Jump to content

color print film for 16X20 digital prints?


photophile

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

ok.. so I am trying to get away from my d200 and use my m6 for a client who wants a "film look". when I make 17X22 prints from 400 iso films.. the grain is just too pronounced. has anyone used the portra 160 or the fuji 160 , done high res scans and then digitally printed large size fine art for display? how does the grain compare to the 400 stuff? is there a perference for fuji vs kodak ...is it reasonable to do it? all comments welcome. thanks.CH

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd use the Fuji Provia 400F (transparencies) for this task - very good colors and sharpness, grain neglectible (in my opinion).

 

According to my experiences, even 100 oder 160 iso-stuff shows grain in 17x22 enlargements. But exactly this means "film-look".

 

You know that it's possible to suppress grain elegantly by slightly softening the colour channels in Lab-mode? But you should work with 16bit-files.

 

Cheers,

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I make quite a few 20" long prints with 160iso and 100iso film from my MP and am very hapy with the results. Increasing the iso to 400 for colour is less satisfactory to me, but that's subjective and I've seen Eliott Erwit prints that are fantastic at 4 ft wide.

 

Your intended 17x22" is in effect a 17x25" cut down and you'll need good exposure/processing/scanning/post to achieve what you want.

 

I support John and agree that if you start with 100 iso film, you'll get what you need.

 

Rolo

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks to all of you for your good advice. I picked up 5 rolls of the portra 160. will shoot and see. btw... if processed c-41 and scanned, is there an advantage of saving these as tiff vs jpeg? or is all of the orinal negative information included even if in JPEG? thanbks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I would recommend that you expose the Portra 160 at ISO 100.

Scanning colour negs is more tricky than scanning transparencies, but you have what you have.

Scans from ordinary photo-labs are, in most cases, mediocre at best. If you do not have a scanner, find a professional lab or service that will process and scan your negatives properly. You will need TIFF files, and the resolution should be at somewhere between 266 and 300 ppi at the print size (16 by 20). In RGB that is a 165 mb file (16 bit), or 83 mb (8 bit). If you are having the prints done by a service, check with them for the file specifications they require.

Good luck.

Jean-Michel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...