Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Questions on shooting film

Reply
Thread Tools

Questions on shooting film

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2012
On Feb 19, 1:01*pm, PaddleHard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Hello gang,
>
> I'm in between digital cameras and have decided to shoot film for a
> little while. I have a Canon Rebel 2000, I believe Canon's last
> version of 35 mm film cameas. My questions....I've worked very little
> with film and want to know how large an image would one be able to
> blow-up for printing? Also, what suggestions would you have on types
> of film to purchase?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris


I'd stick to 16x24" or so for 35mm 100 ISO film. For black and white,
try Ilford Delta 100, for colour, any negative film try Kodak Ektar
100.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2012
On Feb 20, 6:13*pm, Gordon Freeman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > "PaddleHard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >> My questions....I've worked very little
> >> with film and want to know how large an image would one be able to
> >> blow-up for printing?

>
> I suggest you watch the 60's film "Blow Up", from this you will learn that
> B&W film can actually be enlarged indefinitely to reveal ever finer detail,
> especially in the shadows. Now if only digital were that good! Incidentally
> shooting on film also makes you more attractive to the opposite sex.


Well, not really. At some point, to get to resolution of the grain
and you won't see any more detail, you'll only make it bigger.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2012
On Feb 21, 11:07*pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
wrote:
> On 2012-02-20 15:13:54 -0800, Gordon Freeman <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
> >> "PaddleHard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >>> My questions....I've worked very little
> >>> with film and want to know how large an image would one be able to
> >>> blow-up for printing?

>
> > I suggest you watch the 60's film "Blow Up", from this you will learn that
> > B&W film can actually be enlarged indefinitely to reveal ever finer detail,
> > especially in the shadows. Now if only digital were that good! Incidentally
> > shooting on film also makes you more attractive to the opposite sex.

>
> ...um, ...er, good luck with that.
>


It did in the 1980's! Until good camera systems became more common.
Then the shine was off.


 
Reply With Quote
 
BartC
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-24-2012


"Gordon Freeman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9FFFEC53C6050C9A7@127.0.0.1...
>> "PaddleHard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> My questions....I've worked very little
>>> with film and want to know how large an image would one be able to
>>> blow-up for printing?

>
> I suggest you watch the 60's film "Blow Up", from this you will learn that
> B&W film can actually be enlarged indefinitely to reveal ever finer
> detail,
> especially in the shadows.


There was also "Call Northside 777" (194, where a photographic print (not
even film) is blown up several times to reveal the date on a newspaper held
by a newspaper boy in the distant background of the picture. The date helps
James Stewart prove that Richard Conte was innocent of murder.

Try and do *that* with a print from a HP or Epson printer...

--
Bartc

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ryan McGinnis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-22-2012
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Ray Fischer wrote:

> Kodachrome 25 is roughly equivalent to about 18MP. If your negatives
> are sharp and properly exposed you could make a similar-sized print
> for your home, or billboard-sized for the side of a freeway.


Uh... Kodachrome 25 doesn't exist and can't be processed. I think the guy
was asking for info about films that were still alive.

-Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:<a href="http://bit.ly"...p://bit.ly</a>/aMH6Qd
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-22-2012
Ryan McGinnis <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> Kodachrome 25 is roughly equivalent to about 18MP. If your negatives
>> are sharp and properly exposed you could make a similar-sized print
>> for your home, or billboard-sized for the side of a freeway.

>
>Uh... Kodachrome 25 doesn't exist and can't be processed.


No duh?

> I think the guy
>was asking for info about films that were still alive.


I used Kodachrome 25 because it puts an upper limit on the size
of an equivalent digital file. Any other film will have lower
resolution.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) | Goethe

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scanning Kodak 126 film with film/slide scanner eljainc@sbcglobal.net Digital Photography 5 06-12-2006 11:27 PM
Is there a decent film scanner for 6x4.5 medium format film $500 or less? Rick Baker Digital Photography 6 03-17-2006 02:22 PM
DSLRs or Slide Film or Colour Negative Film? ;o) Sharp Shooter Digital Photography 10 06-22-2005 05:44 AM
After having 8mm film reels digitally archived, film looks very grainy/ filled with static. Is this digital-looking noise normal? + more 8mm film questions Phil Edry Digital Photography 11 10-10-2004 11:57 PM
shooting digital vs film =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?= Digital Photography 1440 03-07-2004 10:07 PM



Advertisments