

Reading blockend's original post, I note that he mentions using a flatbed scanner to produce his images. He states he was running his scanner at 3200 ppi, which, if you know anything about flatbeds, is hopelessly optimistic. The very best flatbeds can maybe eke out 2400 ppi, but most good flatbeds, like my trusty old Epson 4990, which was Epson's best scanner prior to the introduction of the V7xx models, can't do much better than 2000 ppi. I have found this resolution to be too low if one hopes to achieve critically sharp 35mm images. Yes, it might be fine for a monitor, but not for prints.

Just be clear, I was using a **** viewed on a large monitor as an example. My background is a few decades in darkrooms, not on computers, and my take on flatbed ***** is that they're a large scale contact sheet, not a print source. This may be a reasonable assumption or just showing my age, but I don't have the experience to know what is signal and what's noise in a ****, nor the skill to replace physically burning in and holding back a print with P********.

I can accept that image quality for self publishing, say an A5 photograph framed in an A4 book, would easily be met by a ****, but I can't say the same of exhibition printing. I was primarily speaking of the darkroom print when I mentioned size, what state of the art drum **** are capable of picking out, I have no idea.

Edit: I received a warning message when replying, and have replaced offensive words.

 

[dynachrome]

David,

Imagelink HQ was made in both perforated and non-perforated 35mm stock. When I first used it I did not yet have a camera which worked with non-perf stock.

 

[David Lyga]

I did not know this. Perhaps, NOW it is available in ONLY non-perforated. Thank you. - David Lyga