I use a Sony F828, 8mp digital camera with a fixed carl zeiss 28-200mm (35mm equivalent) lens and produce panoramas for printing. I usually print 13"X 80" prints that are sharp and clear. If I needed to print 5' X 12' I would have it done by a pro lab and the results would be the same high resolution image. Maybe I would do a post process adjustment of levels but usually that's it. I thought about a medium format camera but the weight and number of lenses would not make it practical for me. Richard Cooper ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:25 PM Subject: Re: 6x7 medium format vs digital SLR > "Elson T. Elizaga" <elson@xxxxxx> writes: > > > I'm getting more inquiries from clients who want to have large > > pictures of their products, around 30x50 inches, even more. One of > > them want the pictures in backlit material. Now my questions: > > > > Is it possible for a digital SLR to produce such large photos -- clear > > and sharp? What is the maximum enlargement? > > The biggest I've gone from my 6 megapixel Fuji S2 was 16x24 inches. > And that's for just one image. That one image looks very good to me; > better than 16x20 images from 35mm film have looked the relatively few > times in my life I've gone that big from 35mm. But that was years ago > and films have improved. > > So I can't confidently tell you that you can go to 30x50. > > My guess is that you *can't* go to 30x50 from 6 megapixels and look > good at all close up. (You can, of course, make a billboard from a > 110 negative that looks great...so long as you only view it from > normal billboard distances.) 3000 pixels along a 50 inch edge is only > 60 pixels per inch. > > > What about using a 35mm negative or transparency for such large > > prints? Is current printing technology capable of doing such, or > > should I use, instead, a medium format 6x7? > > The real issue is *film* technology. I *have* seen pictures that big > done from 35mm that looked *great* -- but it was B&W, XP2. > > > I've heard rumors that a 35mm negative frame can be scanned in a > > special, high-end scanner, resulting in super large images that are > > not grainy, but look like those made by medium or large format > > cameras. Is this possible? Is this the reason why many photographers > > are selling their 6x7s? > > I'm pretty sure that comes under the "no free lunch" rule, sorry! I > think the movement is to digital, and it's partly because very *few* > people want such big prints, and the workflow advantages are > tremendous for smaller prints. > > Certainly a better scan will get you a better print. But a better > scan will also image the grain more precisely; it won't magically make > it depart. Now, I don't know if perhaps some labs have gotten expert > with using some of the software that electronically reduces grain. > That might work, haven't pushed it for big prints from fine-grain film > (I played with it for very-high-speed film, a whole different problem > really). > > I wouldn't rule out the Kodak 14 megapixel camera for that size, > without consulting people who've tried it. > -- > David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> > RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> > Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> > Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > > >
