A View on Film and Digital

[Gid]

http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_prints.html

This is an old link, but first time I've seen it. Its unscientific, but nonetheless interesting. Particularly interesting to me at the moment - I'm spending too much time trying to get decent scans of 35mm with varying degrees of success. MF scans are better (as you would expect).

I've got a couple of 15"x10" prints from my M6 that are very detailed, so obviously it is possible, but seems to vary widely with subject matter (or maybe my photographic skill - enlarging a 35mm neg to 15X10 will, I guess, expose any shortcomings).

What size do you guys normally enlarge 35mm to?

 

[bmattock]

If I'm printing for an exhibition or for sale, I have been scanning my 35's and printing at 8x10 or 11x14, which gives me lots of room to crop and still have high quality prints. I have taken one of my negs to 16x24, and it came out fine - I was actually impressed with it. I didn't have a lot of room to crop without degrading the image at that size, though. I do not think I could have done that with my DSLR. 8x10 and 11x14 are no problem for either digital (6mp) or scanned 35's for me, but I can do a bit less cropping with the digital.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[varjag]

When I was making wet prints it typically was 13x18 or 18x24cm. I never bothered assessing quiality under strong loupe or measuring lp/mm, mostly becasue inanimate-subject-with-50ISO-on-tripod-at-optimum-aperture is not my type of shooting.

My (unscientific) conclusion from hires scanning though suggests that it gets anywhere from 7-9 to 17-21 megapixels worth of detail, depending on lens, film and circumstances.