Questions on shooting film

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PaddleHard, Feb 19, 2012.

  1. PaddleHard

    PaddleHard Guest

    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
     
    PaddleHard, Feb 19, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <CB669A47.81490%>, George Kerby
    <> wrote:

    > > 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?

    >
    > What's this "film" of which you speak?!?


    i heard they're made of glass and you have to coat them yourself before
    each photo.
     
    nospam, Feb 19, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PaddleHard

    PaddleHard Guest

    On Feb 19, 3:00 pm, Alan Browne <>
    wrote:
    > On 2012-02-19 13:01 , PaddleHard 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?

    >
    > Debate bait?
    >
    > See billboards on the highway?  They can be from 35mm film - because
    > they are far enough away that you can't see the blowup artifacts.
    >
    > So how large you print depends on how close people will look at the image..
    >
    > Generally - for 35mm - I put 15x10 (inches) as an upper limit on
    > anything I would hang on the wall.  The largest print I made from 35mm
    > film was about 8x6 (feet).  Never went too close however.
    >
    > Type of film depends on what you're going to shoot and what the light is
    > and what you intend to do with the image.  Tell us more.
    >
    > --
    > "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
    > Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).


    Alan, I shoot a variety of subjects from landscapes to wildlife to
    architecture. Since I do a bit of paddling, I shoot mostly as a result
    from my travels. I live in the south, so when I say landscapes, I'm
    not talking big, mountain vistas. Most of my 'landscapes' would come
    from the rivers I paddle.

    Thanks for the response.
    C
     
    PaddleHard, Feb 19, 2012
    #3
  4. PaddleHard

    Ray Fischer Guest

    PaddleHard <> wrote:
    >On Feb 19, 3:00 pm, Alan Browne <>
    >wrote:
    >> On 2012-02-19 13:01 , PaddleHard 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?

    >>
    >> Debate bait?
    >>
    >> See billboards on the highway?  They can be from 35mm film - because
    >> they are far enough away that you can't see the blowup artifacts.
    >>
    >> So how large you print depends on how close people will look at the image.
    >>
    >> Generally - for 35mm - I put 15x10 (inches) as an upper limit on
    >> anything I would hang on the wall.  The largest print I made from 35mm
    >> film was about 8x6 (feet).  Never went too close however.
    >>
    >> Type of film depends on what you're going to shoot and what the light is
    >> and what you intend to do with the image.  Tell us more.

    >
    >Alan, I shoot a variety of subjects from landscapes to wildlife to
    >architecture. Since I do a bit of paddling, I shoot mostly as a result
    >from my travels. I live in the south, so when I say landscapes, I'm
    >not talking big, mountain vistas. Most of my 'landscapes' would come
    >from the rivers I paddle.


    I have a 20" by 30" print made from a 6MP digital image that looks
    quite good, but it was taken with a good lens and a steady hand.

    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.

    --
    Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
    | Goethe
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 19, 2012
    #4
  5. PaddleHard

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 19/02/2012 20:52, Ray Fischer wrote:
    > PaddleHard<> wrote:
    >> On Feb 19, 3:00 pm, Alan Browne<>
    >> wrote:
    >>> On 2012-02-19 13:01 , PaddleHard 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?
    >>>
    >>> Debate bait?
    >>>
    >>> See billboards on the highway? They can be from 35mm film - because
    >>> they are far enough away that you can't see the blowup artifacts.
    >>>
    >>> So how large you print depends on how close people will look at the image.
    >>>
    >>> Generally - for 35mm - I put 15x10 (inches) as an upper limit on
    >>> anything I would hang on the wall. The largest print I made from 35mm
    >>> film was about 8x6 (feet). Never went too close however.
    >>>
    >>> Type of film depends on what you're going to shoot and what the light is
    >>> and what you intend to do with the image. Tell us more.

    >>
    >> Alan, I shoot a variety of subjects from landscapes to wildlife to
    >> architecture. Since I do a bit of paddling, I shoot mostly as a result
    >>from my travels. I live in the south, so when I say landscapes, I'm
    >> not talking big, mountain vistas. Most of my 'landscapes' would come
    >>from the rivers I paddle.

    >
    > I have a 20" by 30" print made from a 6MP digital image that looks
    > quite good, but it was taken with a good lens and a steady hand.
    >
    > 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.


    It has also been officially discontinued for almost a decade now. Even
    if you had a roll in the fridge I would be surprised if you could find a
    lab able to process it today. Fujichrome Velvia is pretty decent now.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Feb 19, 2012
    #5
  6. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <jIf0r.7189$I%>, Martin Brown
    <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> 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.

    >
    > It has also been officially discontinued for almost a decade now. Even
    > if you had a roll in the fridge I would be surprised if you could find a
    > lab able to process it today. Fujichrome Velvia is pretty decent now.


    there are no longer any labs that will process kodachrome. the last lab
    that did was dwayne's, and they ceased kodachrome processing in
    decemeber, 2010.
     
    nospam, Feb 19, 2012
    #6
  7. PaddleHard

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:32:34 -0500, nospam <> wrote:
    : In article <CB669A47.81490%>, George Kerby
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : > > 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?
    : >
    : > What's this "film" of which you speak?!?
    :
    : i heard they're made of glass and you have to coat them yourself before
    : each photo.

    "Coat" them? With what?

    You are talking about the sensor, right?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 19, 2012
    #7
  8. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Robert Coe
    <> wrote:

    > : > > 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?
    > : >
    > : > What's this "film" of which you speak?!?
    > :
    > : i heard they're made of glass and you have to coat them yourself before
    > : each photo.
    >
    > "Coat" them? With what?


    collodion

    > You are talking about the sensor, right?


    i suppose it could be called a sensor.
     
    nospam, Feb 20, 2012
    #8
  9. PaddleHard

    Mort Guest

    PaddleHard 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



    Hi,

    Your question is a bit like asking how to cook.
    It depends upon the brand of film, b/w vs. color. positive vs. negative,
    film sensitivity, the lens, the subject, the distance, the steadiness of
    your hands, etc..

    I have made good 16 x 20" enlargements from sharp well-exposed
    Kodachrome 25 slides, and excellent sharp 11 x 14" prints from
    Fujichrome 100 film. If you enlarge a print, and increase the viewing
    distance, then there is almost no limit.

    Try this with your digital TV screen. View a program at your usual
    distance, then go to about 12-15" from the screen and look at it. Get
    the point?

    Why don't you do a bit of the scientific method, to wit, make several
    pictures at various distances and conditions and then print them and
    view at various distances. Take appropriate notes,and you will have
    actual proof of what your system can do.

    Good luck.

    Mort Linder
     
    Mort, Feb 20, 2012
    #9
  10. PaddleHard

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    >On 19/02/2012 20:52, Ray Fischer wrote:
    >> PaddleHard<> wrote:
    >>> On Feb 19, 3:00 pm, Alan Browne<>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> On 2012-02-19 13:01 , PaddleHard 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?
    >>>>
    >>>> Debate bait?
    >>>>
    >>>> See billboards on the highway? They can be from 35mm film - because
    >>>> they are far enough away that you can't see the blowup artifacts.
    >>>>
    >>>> So how large you print depends on how close people will look at the image.
    >>>>
    >>>> Generally - for 35mm - I put 15x10 (inches) as an upper limit on
    >>>> anything I would hang on the wall. The largest print I made from 35mm
    >>>> film was about 8x6 (feet). Never went too close however.
    >>>>
    >>>> Type of film depends on what you're going to shoot and what the light is
    >>>> and what you intend to do with the image. Tell us more.
    >>>
    >>> Alan, I shoot a variety of subjects from landscapes to wildlife to
    >>> architecture. Since I do a bit of paddling, I shoot mostly as a result
    >>>from my travels. I live in the south, so when I say landscapes, I'm
    >>> not talking big, mountain vistas. Most of my 'landscapes' would come
    >>>from the rivers I paddle.

    >>
    >> I have a 20" by 30" print made from a 6MP digital image that looks
    >> quite good, but it was taken with a good lens and a steady hand.
    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    >It has also been officially discontinued for almost a decade now.


    But it's a benchmark for determining the best result possible from film.

    --
    Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
    | Goethe
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 20, 2012
    #10
  11. PaddleHard

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 20 Feb 2012 03:49:34 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    : Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    : >On 19/02/2012 20:52, 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.
    : >
    : >It has also been officially discontinued for almost a decade now.
    :
    : But it's a benchmark for determining the best result possible from film.

    Some of the bullhockey that gets thrown around in these newsgroups really
    ought to get preserved for posterity. ;^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 20, 2012
    #11
  12. PaddleHard <> writes:

    > 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?


    It's all subjective of course. Film enlargement tends to be limited by
    grain becoming obtrusive, so even when the resolution is there, you
    usually have to stop blowing up fairly early (maybe 16x; it varies).
    With Ektar 100 you can probably go quite large (it's supposed to be as
    good as the old Ektar 25). And what you like in appearance will make a
    difference; a few weirdos *like* grain :).
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 20, 2012
    #12
  13. Robert Coe <> writes:

    > On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:32:34 -0500, nospam <> wrote:
    > : In article <CB669A47.81490%>, George Kerby
    > : <> wrote:
    > :
    > : > > 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?
    > : >
    > : > What's this "film" of which you speak?!?
    > :
    > : i heard they're made of glass and you have to coat them yourself before
    > : each photo.
    >
    > "Coat" them? With what?


    The emulsion

    > You are talking about the sensor, right?


    Yes. Well, the thing that was replaced by sheet film that was replaced
    by roll film that was replaced by digital sensors.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 20, 2012
    #13
  14. (Ray Fischer) writes:

    > PaddleHard <> wrote:
    >>On Feb 19, 3:00 pm, Alan Browne <>
    >>wrote:
    >>> On 2012-02-19 13:01 , PaddleHard 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?
    >>>
    >>> Debate bait?
    >>>
    >>> See billboards on the highway?  They can be from 35mm film - because
    >>> they are far enough away that you can't see the blowup artifacts.
    >>>
    >>> So how large you print depends on how close people will look at the image.
    >>>
    >>> Generally - for 35mm - I put 15x10 (inches) as an upper limit on
    >>> anything I would hang on the wall.  The largest print I made from 35mm
    >>> film was about 8x6 (feet).  Never went too close however.
    >>>
    >>> Type of film depends on what you're going to shoot and what the light is
    >>> and what you intend to do with the image.  Tell us more.

    >>
    >>Alan, I shoot a variety of subjects from landscapes to wildlife to
    >>architecture. Since I do a bit of paddling, I shoot mostly as a result
    >>from my travels. I live in the south, so when I say landscapes, I'm
    >>not talking big, mountain vistas. Most of my 'landscapes' would come
    >>from the rivers I paddle.

    >
    > I have a 20" by 30" print made from a 6MP digital image that looks
    > quite good, but it was taken with a good lens and a steady hand.


    If that's image size, I have something very similar (24x36 paper size).
    Winter scene, anow, tree branches, animal footprints in the snow -- in
    other words LOTS of high-res high and low contrast detail.

    Ah, here we go -- this one
    <http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/photography/gallery/minnehaha-20060312?pic=ddb%2020060313%20010-027>.
    EXIF seems not to still be present in my web image, but I remember this
    as having been shot with my Fuji S2, 6MP. It might have been the Nikon
    D200 though, I forget exactly when I upgraded; if so it's a monumental
    10 megapixels!

    > 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.


    Not really; grain artifacts tend to limit enlargement of film before
    resolution limits do.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 20, 2012
    #14
  15. Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes:

    > On 19/02/2012 20:52, Ray Fischer wrote:
    >> PaddleHard<> 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.

    >
    > It has also been officially discontinued for almost a decade now. Even
    > if you had a roll in the fridge I would be surprised if you could find
    > a lab able to process it today. Fujichrome Velvia is pretty decent
    > now.


    Last processing line shut down at the end of December in 2010.

    <http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/newsite2006/images/T-shirt-art/tshirt-500px-2.jpg>
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 20, 2012
    #15
  16. Robert Coe <> writes:

    > On 20 Feb 2012 03:49:34 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    > : Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    > : >On 19/02/2012 20:52, 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.
    > : >
    > : >It has also been officially discontinued for almost a decade now.
    > :
    > : But it's a benchmark for determining the best result possible from film.
    >
    > Some of the bullhockey that gets thrown around in these newsgroups really
    > ought to get preserved for posterity. ;^)


    It is, see groups.google.com

    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 20, 2012
    #16
  17. PaddleHard

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Neil Ellwood
    <> wrote:

    > >> : > What's this "film" of which you speak?!?
    > >> :
    > >> : i heard they're made of glass and you have to coat them yourself
    > >> before : each photo.
    > >>
    > >> "Coat" them? With what?

    > >
    > > collodion

    >
    > I thought it was the white of an egg with silver nitrate solution or
    > albumen.


    originally, yes. collodion came later.
     
    nospam, Feb 20, 2012
    #17
  18. > "PaddleHard" <> 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.
     
    Gordon Freeman, Feb 20, 2012
    #18
  19. If you are really interested in shooting B&W film I suggest you pick up
    the three book set by Ansel Adams ("The Camera", "The Negative", and
    "The Print"). These were my 'bibles' in the days that I was shooting
    and developing B&W film. There are things you can do during the
    enlargement exposure stage of printing (such as 'burning' and 'dodging')
    that are as much of the artistic creation process as what happens behind
    the camera. Much of what Ansel covers in the first book is slanted
    toward the larger plate film "view" camera, but the rising and falling
    motions can also be done with special lenses such as the "Perspective
    Control" Nikors, or on the cheap with the "lens baby" types.

    On 02/19/2012 06:22 PM, Ahab wrote:
    > PaddleHard 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

    >
    > Occasionally, the urge to shoot film gets the better of me too. For that
    > reason, I acquired a F100 Nikon. I've limited my film shooting to using
    > B/W film, almost exclusively. Reason being, I don't often shoot an
    > entire roll of film before packing my equipment away. That practice
    > relieves me of being concerned with film color shift should I not get
    > back to shooting again soon or I may have forgotten to take my camera
    > out of my car. In desert country, where I like to shoot, the interior of
    > a car is no place to leave a film camera loaded with color film.
    >
    > When I used to shoot 35mm color transparency film, I used the Dye
    > Transfer process to make large size prints. Back in those days, 8x10's
    > were what I generally made. I've noticed the Canon Selphy CP800 portable
    > 4x6 printer uses the 3 layer stage of color printing which reminds me of
    > the days (before dye transfer) when Carbro (sp?) color prints were made,
    > using British made pigment paper. Prints larger than 8X10's were
    > generally made using the Carbro process to make color prints.
    >
    > My advice to you is to use B/W film. B/W film can be stored in your
    > refrigerator for many years beyond its listed expiration date. I used to
    > use various types of film depending upon the type subject I was trying
    > to capture. Be sure to get a film lead retriever so you can rewind and
    > store a roll of incompletely shot roll of film in your refrigerator
    > until you chose to use it again. When reusing the film, load your camera
    > and shoot one blank shot beyond the last numbered shot on the roll.
    >
    >
    >
    > --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to
    > ---
     
    Kenneth Scharf, Feb 21, 2012
    #19
  20. On 02/20/2012 12:07 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > PaddleHard<> writes:
    >
    >> 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?

    >
    > It's all subjective of course. Film enlargement tends to be limited by
    > grain becoming obtrusive, so even when the resolution is there, you
    > usually have to stop blowing up fairly early (maybe 16x; it varies).
    > With Ektar 100 you can probably go quite large (it's supposed to be as
    > good as the old Ektar 25). And what you like in appearance will make a
    > difference; a few weirdos *like* grain :).


    Also "Push" processing to gain a higher effective ASA tends to increase
    the visible grain in the image while "Pull" processing to shoot at a
    lower effective ASA will lower the "grainyness" in the image.
     
    Kenneth Scharf, Feb 21, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=

    shooting digital vs film

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?The_Dave=A9?=, Feb 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1,440
    Views:
    16,392
    John Navas
    Mar 7, 2004
  2. Phil Edry
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,249
    Derek Gee
    Oct 11, 2004
  3. Sharp Shooter

    DSLRs or Slide Film or Colour Negative Film? ;o)

    Sharp Shooter, Jun 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,140
  4. Rick Baker
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,259
    Scott W
    Mar 17, 2006
  5. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    4,025
    Michael Benveniste
    Jun 13, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page