Digital BW, The Print

"Sam A. McCandless" <samcc@...> writes:

> What are the implications for print size of using 35mm? Or rather, 
> what's the best way to push the 35mm envelope on a budget limited to 
> several thousand dollars rather than more than ten thousand dollars?
> 
> I'm an admirer of Bill Agee's work. And reading between the lines of 
> the purchase information on his web site, I thought it seemed to 
> nudge prospective customers toward 5x7 prints but also to give the 
> impression that 10x15 prints are routinely practicable.
> 
> That's what I would have said if I were I better at composing so as 
> to use more of the 35mm frame. As it is, I usually fall short - 
> literally - of that. But supposing I get better at it, what are the 
> other inputs for good-as-it-gets do-it-yourself 10x15 or 11x14 35mm 
> prints?
> 
> Are they, for example, a feasible goal if you start with color film 
> (which?) rather than BW? Should you spend a limited budget on better 
> lenses instead of a better SLR? Or even get the best lenses? Always 
> use a tripod? Get drum scans? A 7000 instead of a 1280? Etc., etc. 
> That is, I'd appreciate any suggestions about 35mm strategies and 
> tactics for someone who can't simply get the best of everything.

Certainly the film matters.  Slower film *tends* to be sharper and
finer grained (and those two aren't exactly the same thing, either),
though it isn't all the time.  

Color film (and the chromagenic B&W like Ilford XP2) has a very
different "grain" structure from old-type B&W film -- dye clouds
released *by* the grains, but not sharp edged.  And bigger than the
actual grain.  So you get a different look, which may work for some
pictures better than others.  I've seen a pair of 2x3 foot prints made
from 35mm XP2 that look *amazingly* clean and good and grainless, even
up close.  Sure worked for that image (a model with nice skin).

Certainly camera shake can be an issue; studio flash or a tripod are
your friends for that. 

I haven't experimented with different scanners on 35mm, but everything
I hear and see *strongly* suggests that 2700 DPI doesn't get you
everything there is to be got from a good slow film shot carefully.
So playing with scanning may well benefit you, but I can't point to
what I think is the limit.

I'd rank glass last, myself; but that's assuming you don't own any
real crap.  Got a Kiron 28-200 you use a lot?  (Example picked at
random; I'm sure there's crap out there, but that might not be one of
them.) 

A 7000 instead of a 1280 will just make the problem *worse*, won't it?
I mean, it'll print wider  :-) .

You might also consider going to prints *so* big that people view them
from far away, and expect to see artifacts if they go close up.  Then
the 35mm origin may suddenly become less of an issue again.  I haven't
tried this approach.  And if you do try this approach, some people say
that Genuine Fractals  works well for making big size increases
starting from a 20MB or larger file, so it might be relevant at that
point. 
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  Ghugle: the Fannish Ghod of Queries
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
        Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
                 Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/