Which gives better enlargement

[JoeMac]

Which one would give me the best 16x20 enlargement.

1- 35mm Velvia 100 film with quality camera and lens

or

2- 10 meg digital with quality camera and lens.

Thanks😕

 

[40oz]

isn't Velvia slide film? Why wouldn't you use print film if a print is the desired product?

Is the enlargement going to be made from a scan of the slide, or using inter-negatives, or some other process? Is the digital image file printed on a consumer grade inkjet or professional equipment?

If this is only theoretical, why not compare with another film, something slower, perhaps? Why Velvia 100, specifically? Is the judgement for "best" going to involve the use of a loupe, or standing back ten feet and looking at color accuracy, smoothness of tones, or aesthetic impressions only? Is there a reason you can't do both, then ask passersby their opinion?

 

[venchka]

Unless you have a Cibachrome/Ilfochrome enlargement made directly from the original slide, all bets are off. Any other enlarging process involves making a copy of the slide.

Same applies to the digital original. Home made print or professional print?

I don't see any comparison being fair to either medium. Besides, how often would you have two identical originals and prints side by side for comparison? In a perfect world, both mediums are capable of producing quite stunning 16x20s.

PS: Unless the same lens were used in the same situation, you'll never know if one or the other is "better".

 

[Gray Fox]

A good comparison would be to shoot the same target image/scene with a Nikon D200 and an N80, both using similar lenes, say a 50 1.8 on the N80 and a 28 2.0 on the D200. Assuming the limitations of this comparison, the image from the D200 would be much easier to work with, no spotting, etc. and less than a 100% upsize to get your 16x20. It would be interesting to see the prints side by side, assuming that the film was scanned well and both digital images were printed by the same pro lab.

 

[MadMan2k]

If the Velvia was properly exposed, and then drum scanned, color-corrected and sharpened and professionally printed, and the digital file was treated the same way, I would imagine the film would make a better print, but you'd have to try it to find out...

 

[rogue_designer]

option c - medium or large format. If your goal is a big print.

If you're just trying for a direct comparison of quality between digital and 35mm film, then you're in for a harder discussion. Lots of variables, and many who will argue that you need to consider them as different media. For my part, if you are comparing a high quality dslr/drf file with 35mm film for the purpose of making color prints, the digital will win in my book. But that's only true for color. And only true if you know what you are doing and have access to a very good quality digital printer.

 

[aad]

Since you most likely will use a consumer scanner on the slide to make a digital file for printing, the scanner quality will be a wildcard that makes the comparison improper-sort of like taking a digital file and putting it on slide film.

 

[clintock]

There is much more information in the 35mm slide than can be captured by a 10mb digital camera sensor, so in theory it is possible the slide enlargement will be sharper/better..

these guys know first hand-
http://www.dalelabs.com/bigenlgm.html

 

[sf]

Which one would give me the best 16x20 enlargement.

1- 35mm Velvia 100 film with quality camera and lens

or

2- 10 meg digital with quality camera and lens.

Thanks😕

nowadays, this is a complicated question.

If you shoot a *Really* sharp 35mm Velvia neg, and have it DRUM SCANNED at grain sharp resolution, you'll beat any 10MP camera.

If you go to the local shop and request a print from the slide, forget it.

I had prints made from slides once and yuck. Really gross. I paid a small shop in Santa Monica, CA to print my 11x14 type R prints - and WOW. Real slide prints or Drum scans are the only option.

a 10MP RAW file is going to be pretty close in terms of resolution at 8x10, but not 16x20. At that size, a drum scanned slide will beat any consumer digital.

 

[venchka]

and another thing...

Why not include Velvia 50? Or Provia 100? Or Kodachrome? Velvia 50 for potentially finer grain and Provia 100 for higher resolving power. Kodachrome for 2 reasons: 1. Be 2. Cause

Why stop at 10Mp?

At the end of the day, the talent of the photographer, and to a lesser degree the quality of the optics, will have greater influence on the finished product than which sensor was used.

Personally, I would favor direct optical enlargement of transparency material in any format.

 

[varjag]

You don't have to drum scan the slide. Any half-decent dedicated film scanner will fetch you far more than 10 mpix equivalent.

 

[JoeMac]

Would there be any difference in quality if I changed the film from slide to negative with an ASA100?

 

[Xmas]

Joe

If you use a M8 and film M same asph lens or non asph at 1/5.6 then you need to use a sturdy tripod to see any significant difference. You will need nose close to 20x16 print.

35mm was never about quality it was about spontaneity. Digital delivers the end result quicker.

Kodachrome 64 (or 25 if you have some in fridge) are grain films and better than F100 (or F50) but there is a 3 week wait in UK, the E6 can be done in a local lab. I always used K25.

Noel

 

[amateriat]

The answer, once again, seems to be, "it depends". Speaking for myself, I can get a lot more from a given film-based camera than even a relatively high-end digital, but that's because I know film. Studious digital shooters who know their gear (and workflow), will get more from their setup than they might with film. An individual's approach to either medium is going to have a significant influence, and sloppy technique will show (and, way too often, does show) in either medium.


- Barrett

 

[venchka]

Think outside the box

Think outside the box

Would there be any difference in quality if I changed the film from slide to negative with an ASA100?

Maybe, maybe not. I have used Fuji Reala at ASA 80 (box speed 100) and it is very fine grained. I haven't enlarged the negatives nor have I compared it to slide film. Direct enlargement of negatives is always the best route to take as opposed to scanning and digital enlargement.

Even though we all know that film is dead, there are still a dewildering array of emulsions available. The only way to know what works for you is to do some comparison testing.

You have not told us what the subject matter or shooting conditions are. Given the quality of film scans or modern digital sensors and the availability of high quality stitching software, don't limit yourself to enlarging a single image. If the situation permits, shoot a "quilt" of images and stitch them together. In effect creating a medium format original. Instead of trying to get a high quality 16x20 from a cropped portion of a small original, you will be printing the equivalent of 2x3 or 4x6 enlargements of each individual exposure. Applying the same technique to medium or large format will yield better results still. Can you imagine what a 16x20 "contact print" of 20 4x5 originals would look like? Boggles the mind!

Good luck! Start testing. Keep us informd.

 

[gareth]

Certainly you need to be at the upper range of 2-10mpixel.

But as others have pointed out there are too many variables.

As I often point out to people, it maybe only takes 1/125th of a second to take a photograph, but it can sometimes take many hours work to finnish it.

Different fromats give different results, one is not automatically superior to another.

Oh dedicated desk top film scanners are capable of excellant results.