From the various helpful responses to my two previous questions, am I right in saying that, by and large, an enlarged print from a negative looks real good. An enlarged print from a slide looks even nicer! But, you pay extra for it. And because it's a slide, there is no manipulation of exposure, contract, and color rendition.

-- Jim Ford (anniejim@dellnet.com), October 23, 2000

Answers

A print from a slide costs about the same as a same-size print from a negative at the lab I use (NorthLight, in Chattanooga, TN). Exposure can be manipulated easily, also dodging and burning. Contrast control is more difficult and usually requires a mask, which also makes it more expensive. As for color rendition, it can certainly be adjusted. However, one of the primary reasons for shooting slides is to get the color you want on the original, rather than being left to the vageries of a color printing technician's taste.

NorthLight will work with you by mail. Here's their website, if anyone is interested. I recommend them highly as a very good, very professional lab.

http://www.northlightimaging.com/

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), October 23, 2000.

Jim,

When I lived in Japan, I got some very good result from slide film there on Fuji's direct paper. I was very shocked at how good they looked after my disappointments in the States. Contrast was always the problem... either black shadows or burned out highlights, but in Japan, they did great work.

When I returned to the States, my lab advocated a inter-negative from the slide. They re-photographed the slide on negative stock, but the difference was it was made into a 4 X 5 inch negative. The resulting print was excellent.

I shoot slides for all of my serious work, but if I know I want prints, I go with negative film. It just removes more of the variables in my opinion. One other thing... in my opinion... no slide film of 400 ISO can match the quality of print film of the same speed. The potential quality of a slower film can be canceled by camera shake or not being able to use the lens' optimum aperture. For on the fly, journalistic type shots, I like ISO 400 print film.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), October 23, 2000.

Al, BTW, did you live in Tokyo? What lab did you use?

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), October 24, 2000.

I have enlarged Kodachrome 200 to 16x20 on Ilfochrome material and the prints looked good. Might have been able to go to 20x24 before grain became a real issue. However, if I wanted really big prints, I'd have them scanned on a drum scanner and printed on a LightJet printer. I've seen 35mm taken up to 4-feet wide using this method with absolutely no grain visible.

I have no idea what you mean by, " no manipulation of exposure, contrast, and color rendition." With Ilfochrome I make a contast mask (90% of the time), use low contrast material, and make color adjustments - including color burning/dodging - to get the final print.

-- steve (s.swinehart@worldnet.att.net), October 24, 2000.

How large can 35mm be enlarged? It really depends on the viewing distance (assuming sufficient care in making the picture). Let's assume that you consider an 8x10 satisfactory when viewed at 10 inches. Then an 11x14 viewed at 14 inches will look the same, as will a 16x20 from 20 inches, and so on. Presumably a larger print will be viewed at a greater distance. From this line of reasoning, a 35mm shot could be blown up to a 30 foot billboard, to be viewed at 30 feet or more. So you could say there's no limit!

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@juno.com), November 02, 2000.