In the "Making it Big" thread I wrote that I digitally enlarged a photo file from my Nikon D80 so that it became a 98 MB file and with an image size of 36"x24" at 200 dpi. It looked promising on my monitor but I was still unsure of the quality of the print.
The replies told me to fear not, for it should work.
The good news is that it works great. The print I got is sharp and clear, even viewed up close.
What I also discovered is the critical importance of sharpness. At 36x24 camera shake is very apparent even when using a tripod and I rejected some shots which I thought were sharp. I had chosen my two lenses (Nikkor AF 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8) especially for their quality in sharpness.
In the past I had some of my 35mm slides high-res scanned onto a CD giving me images at about 55 MB. I took them through the same proceedure as with the Raw D80 files to create 36x24 prints. Looking at the results on my monitor when I view them at print size, they are terrible, even when viewed at 10 feet away. Riddled with artifacts and not sharp at all.
What shall I blame? The 28-80mm lens that came on my Canon EOS 3000? Or myself for not having Danny Burk do the scanning for me? Seriously though, would a drum scan give hope for my slides after all?
Thank you for your replies.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Richard Wong on August 14, 2007 at 2:46 AM
I've never had to interpolate my high resolution film scans but the stock agencies say that you should not interpolate scans, while digital cameras are acceptable to do so. I'm guessing the reason is that scans aren't technically supposed to hold up if you blow them up too much beyond the original resolution. It's possible that the D80 provides better resolution than the 35mm as well.
Perhaps try a drum scan on one slide and see if it's worth it?
Will, a drum scan will not help where the image itself is soft on film (whether because of poor optics or camera shake). I would suggest studying the slide very closely on a light table using a high power loupe to determine if the sharpness is there before investing in a quality scan.
For 35mm, some of the high end desktop scanners to extremely well too. Look for ones that employ algorithms for scratch/dust removal (e.g. ICE) and reduction of film grain (e.g. GEM). Grain in particular is one reason high resolution film scans are harder to interpolate. Some software like NeatImage and Noise Ninja can help smooth out the look of grain prior to interpolation and often achieve sharper-looking results.
Guy
Posted by Kent Staubus on August 14, 2007 at 11:34 AM
I agree with Guy. A drum scan is at its best with 4x5, or maybe even medium format. A tiny 35mm just doesn't have the information on it to start with. If you want to scan your own 35mm slides or negs, I highly recommend the Nikon CoolScan V. It's affordable and gives great results. It just isn't fast if doing large quantities. Rather than using ICE, I generally go through inch by inch on the image at "actual pixels" and clone out the dust etc. It helps to blow the slide with air from a poofer bulb before scanning. Having seen the images side by side, I am certain the ones from my D80 are cleaner and hold up better than scans from 35mm. In fact, the D80 is comparable to the 645 medium format I used to use.
Guy's post confirms what we were told by the lab we switched to a couple of years ago, though we haven't done the enlarging ourselves. To explain, we switched our studio from medium format to digital capture after our original lab started producing terrible results on large prints from the film, while producing great results from the 6mp Fuji S2. The quality drop in prints from film occured when the lab stopped producing prints directly from the negatives and began printing from scans of the film.
The lab we switched to observed later that the problem was interpolation without prior grain reduction. They volunteerd to make us some large prints from the same negatives that produced terrible results, and sure enough, they turned out winners from the very same negatives. While their motive was to encourage us to go ahead and use film when we felt the needed, we haven't done so except when a job requires us to use 4x5. We make so much more money with digital that it would be hard to go back.
Posted by Steve Foss on August 14, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Thanks Guy and Hank for that good info. We've just picked up a used Howtek scanmaster 7500 drum scanner in perfect condition for our business. My wife (computer graphic designer) is an expert on this scanner, but you've given useful info about softening grain for large prints after scanning. I have a significant 35mm slide library, some of which I'd like to get on digital media for large printing.
If the slide is sharp enough and with grain reduction, it is possible to get 36x24 prints from some of my slides. But I think the slide would have to be extra special before I go ahead and do this, especially when it is so much easier with the raw files from the D80. I can get good 20x16 prints from the slides and will likely settle for that.
The information you all have given has been very useful and I thank you.
I have had a print of about 5' x 3' made from a 2800 dpi scan of a slide (that's about 11 MPx). The grain is certainly noticeable, but it's not a problem. I found that on the uprezzed shot, I couldn't get any USM settings to work well, but high-pass sharpening did a decent job. The shot itself looks nice and sharp at web size, but it clearly has some camera shake at the large size... But the customer likes it, and people who aren't photographers don't notice!
As stated, the key with film is to treat it differently than digital. Even with 4x5 film, I do a significant amount of clean up work between dusting and grain removal with NeatImage (or NoiseNinja). Sharpening also needs to be handled differently, I generally mask off portions of the image that contain smooth tonalities without detail. The same is oftentimes beneficial with digital, but the penalties are less severe if one isn't as careful. All this said, I believe making a large (high quality) print from 35mm film is significantly more difficult than with a DSLR. IF your original slide is excellent quality, it's certainly possible, but be prepared to put in the work to make the best of the scan.
Posted by Steve Bunn on August 16, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Will,
Film has also changed over the years. Images I took 10 years ago with Velvia don't scan quite as well as the new Velvias. I've tried drum scans, but I now scan exclusively at home with the Nikon 5 ED and the 9000 ED. Even with 35mm, almost all my scanning is now done with the 9000 ED, but the 5 ED is still pretty good. IMO, the gain control and the DMax is the biggest difference between the two scanners. 16 Bit is another difference, but a smaller one from my experience. In any case, you can get an excellent scan which you control once you know how to use the scanner. Along with a program like Neat Image or Noise Ninja, so long as you address the film grain at the beginning, you can blow them up quite large. I've had good success with 35mm being blown up to 24" x 36". On tack sharp slides I'd easily consider 30" x 45", but I haven't sold that size yet from 35mm. I have seen excellent prints made from 35mm that size at the Slide Printer in Denver.
The funny thing now is I've been asked a few times on the larger prints of the 35mm if they were taken with a 5D or the 1Ds Mark II. Then when I say it was scanned film, they assume it was a particularly good and expensive drum scan. It seems that working with film is rapidly becoming a lost art.
So to answer your question, you can get excellent large prints made from 35mm film scanned at home. However, like Joel stated above, you need to be able to devote some time scanning and working the image.
I do have some 35mm slides from the good ol' film days that are worth the effort for large prints.
Thankfully
It would require some investing, however, such as in the Nikon 9000 ED (thanks, Steve ) but considering that most of the slides will be devouted to storage, and likely obscurity, having a few large prints may be a good idea. But it is on the backburner for now.
Will, you probably already know this but unless you also have med format trannies the Nikon 5000 is pretty much the same as the 9000 but only does 35mm. That saves a few bucks if you don't need it.
Posted by David Senesac on August 26, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Always makes me chuckle when reading these threads about how large some person can make a print with it still appearing sharp. One can always expect some smaller format users to pipe in how they printed such and such an image to some huge size. And it looks darn sharp ...to them. Old as the Internet's been around way back to Usenet. Generally on forums with view camera folks, few of them will print their old 35mm film larger than about 20 inches wide simply because the relative sharpness versus even that of a 32x40 inch 4x5 drum scanned film processed print suffers so. Over the years I've seen quite a lot of stuff hanging in galleries and especially being offered at art fairs where photographers apparently think they are selling sharp enough prints though they looked rather soft to me up close. But heh that's fine with some subjects like pics of Elvis. Of course too, size doesn't matter if the print is not going to ever be viewed up close. But for landscape shots not so. ...David
David, I wish you could see the 36x24 print from the D80. I think you would be impressed with the sharpness, even up close. 36x24 is about as large as I can go. Of course I would never compare it with a drum scanned 4x5 tranny where 36x24 is just the beginning when it comes to making it big.
Size also doesn't matter if the image itself is not engaging the viewer. Between a moving well-composed image in "good" light (for whatever the scene/subject is) and one that is abundantly rich in detail but with no emotional appeal, I will pick the former any time and at any size.
Also some images, regardless of detail, simply don't lend themselves to large prints. In turn, large prints are of very limited use and appropriate for venues where they can be seen in all their glory (lots of wall space, proper lighting etc.) which presents another challenge. For most living rooms a 16x20 matted to 24x28 or so is about right and larger prints will often appear cramped for space.
Admittedly I had a somewhat condescending attitude myself when I was primarily using 4x5. After about 6 years of exclusive use of LF I can count the number of 32x40 and 40x50 prints I made on 2 hands. There's just not that much use for them in my experience.
In the days of 35mm film, a good scan from medium- or large-format film would win hands down even in smaller 8x10 prints. With the clean capture of modern DSLRs this is no longer the case. Having always preached using the right tool for the right job, when I experienced it for myself I knew it was time to change tools.
The fact that there is not much call for large prints like 32x40 or 36x24 surprised me, Guy. I imagined many living rooms have large pictures, usually over the couch or where ever. Probably there is no demand because one large picture in a prominent place is enough in the home.
Based on what you tell me, the ideal size print I could make with the D80 is 24x16 and, all things considered, should be very sharp.
I think Guy is onto something in broad terms Will, at least for nature prints, homes, and especially for traditional framing methods.
Long ago we fell sway to an addage shared between portrait studios that the largest print you will sell is one size smaller than the largest you display. We tested the point and found that to be true. Consequently we have steadily increased the size of our display prints. Now we display 32x40, with largest sales mostly coming in at around 24x36. When we were displaying 24x36 however, we sold a fair number that size as well. We haven't seen a similar proportion of 32x40 sales since we made the jump (if that's clear), leading me to believe that there is a ceiling of some sort at work, but I can't tell whether it's more a question of home size or price. I'll support other's point that images must be really sharp to come off in large sizes, but we have no problem managing that with digital SLRs.
My second point is that framing methods may be at work in allowing us to sell more large prints than Guy's reports (a couple of dozen a year is more our norm). While it's traditional for "nature" prints to be matted and framed, usually in slim frames, that's not the case for portraits. They're canvases, which are mounted in much bulkier "painting" type frames and without mats. Basically, they may sell at larger sizes than matted prints because the overall presentations don't take up as much space. But put an unmatted 32x40 or 36x24 in a frame that's 4-6" wide, and it takes up about as much space as a matted print in a thinner frame, so I'm not real sure that it's a viable comparison.
We also offer traditionally matted and framed nature prints through our studio, but sell far fewer than portraits. It's hard to draw any conclusions from those limited sales, because they're definitely not the main thrust of the business. I will observe that our large nature prints are sold almost exclusively to businesses to display in reception or waiting rooms and conference rooms. These are in fact much larger or more open spaces than are typical in homes, and therefore may support Guy's point about size limits for homes.
Hank, you may have sold a fair number of 24x36 partly because there are ready made frames available at that size so there is no need for a professional framer. At least that is my theory. I also think larger sizes in the home do not work as well because it may not work with the interior decor. A picture is susposed to enhance the living room, not dominate it. Of course that all depends on the interior design.
As for a 36x24 being in a wider frame that is up to the buyer, but I think a simple thin frame, no matte, around the border looks good on that size. Going to a smaller size a matte would look good. For example a 30x20 would look good in a matte and frame measuring to 36x24. On that, I notice that the smaller the picture, the larger and wider the matte. I believe that is more pleasing to the eye; otherwise the small picture could get lost on the wall.
There is a market out there for the larger prints but I do not think it is the home.
Discussion
17 repliesThe replies told me to fear not, for it should work.
The good news is that it works great. The print I got is sharp and clear, even viewed up close.
What I also discovered is the critical importance of sharpness. At 36x24 camera shake is very apparent even when using a tripod and I rejected some shots which I thought were sharp. I had chosen my two lenses (Nikkor AF 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8) especially for their quality in sharpness.
In the past I had some of my 35mm slides high-res scanned onto a CD giving me images at about 55 MB. I took them through the same proceedure as with the Raw D80 files to create 36x24 prints. Looking at the results on my monitor when I view them at print size, they are terrible, even when viewed at 10 feet away. Riddled with artifacts and not sharp at all.
What shall I blame? The 28-80mm lens that came on my Canon EOS 3000? Or myself for not having Danny Burk do the scanning for me?
Thank you for your replies.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Perhaps try a drum scan on one slide and see if it's worth it?
For 35mm, some of the high end desktop scanners to extremely well too. Look for ones that employ algorithms for scratch/dust removal (e.g. ICE) and reduction of film grain (e.g. GEM). Grain in particular is one reason high resolution film scans are harder to interpolate. Some software like NeatImage and Noise Ninja can help smooth out the look of grain prior to interpolation and often achieve sharper-looking results.
Guy
Kent in SD
The lab we switched to observed later that the problem was interpolation without prior grain reduction. They volunteerd to make us some large prints from the same negatives that produced terrible results, and sure enough, they turned out winners from the very same negatives. While their motive was to encourage us to go ahead and use film when we felt the needed, we haven't done so except when a job requires us to use 4x5. We make so much more money with digital that it would be hard to go back.
The information you all have given has been very useful and I thank you.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
-Paul
Film has also changed over the years. Images I took 10 years ago with Velvia don't scan quite as well as the new Velvias. I've tried drum scans, but I now scan exclusively at home with the Nikon 5 ED and the 9000 ED. Even with 35mm, almost all my scanning is now done with the 9000 ED, but the 5 ED is still pretty good. IMO, the gain control and the DMax is the biggest difference between the two scanners. 16 Bit is another difference, but a smaller one from my experience. In any case, you can get an excellent scan which you control once you know how to use the scanner. Along with a program like Neat Image or Noise Ninja, so long as you address the film grain at the beginning, you can blow them up quite large. I've had good success with 35mm being blown up to 24" x 36". On tack sharp slides I'd easily consider 30" x 45", but I haven't sold that size yet from 35mm. I have seen excellent prints made from 35mm that size at the Slide Printer in Denver.
The funny thing now is I've been asked a few times on the larger prints of the 35mm if they were taken with a 5D or the 1Ds Mark II. Then when I say it was scanned film, they assume it was a particularly good and expensive drum scan. It seems that working with film is rapidly becoming a lost art.
So to answer your question, you can get excellent large prints made from 35mm film scanned at home. However, like Joel stated above, you need to be able to devote some time scanning and working the image.
Thankfully
It would require some investing, however, such as in the Nikon 9000 ED (thanks, Steve
Thank you all again for your replies.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Thanks for your reply.
Jim, no I didn't know that. I do now. Thank you.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Also some images, regardless of detail, simply don't lend themselves to large prints. In turn, large prints are of very limited use and appropriate for venues where they can be seen in all their glory (lots of wall space, proper lighting etc.) which presents another challenge. For most living rooms a 16x20 matted to 24x28 or so is about right and larger prints will often appear cramped for space.
Admittedly I had a somewhat condescending attitude myself when I was primarily using 4x5. After about 6 years of exclusive use of LF I can count the number of 32x40 and 40x50 prints I made on 2 hands. There's just not that much use for them in my experience.
In the days of 35mm film, a good scan from medium- or large-format film would win hands down even in smaller 8x10 prints. With the clean capture of modern DSLRs this is no longer the case. Having always preached using the right tool for the right job, when I experienced it for myself I knew it was time to change tools.
Guy
Based on what you tell me, the ideal size print I could make with the D80 is 24x16 and, all things considered, should be very sharp.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Long ago we fell sway to an addage shared between portrait studios that the largest print you will sell is one size smaller than the largest you display. We tested the point and found that to be true. Consequently we have steadily increased the size of our display prints. Now we display 32x40, with largest sales mostly coming in at around 24x36. When we were displaying 24x36 however, we sold a fair number that size as well. We haven't seen a similar proportion of 32x40 sales since we made the jump (if that's clear), leading me to believe that there is a ceiling of some sort at work, but I can't tell whether it's more a question of home size or price. I'll support other's point that images must be really sharp to come off in large sizes, but we have no problem managing that with digital SLRs.
My second point is that framing methods may be at work in allowing us to sell more large prints than Guy's reports (a couple of dozen a year is more our norm). While it's traditional for "nature" prints to be matted and framed, usually in slim frames, that's not the case for portraits. They're canvases, which are mounted in much bulkier "painting" type frames and without mats. Basically, they may sell at larger sizes than matted prints because the overall presentations don't take up as much space. But put an unmatted 32x40 or 36x24 in a frame that's 4-6" wide, and it takes up about as much space as a matted print in a thinner frame, so I'm not real sure that it's a viable comparison.
We also offer traditionally matted and framed nature prints through our studio, but sell far fewer than portraits. It's hard to draw any conclusions from those limited sales, because they're definitely not the main thrust of the business. I will observe that our large nature prints are sold almost exclusively to businesses to display in reception or waiting rooms and conference rooms. These are in fact much larger or more open spaces than are typical in homes, and therefore may support Guy's point about size limits for homes.
Very interesting topic, and thanks for posing it.
As for a 36x24 being in a wider frame that is up to the buyer, but I think a simple thin frame, no matte, around the border looks good on that size. Going to a smaller size a matte would look good. For example a 30x20 would look good in a matte and frame measuring to 36x24. On that, I notice that the smaller the picture, the larger and wider the matte. I believe that is more pleasing to the eye; otherwise the small picture could get lost on the wall.
There is a market out there for the larger prints but I do not think it is the home.
Thanks for your response, Hank.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada