safe blow-up

[moretto]

OK, just as a curiosity..I have made a number of 30x45 cm prints from:
Minolta x-700 with Rokkors- great,
Zenit With 28mm Pentacon-not so great but OK,
Rollei with Schneider Kreuznach- just started to worm up on that size 😀
Alpha DSLR - great even with kit lens
Panasonic FZ 30 with Leica lens - not so good
Nikon s4 - good 20x30, but fell apart on 30x40
Yashica-Kyocera p&s - 13x18 cm - horrible

And I'm always using the same photo lab, unfortunately, I can't enlarge more than 13x18 at home (and the papers are way more expensive than the lab work)

But, I have never tried any of the RF negatives in that size. How does a I-61 or a J-8 behave enlarged to 30x45? (guess bodies are irrelevant anyway). I have read somewhere that a 35mm negative can compare to digital resolution from 4-12 Mpixels, depending on the camera and lens.
Where would Russians be in that ranking?

 

[xxloverxx]

I find my Jupiter 8 slightly soft, even at 4 or 5.6, so I guess it would be even softer on a large print.
Other than that, I can't make comments from experience.

A 35mm negative's resolution depends on the specific film. Slower slide films, like Velvia 50, have way more than 20 megapixels. According to Ken Rockwell, it's about 50 megapixels.

If you like, I have a film resolution chart on a spreadsheet that I copied off the web somewhere (can't remember where exactly), which tells you the lp/mm for quite a few films; I could email it to you.

I don't understand that chart at all, but you might. I used it originally to give me an idea of which film had a higher resolution.

I have no data on the resolving power of the J8.

 

[payasam]

I used to get good 16" x 12" prints from Canon SLR negatives and also from negatives made with a Leica M3 and a Canon VT Deluxe. I understand that some of my negatives were printed much larger also. I now use a Jupiter-3 and a Jupiter-9 whose negatives have made satisfactory prints up to 15" x 12" and could, I think, give larger ones too.

 

[moretto]

I thought so..OK, there are variables, a lot of them, even more if You scan the negative and retouch it digitally...I meant blow up directly from the negative, as it should be done 😉.
I usually try to reduce the mentioned variables by a tripod and a "remote". And stopping even good lenses to f8. That's one of the reasons I never tried RF negatives, because I really don't remember if I ever placed any of them on a tripod 🙄.
Have to try that once...after what payasam wrote, I'm intrigued. 🙂

 

[Valkir1987]

Dear Moretto 🙂

I had this photo printed from the negative at the format 30x45. It was taken with a Fed1 with an uncoated lens. The result was Suberb! Better contrast and sharpness than the scan!

The image I posted has been scanned with my scanner (canoscan 4400f) which has many disadvantages! The brightness of the backlight can't be adjusted to the density of the negative. And the film is never flat (or pressed) in the rail when scanned.

I am used to shoot more black and white because photo labs are becoming expensive here. The developing quality of our local warehouse is poor. There's only one good photo store left here in our town.

With kind regards,


M Schekkerman

 

[moretto]

Beautiful pic, Valkir. I also scan negatives, I have a Canon 8600f, with same or similar disadvantages. Fortunately, our labs are not so expensive, and as I am a photo club member, i can get my 30x45 prints for about 2,50€. On the other hand, films are a bit pricey, Ilfords for about 7 € a 36exp roll. I am sticking to Efke for under 2 €, directly from the factory.

I think I'll go with this one for my first RF attempt on 30x45 😉

It's Ilford fp4+ and '67 Z4 with J8, wide open. Some sharpening for web purposes, of course..

 

[moretto]

You can blow it up as much as You want, and it will look OK from 100 meters away, what I meant is when You look at a quality 30x40 print holding it in hands, album or a wall, a meter away. Billboards are supposed to be viewed from half-a-mile from a moving car.