|
brundige
Jan 26, 2005, 9:14 PM
Post #1 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2004
Posts: 305
|
1)how do i enlargea 35mm slide film negative to something 4x5 ft w/o it looking grainy and/or blurry
2)how do i enlare pics in photoshop w/omaking them blurry?
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Jan 26, 2005, 10:16 PM
Post #2 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
In reply to: 1)how do i enlargea 35mm slide film negative to something 4x5 ft w/o it looking grainy and/or blurry 2)how do i enlare pics in photoshop w/omaking them blurry?
You don't.
You buy a medium or large format camera for that purpose.
~Adam~
|
|
|
|
|
kaylinr
Jan 26, 2005, 10:20 PM
Post #3 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2004
Posts: 119
|
You just scan it and increase the resolution like they do on CSI :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
eastvillage
Jan 26, 2005, 10:40 PM
Post #4 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2004
Posts: 262
|
Besides medium and large format film, you could shoot 35mm that is exposed very well and is shot with high quality pro lenses. In any case you will need a high quality scan like a drum scan. You'd be trying for as large a file as possible, say 40mb. You'd need to go to a pro place for this type of work. Avoid any scanner that uses words like "interpolate".
That's computer speak for inventing picture information that is not there.
But nothing's going to beat big film for this purpose.
For photoshop, you'll need a MINIMUM file size that is 25% of your intended print size. For a 48" by 60" print, you need the file to open on your computer and have the image size listed as 12" by 15" in the native file size.
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Jan 26, 2005, 10:59 PM
Post #5 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
In reply to: Besides medium and large format film, you could shoot 35mm that is exposed very well and is shot with high quality pro lenses.
In reply to: For photoshop, you'll need a MINIMUM file size that is 25% of your intended print size. For a 48" by 60" print, you need the file to open on your computer and have the image size listed as 12" by 15" in the native file size.
~Adam~
|
|
|
|
|
buckforester
Jan 26, 2005, 11:06 PM
Post #6 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2005
Posts: 15
|
You can get good enlargements with 35mm if you shoot a low-speed, fine-grained film like Fuji Velvia 50 or Provia 100F, shooting from a tripod with quality lenses and good lighting, and using professional printing services (drum scans and top-end laser printers) but you're still not gonna be able to blow that sucker up to 4'x5' without significant loss of resolution. You would need to be shooting with large format equipment to get nice prints that size. At least that's been my experience. Hi.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 28, 2005, 1:18 AM
Post #7 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: 1)how do i enlargea 35mm slide film negative to something 4x5 ft w/o it looking grainy and/or blurry 2)how do i enlare pics in photoshop w/omaking them blurry?
1)
The short of the answer is you don't. 4x5 foot is pretty damn big.
In theory it's possible with 35mm with a fine grained film and a super sharp sharp lens using a small aperture while using a tripod, cable release, and mirror lockup. But a perfect 4x5 is probably at the outer edge of the possibility of 35mm.
All of Galen Rowells work was shot on 35mm and he produced large flawless prints from that. He chose 35mm because it was compact, lightweight and allowed him to take a (full featured) camera with him places where he might not otherwise.
But if your ultimate goal is 4x5 prints, medium format was designed for this. You'd still need a drum scan to get the resolution needed. And for a 4x5 foot print your file might be several hundred megabytes or more at 300dpi. Right now is a good time to get into it to.
On my desktop Minolta Scan Dual III i can scan 35mm at 2840 dpi input 300dpi output. giving me a respectable 30Mb tiff file in bit or 60Mb in 16bit.
This allows me to make use of comercial printers full capabilities of 300dpi in an 8x12 format which I quite like. I never understood the 8x10 crop and now that I've found a cheap source for 8x12 mattes I'm never printing 8x10's when the full frame looks good.
If I need bigger I need to resample to a lower output dpi. anything above 200 usually gives perfectly adequate and pleasing results. And if the image was so amazing that I felt it needed to be printed at 300dpi I would send it off for a drum scan. I had a poster printed recently and the imaging company actually had quidelines that the image only be 150dpi. It arrived and looked very good. It was poster, not a fine art print and I was fine with the output. It was on weather proof laminate and was pretty damn sharp and clear. If it was a fine art print I'd have been disappointed but I was quite happy with the results.
2)
If your photos are becoming blurry in photoshop then you are probably not scanning them at a high enough resolution. Or, more likely, they are blurry. You have to remember that a small print will almost always look good. It will look good with a dog of a lens, a shaky hand without a tripod, poor light, but once you get to 8x10 you really start to see the flaws of cheap glass and handholding.
How are you scanning your images? and what settings are you using?
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 28, 2005, 1:21 AM
Post #8 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: 1)how do i enlargea 35mm slide film negative to something 4x5 ft w/o it looking grainy and/or blurry 2)how do i enlare pics in photoshop w/omaking them blurry?
1)
The short of the answer is you don't. 4x5 foot is pretty damn big.
In theory it's possible with 35mm with a fine grained film and a super sharp sharp lens using a small aperture while using a tripod, cable release, and mirror lockup. But a perfect 4x5 is probably at the outer edge of the possibility of 35mm.
All of Galen Rowells work was shot on 35mm and he produced large flawless prints from that. He chose 35mm because it was compact, lightweight and allowed him to take a (full featured) camera with him places where he might not otherwise.
But if your ultimate goal is 4x5 prints, medium format was designed for this. You'd still need a drum scan to get the resolution needed. And for a 4x5 foot print your file might be several hundred megabytes or more at 300dpi. Right now is a good time to get into it to.
On my desktop Minolta Scan Dual III i can scan 35mm at 2840 dpi input 300dpi output. giving me a respectable 30Mb tiff file in bit or 60Mb in 16bit.
This allows me to make use of comercial printers full capabilities of 300dpi in an 8x12 format which I quite like. I never understood the 8x10 crop and now that I've found a cheap source for 8x12 mattes I'm never printing 8x10's when the full frame looks good.
If I need bigger I need to resample to a lower output dpi. anything above 200 usually gives perfectly adequate and pleasing results. And if the image was so amazing that I felt it needed to be printed at 300dpi I would send it off for a drum scan. I had a poster printed recently and the imaging company actually had quidelines that the image only be 150dpi. It arrived and looked very good. It was poster, not a fine art print and I was fine with the output. It was on weather proof laminate and was pretty damn sharp and clear. If it was a fine art print I'd have been disappointed but I was quite happy with the results.
2)
If your photos are becoming blurry in photoshop then you are probably not scanning them at a high enough resolution. Or, more likely, they are blurry. You have to remember that a small print will almost always look good. It will look good with a dog of a lens, a shaky hand without a tripod, poor light, but once you get to 8x10 you really start to see the flaws of cheap glass and handholding.
How are you scanning your images? and what settings are you using?
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 28, 2005, 1:22 AM
Post #9 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: 1)how do i enlargea 35mm slide film negative to something 4x5 ft w/o it looking grainy and/or blurry 2)how do i enlare pics in photoshop w/omaking them blurry?
1)
The short of the answer is you don't. 4x5 foot is pretty damn big.
In theory it's possible with 35mm with a fine grained film and a super sharp sharp lens using a small aperture while using a tripod, cable release, and mirror lockup. But a perfect 4x5 is probably at the outer edge of the possibility of 35mm.
All of Galen Rowells work was shot on 35mm and he produced large flawless prints from that. He chose 35mm because it was compact, lightweight and allowed him to take a (full featured) camera with him places where he might not otherwise.
But if your ultimate goal is 4x5 prints, medium format was designed for this. You'd still need a drum scan to get the resolution needed. And for a 4x5 foot print your file might be several hundred megabytes or more at 300dpi. Right now is a good time to get into it to.
On my desktop Minolta Scan Dual III i can scan 35mm at 2840 dpi input 300dpi output. giving me a respectable 30Mb tiff file in bit or 60Mb in 16bit.
This allows me to make use of comercial printers full capabilities of 300dpi in an 8x12 format which I quite like. I never understood the 8x10 crop and now that I've found a cheap source for 8x12 mattes I'm never printing 8x10's when the full frame looks good.
If I need bigger I need to resample to a lower output dpi. anything above 200 usually gives perfectly adequate and pleasing results. And if the image was so amazing that I felt it needed to be printed at 300dpi I would send it off for a drum scan. I had a poster printed recently and the imaging company actually had quidelines that the image only be 150dpi. It arrived and looked very good. It was poster, not a fine art print and I was fine with the output. It was on weather proof laminate and was pretty damn sharp and clear. If it was a fine art print I'd have been disappointed but I was quite happy with the results.
2)
If your photos are becoming blurry in photoshop then you are probably not scanning them at a high enough resolution. Or, more likely, they are blurry. You have to remember that a small print will almost always look good. It will look good with a dog of a lens, a shaky hand without a tripod, poor light, but once you get to 8x10 you really start to see the flaws of cheap glass and handholding.
How are you scanning your images? and what settings are you using?
|
|
|
|
|
the_alpine
Jan 28, 2005, 2:26 AM
Post #10 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2003
Posts: 371
|
The most important issue here is why the feck you want this blown up to 4'x5'. If you're looking for a giant image to grace a wall inside your house and completely amaze you every time you view it because you get so lost in its life-like state...............you're a fool. If instead you want to make a big poster for advertising or promotional purposes that wont be viewed from very close distances.... go for it.
|
|
|
|
|
brent_e
Jan 28, 2005, 2:33 AM
Post #11 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 5111
|
take your image in photoshop. go to resize it, pick an axis and upsample by 110 % each time. do it until you get the desired size (you can change the DPI to get a bit bigger size, too...or do both...although i don't go less than 200 DPI).
just make sure that it's 110 each time....and do all your post processing (sharpening and curves etc) after you upsample. if you don't you will create noise in the image, and then you will upsample the noise.
good luck
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 28, 2005, 2:58 AM
Post #12 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: take your image in photoshop. go to resize it, pick an axis and upsample by 110 % each time. do it until you get the desired size (you can change the DPI to get a bit bigger size, too...or do both...although i don't go less than 200 DPI). just make sure that it's 110 each time....and do all your post processing (sharpening and curves etc) after you upsample. if you don't you will create noise in the image, and then you will upsample the noise. good luck
resampling up isn't generally recommended. your causing the program to create pixels that aren't there. if you need to upsample to create bigger prints you should invest in a interpolating program that does a better job. which is probably what the original poster actually needs even with a drum scan to squeeze out 48x60in 35mm prints. Scan as big as you think you'll ever need and then use that original as your base for everything you create. Downsampling is far more effecient than upsampling.
|
|
|
|
|
climberboy1789
Jan 28, 2005, 3:47 AM
Post #13 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 14
|
ok you have raster and vector images you more then likely have a raster image which uses pixels and will look pixelated or have the bluriness but if you have something made in something such as adobe illustrator it makes raster images which can be blown up as big as the world and will not become pixelated. You can change a vector into a raster but you can not change a raster into a vector
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Jan 28, 2005, 5:25 AM
Post #14 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
A little blur isn't bad anyway. My digital camera is just six megapixels, and I have a 20inx30in poster of one of my pictures. You can't even see the blur when you're LOOKING for it until about one foot away. Just a thought...
|
|
|
|
|
tarzan420
Jan 28, 2005, 5:54 AM
Post #15 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 678
|
In reply to: ok you have raster and vector images you more then likely have a vector image which uses pixels and will look pixelated or have the bluriness but if you have something made in something such as adobe illustrator it makes raster images which can be blown up as big as the world and will not become pixelated. You can changed a raster into a vector but you can not change a vector into a raster |
|
|
|
|
oldfart
Jan 28, 2005, 5:59 AM
Post #16 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2004
Posts: 76
|
In reply to: The most important issue here is why the feck you want this blown up to 4'x5'. If you're looking for a giant image to grace a wall inside your house and completely amaze you every time you view it because you get so lost in its life-like state...............you're a fool. If instead you want to make a big poster for advertising or promotional purposes that wont be viewed from very close distances.... go for it.
Great advice, prick!
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Jan 28, 2005, 7:35 AM
Post #17 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
If your shooting 35 mm, include as many of of following as possible
Great lens and tripod
Low Grain film
Hi-res Drum scan from pro firm like
http://www.westcoastimaging.com
Print from continuous tone digital printer like Lightjet or Chromira from firm like one listed above. Inkjets require more res the printers above.
Also, display the print where it tend to be viewed from a distance. That alone will cut you all kinds of slack
There are ways around some of those, but no magic bullet.
|
|
|
|
|
the_alpine
Jan 31, 2005, 4:32 AM
Post #18 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2003
Posts: 371
|
Hey Oldfart - chill. I was merely stating the truth. Maybe I shoulda said "keep dreaming" instead of "you're a fool."
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jan 31, 2005, 6:10 AM
Post #19 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
You could look into a photoshop plug-in called genuine fractals (or something like that) I haven't used it personally, and don't know all that much about it and its benefits and drawbacks, but it is an option and I'm sure doing a quick search online will give you the basic idea. At any rate, I think it's free.
|
|
|
|
|
oldfart
Jan 31, 2005, 9:51 AM
Post #20 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2004
Posts: 76
|
In reply to: Hey Oldfart - chill. I was merely stating the truth. Maybe I shoulda said "keep dreaming" instead of "you're a fool."
Actually, you were merely being a dickhead! Not uncommon here, just thought I'd call your attention to it.
Carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
craggincragin
Jan 31, 2005, 2:07 PM
Post #21 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2003
Posts: 154
|
I'm a freelance photographer and although I've been using digital lately, I still use slides and can assure you that with the proper film and exposure, outstanding gallery prints can be made. Fuji Velvia 50 is the best color-retaining slide film out there at that ISO (one of the lowest quality ISOs on the market.) For big prints (20x30?) I wouldn't go much higher than an ISO of 50 because grain is going to be immediately noticeable. The drawbacks to Velvia are that is is very contrasty, meaning the shadows "drop out"; an ISO of 50 is so low that a tripod is essential to guarantee tack-sharp images. That being said, you will never gain the big print quality in 35mm that you will in 4x5.
In reply to: Great advice, prick!
I understand that old bastards have a habit of contradicting themselves, so I should remind your demented cranium that you haven't given any advice. STFU.
|
|
|
|
|
zozo
Jan 31, 2005, 2:39 PM
Post #22 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2004
Posts: 3431
|
In reply to: The most important issue here is why the feck you want this blown up to 4'x5'. If you're looking for a giant image to grace a wall inside your house and completely amaze you every time you view it because you get so lost in its life-like state...............you're a fool.
This would make someone a fool because.............. :?
|
|
|
|
|
brent_e
Jan 31, 2005, 3:05 PM
Post #23 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 5111
|
resampling up isn't generally recommended. your causing the program to create pixels that aren't there. if you need to upsample to create bigger prints you should invest in a interpolating program that does a better job. which is probably what the original poster actually needs even with a drum scan to squeeze out 48x60in 35mm prints. Scan as big as you think you'll ever need and then use that original as your base for everything you create. Downsampling is far more effecient than upsampling.
I'm pretty certain that resampling and interpolating are the same animals. An Interpolating program (genuine fractals for example) resamples an image and creates pixels that aren't there thus making a "smoother" looking print (as in, no jaggies). Photoshop does the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
pixelguru
Jan 31, 2005, 3:23 PM
Post #24 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 14, 2003
Posts: 182
|
As my username implies, I spend a lot of time with digital images. The studio I work for produces a lot of very large format graphics - mostly for tradeshow use, but also store displays and lobbys. We regularly deal with 5-6 gigabyte Photoshop files.
When our source image is small, it needs to go really big, AND there is no way to get a better quality original, we've had good results with programs like Genuine Fractals http://www.lizardtech.com/ and Extensis SmartScale http://www.extensis.com.
Any digital enlargement produces distortion, but these programs produce 'more pleasing' distortion. Instead of blur and pixelation, you get some posterization - but the edges remain crisp. The better the original, the better the enlargement, so if you're out of focus and underexposed to begin with, any enlargement will just magnify your problems.
My advice is to get a high-quality drum scan of the original to about a 200MB file - at that point, you're nearing the limit of what data can be pulled out of the average 35mm (100 to 400 ISO, not the fancy stuff). Then use one of these apps to enlarge it to the size you need and hope for the best.
If you want to stick to traditional methods, the way that photo labs used to go really big was to make a print of the original as big as they could - then shoot the print with a studio camera - then enlarge THAT neg as much as they could - repeat until each dot of grain is about the size of your head :wink:
Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
sandbag
Feb 1, 2005, 7:33 AM
Post #25 of 29
(3887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2003
Posts: 1443
|
if you really intend to blow up a slide to that dimension you only need to go to a profesional enlargement lab(i used to be the janitor for a local printing shop when i was in college). Digitizing always loses quality. the physics of the enlargment process are fairly simple, in so far as you need good glass to get a good picture, its the same for enlarging they use HUGE enlargers and big paper, its like being in the Willie Wonka TV room. Commercial enlarging on color print paper as used in bill boards etc is far better than digital and larger too. Ive seen 8x6 repros that are flawless, and only shot with medium format camera or 35mm too. Its cost prohibitive(thinks 1000s of dollars) but its totally doable. Digital sux dong for huge blow up but will eventually get there. pixels will never reach the level of the molecule, until they incorporate nano technology.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
