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

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by Branko Vukelic, Jan 26, 2004.

  1. I need to do a poster 100x70cm (39.373x27.56in) 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 100x70 size to allow for perspective correction and such.

    So the "Mission Impossible" is to enlarge the 35mm negative shot to the
    full 100x70 size (or more). 1. Can it be done? 2. How?

    One of the pieces of advice I got was to make a 100x70 photo and scan it.
    Or make a smaller sized, say 70x50 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, Jan 26, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Branko Vukelic

    The Yowie Guest

    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
    --------------------------
     
    The Yowie, Jan 26, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Branko Vukelic

    RTM Guest

    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.
     
    RTM, Jan 26, 2004
    #3
  4. Branko Vukelic

    Frogiswrong Guest

    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.
     
    Frogiswrong, Jan 26, 2004
    #4
  5. Branko Vukelic

    RTM Guest

    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.
     
    RTM, Jan 26, 2004
    #5
  6. 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, Jan 26, 2004
    #6
  7. 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, Jan 26, 2004
    #7
  8. Branko Vukelic

    RTM Guest

    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 10x8 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.
     
    RTM, Jan 26, 2004
    #8
  9. Thanks again Ron.
     
    Branko Vukelic, Jan 26, 2004
    #9
  10. Branko Vukelic

    Frogiswrong Guest

    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???
     
    Frogiswrong, Jan 26, 2004
    #10
  11. Branko Vukelic

    Hecate Guest

    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, Jan 27, 2004
    #11
  12. Why am I asking for help?

    See, I did a little maths, and figured that shooting 6x6 doesn't fit the
    budget. 6x6 neg price + 6x6 scanning price... That's just too much for my
    client.

    Simple as that. No money, no ride. ;)
     
    Branko Vukelic, Jan 28, 2004
    #12
    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.