On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Nick David Wright <pedalsandpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Real black and white (i.e. - not the c41 b&w) has the potential to be > sharper than color because of the way it's made. > > As to enlargements, I know lots of folks claim that 8x10 is the > largest you can go with 35mm but that's just not true. I've personally > made poster-sized prints from 35mm, and I know some billboards back in > the day were shot with 35mm.
I have made 11x14 prints from images taken on my Nikon D1 and or D1H. I don't listen to who ever "They" are.:-) dave It depends on the film used, and the > image itself. I think one problem with small format enlargements is > that folks blow it up huge then look at it inches from their face. > "This looks horrible," they'll say, no kidding. > > Now, I don't know if I'd trust the scanner I bought to enlarge 35 > bigger than 8x10. > > As to pro vs consumer films, I have not noticed an appreciable > difference for my use. My recent color work has been shot on the > Fujicolor 200, a four pack at WalMart costs $7. For black and white I > slightly prefer Ilford's XP2, but the local Walgreens carry three > packs of Kodak BW400CN for $12 which I might start using since I won't > have to pay shipping. When I can develop my own again, I'll probably > go right back to Ilford's HP5+. > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Walter Gilbert <ldott...@gmail.com> wrote: >> That's a relief. Thanks for the info. >> >> By the way ... is b/w 35mm more forgiving than color when printing >> enlargements, or are you still pretty much limited to around 8 x 10 before >> the grain starts to get obtrusive? And how much difference can I expect out >> of professional grade over standard consumer grade films? >> >> -- Walt >> >> On 12/4/2010 8:52 PM, John Sessoms wrote: >>> >>> From: Walter Gilbert >>> >>>> Great. Looks like I'm staring down the barrel of another expense to >>>> go along with my newly acquired pursuit of film photography: good >>>> printer, ink, and paper. >>>> >>>> Seems there ought to be a way to embed processing instructions in the >>>> EXIF data to tell the machines not to engage in such foolishness. >>> >>> Maybe not. It's only scanning the negatives that gives the automatic >>> processor fits. >>> >>> If you're scanning your negatives at home, once you have a digital image >>> you like, the mini-labs print them pretty much as you submit it. >>> >>> They don't automatically correct "mistakes" like the machine does for >>> negatives. >>> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> > > > > -- > ~Nick David Wright > http://www.nickdavidwright.net/ > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
