robklurfield
eclipse
Rxmd... apologies. Done.
Athiril
Established
OP if you are referring to grain, looking at grain closeup isn't necessarily going to translate how it will blend into the print. You're looking close up at different magnification and viewing distance than the print.
If your results are too grainy, or noisy from scanner noise, it could be due to exposure + processing conditions, working on optimising those may help. As would be using Xtol for higher detail with finer grained images than developers like ID-11 and D-76. Then there is always perceptol if it's still too offensive for you.
Otherwise at that point, a naturally finer grain film might be what you want.
What is your workflow?
Film, developer & dilution, time and temp. Lab-process film?
You need to scan at 7200dpi to get the most from the scanner, it's placed at 3800 dpi resolving power. It is like how you need a 300 lp/mm lens to get 100 lp/mm out of a 100 lp/mm film, or a 300 lp/mm film to get 100 lp/mm out of a 100 lp/mm lens. Etc.
You may not necessarily be getting that high detail level on your film though to be able to see and make use of that difference however.
If your results are too grainy, or noisy from scanner noise, it could be due to exposure + processing conditions, working on optimising those may help. As would be using Xtol for higher detail with finer grained images than developers like ID-11 and D-76. Then there is always perceptol if it's still too offensive for you.
Otherwise at that point, a naturally finer grain film might be what you want.
What is your workflow?
Film, developer & dilution, time and temp. Lab-process film?
You need to scan at 7200dpi to get the most from the scanner, it's placed at 3800 dpi resolving power. It is like how you need a 300 lp/mm lens to get 100 lp/mm out of a 100 lp/mm film, or a 300 lp/mm film to get 100 lp/mm out of a 100 lp/mm lens. Etc.
You may not necessarily be getting that high detail level on your film though to be able to see and make use of that difference however.
roboflick
Well-known
Frank Green at the Lab Ciba, has made me beautiful 20 by 30 cibachromes from 35mm dr5 processed efke 25 and velvia 50 and 100. They look great!
I would recommend his services highly
Nik
I would recommend his services highly
Nik
Athiril
Established
Just got back, made a test print optically at 5x7" with 35mm Neopan 400 processed in Xtol Replenished, there is grain in the highlights easily visible, not offensive, otherwise looks good. If you're a grainophobe, you may want to weigh up film/developer combinations.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
In the 'sixties, I made six foot prints from 35mm for a reception area display. Of course, if you got up close to the paper, the image broke up but that wasn't what the client was after and they were very happy with the finished product.
Until recently, there were several labs in the London area that would make Cibachrome or RA4 prints at more or less any size that you were prepared to pay for.
Until recently, there were several labs in the London area that would make Cibachrome or RA4 prints at more or less any size that you were prepared to pay for.
jaimiepeeters
Well-known
Mr. Fizzlesticks said:
No I just want to shoot the pictures and have someone print it for me. I don't want to burn my fingers on something I don't know nothing about.
Sparrow
Veteran
... some more experienced people will tell you the same
Sparrow
Veteran
PKR: ... I go to 12x18 with C-prints, I have made 48x72 from a scanned 135 neg, but one can not do it from any negative and one can't stand too close to the finished print ... and I suspect the op hasn't yet gained even my (limited) skill set
astro8
Well-known
Jamie, I found a scan that I made when experimenting with vuescan and a FS4000US with an old 35mm negative strip. This is an old pic that my wife must of taken a few years ago with a who knows where she found camera and a 1 hr lab.
It was scanned at 4000dpi. I enlarged it to 1200mm x 800mm at 150 dpi. I used this as an example to give you a good idea of what you can expect as a worse case example. A'grainless' negative would be so much smoother. There is no pixelation (which I know you are concerned about) whatsoever, what you see is grain. Noticeable as much or as little as what film you shot with and how you processed it and scanned it. You might be ok with grain or maybe not. The crops are of the only parts of the image that seems to be in focus.(!)
You can get a very good idea of how a print will look on screen when enlarged. So...I say take that avenue and experiment before you pay for something you won't be happy with.
A lot of places will use Perfect Resize or similiar to upsize images. I don't care for Perfect Resize much. Raster files that started out as vectors and abstract images can work well with it, but people photos...not so much. I use photoshop to enlarge images but I do it in stages. I'll work the scan or the digital file to get the best image quality that I can, some sharpening, noise reduction then upsize it maybe 500% then repeat until I get to the required size. Using this method and over layering images with varying sharpening and then blending them I've printed 30' x 12' billboards from 1mb jpegs, but I don't recommend it.
Depending on how large the final size is, I'll save it at anywhere from 72dpi (for huge stuff) to 200dpi. I always try to keep the file size under 1GB.
But in saying this, I've never printed anything for myself larger than 8"x12"....I prefer smaller prints and I wish all mine came from a darkroom.
It was scanned at 4000dpi. I enlarged it to 1200mm x 800mm at 150 dpi. I used this as an example to give you a good idea of what you can expect as a worse case example. A'grainless' negative would be so much smoother. There is no pixelation (which I know you are concerned about) whatsoever, what you see is grain. Noticeable as much or as little as what film you shot with and how you processed it and scanned it. You might be ok with grain or maybe not. The crops are of the only parts of the image that seems to be in focus.(!)
You can get a very good idea of how a print will look on screen when enlarged. So...I say take that avenue and experiment before you pay for something you won't be happy with.
A lot of places will use Perfect Resize or similiar to upsize images. I don't care for Perfect Resize much. Raster files that started out as vectors and abstract images can work well with it, but people photos...not so much. I use photoshop to enlarge images but I do it in stages. I'll work the scan or the digital file to get the best image quality that I can, some sharpening, noise reduction then upsize it maybe 500% then repeat until I get to the required size. Using this method and over layering images with varying sharpening and then blending them I've printed 30' x 12' billboards from 1mb jpegs, but I don't recommend it.
Depending on how large the final size is, I'll save it at anywhere from 72dpi (for huge stuff) to 200dpi. I always try to keep the file size under 1GB.
But in saying this, I've never printed anything for myself larger than 8"x12"....I prefer smaller prints and I wish all mine came from a darkroom.
