Jump to content

Best way to have large prints made from 35mm film


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

As a printer, I would say it will depend most on the quality of your scan and the quality of the lab. If you are using a consumer printing service or a run of the mill lab, and you have made a good scan, it is possible that sending them the scan will be a better, more reliable method, as you will have already presented them with your preferred processing. If you are using a master printer or a highly skilled lab, it is probable that they can do a better job than you, either because of experience (in the case of a master printer), and/or because they have superior equipment. In my experience these days, most lower end labs have lost the skills to make good scans, and a lot of photographers who are scanning a lot will make a better scan themselves. There are vanishingly few labs working with optical prints these days. The volume of clients wanting it is low, and the materials have skyrocketed, so it is a very specialized service. The vast majority of labs and printing services use scanned film as the basis, not just for inkjet, but even if they are doing c prints (they use digital c print machines like lightjets/chromiras etc).

I have been called a master printer by people who I think should know, though it is still a bit awkward to think of myself that way. I am fifteen years in doing it professionally and I specialize in the high end gallery and museum work in my country, but I know of some printers who are better than me in places like New York...most that I know of are of an older generation. I am sure there are a few like me in their thirties and forties who will graduate to being full fledged master printers in another ten years or so. We'll see. In any case, I personally prefer to get the negative, as I can generally make a better scan than my clients, but I will typically look at their files first if they send them in. If I think the file is adequate for what they want to do, I will just stick with that and tweak it as necessary. In general, if I can speak to the clients first, I ask them to scan at moderate to low contrast so they do not clip the blacks or whites, and I ask them not to sharpen. With color negative I typically ask the client to either send me their version and the neg, or to do it with them there, as there are so many different possibilities with color negative that it is hard to know what a client wants without their input. I of course have a lot of clients who just give me everything totally raw and tell me "you know better than me...just do what you think is best". Those are clearly my favorites...but I certainly do not hold it against any clients who have a very specific requirement. It just makes the job a bit tougher, though often more interesting as well. In general I prefer the client to be there, as I find I can make better prints that way. For example, they might say "I want it just like I sent it to you", while I might look at it and think, "I can make it much better". So I will do my changes and see which they prefer. Usually it is the version I recommend, or at least something in between. I obviously cannot easily do that work if the client is not there.

As for the final question, it is quite difficult to answer. To keep it simple I would say this: 1. If you have a good negative, the best version of a moderate or small print is usually the optical version. 2. If you have a bad negative, the digital version will be better. 3. If you want to print mural size, you will likely get better results out of a scan and a digital print. Optical prints have the smoothest tonality and highest sharpness in the small to moderate sizes if you do everything right. Whereas digital prints tend to enlarge best in extreme enlargements and if you have to make any major edits or tweaks of the colors or contrasts, digital has so much more control. Finally, these days if you are printing color you have so many more papers available with inkjet papers than you do with RA4 chemical prints. Want a fine art paper? Your only choose is digital. It is slightly better for B&W, but you still have a lot more flexibility with the materials if you do digital.

 

 

That was great to read and taught me a lot, thank you.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David_Manning said:

For a print that size from 35mm, definitely a digital scan instead of an optical print.  That being said, your scan will be critical.

 

For myself, this is a good example... a 35mm Acros II scan, shot with an M7 and Zeiss Biogon 2/35 lens.

 

Scanned with a Canon R5 in RAW using an RF-mount Venus Laowa 100mm f2.8 APO 2:1 macro lens at f11.  The scan is 34MP.  Please look at full size...the image in the thread looks soft.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

David- Excellent result, very impressive. Based on everyones input, sounds like I need to do the scan myself, then send to lab with additional instructions. Appreciate your input.. Nick

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...