Maximum Enlargement Possible from Fuji 800

Discussion in 'Fuji' started by Larry R Harrison Jr, Sep 20, 2004.

  1. I shot a wedding (I'm not a professional) with Fuji Superia 800 film.
    I scouted the place earlier with my Coolpix 5700 and using the
    built-in flash (I had purchased a full-sized unit on eBay but it
    didn't arrive until it was too late) it was way too dim with the
    built-in flash unless I cranked the ISO up to 800. Of course the
    Coolpix 5700--for all its virtues--you really should leave the ISO at
    100 in my experience. So I used 800-speed film for my Nikon 35mm SLR
    (F65).

    Anyway, now that it's done, assuming they turn out well, what would be
    the largest possible enlargement I could do with it where it would
    look good? I figure 8x10, whereas with 100-speed (or Fuji Velvia 50) a
    16x24 would be the utmost enlargement possible.

    Opinions?

    LRH
     
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Sep 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    Anyway, now that it's done, assuming they turn out well, what would be
    Impossible to tell, what is acceptable to you may not be acceptable to
    another. Also, too many variables- was the exposure dead on with the images
    you're thinking of blowing up? what lense was used? did you use an external
    flash on the F65? did you get good (fast) shutter speeds? at what
    aperture's? etc...
     
    Joseph Kewfi, Sep 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Aaron Guest

    You can definitely go above 8x10 with Superia 800. The only issue is grain
    in the underexposed areas and colour balance. As far as my experiences go,
    Superia 800 (and Press 800) tend to go yellowish when underexposed.

    If you really want that 16x24 or larger (and money is no object), you can
    have the winning shot drum scanned, use a grain dissolver program/filter and
    then have it printed out with a large format printer at an pro photo lab.

    Aaron
     
    Aaron, Sep 20, 2004
    #3
  4. Larry R Harrison Jr

    PGG Guest

    16x24 from 35mm?? I guess your standards differ from mine. An 11x14
    print from ISO 100 35mm color negative film is marginally acceptable to me.
     
    PGG, Sep 20, 2004
    #4
  5. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Alan Browne Guest


    The overriding factor is always the distance at which a print is
    seen.

    A 16x24 looks the same at 4 feet awat as a 4x6 looks 1 foot away.

    A huge billboard by the side of the road can be done from 35mm
    and you wouldn't know it from a MF shot when you see it from the
    road over a 100 feet away.

    So what is the "right" distance. Some say at a distance equal to
    the diagonal, some say at twice that... somewhere in their sounds
    right.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 20, 2004
    #5
  6. Larry R Harrison Jr

    PGG Guest

    Very true. I view my framed 11x14 prints from about 2-4 feet away. A
    print from a 35mm ISO 100 color negative is still marginally acceptable
    to me. The problem is that I also shoot medium and large format. Hence my
    standards have been tainted ;)

    After going to a recent large art fair, with hundreds of exhibitions, I
    went out and bought a large-format setup. When I was stunned with the
    detail of a print, when asked what medium he/she used, the answer was
    always 6x7 or 4x5.
     
    PGG, Sep 21, 2004
    #6
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.