----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Keith Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What is the maximum realistic enlargement that we can expect > > from 35mm film? Assuming a reasonable quality lens (not > > necessarily L), and fine grain film. > > > Not everyone agrees on this topic. West Coast Imaging states that 11x14 is the largest you can get before you'd be better off with MF. (Actually, they say 11x14 is "almost" the quality of MF: http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/articles/formatsize.html). I was just reading a book an MF photography by Roger Hicks, and he states that, for b&w photos, he wouldn't go over 8x10 with 35 mm, for tonality reasons. > But I know that Galen Rowell has enlarged some of his work to 40"x50", and he only works 35 mm.
Most of the trackside work I do is on ISO 100 print film and my price list for enlargements offers sizes up to 20" x 30", which we call poster size here. The poster is actually my biggest seller for this type of work and I have many printed each week. The critical factor is that the negative image is very sharp to begin with. Any slight movement or out of focus area becomes magnified and I occassionally get put in the position of having to recommend against the bigger size after checking a negative on the lightbox. With the right negative though the results can be brilliant. I have several here right now ready to send that look sensational and stand up to close inspection easily. Regards, Tim www.timmunro.com.au * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
