Gerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 31 Posted (13 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1936 times:
1) What's better if I want to make an enlargement - let's say to 36x26cm - of a picture: slide or negative?
2) I made for the first time slides. I used Kodak Elitechrome 100. With the loupe, the slides look awesome, above all the colors. I made a paper print of some of the slides - 10x15cm - in a shop and those prints do look somehow grainy, even more than pictures made with a 200 negative film. When I scan them, I see fine parallel lines all over the picture. Why is that? What's wrong?
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
Kellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 693 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (13 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1878 times:
It would depend on the process that they used. Ask them.
In the traditional chemical based process, they would have to make an internegative of the slide with negative film, then make the print from the negative. This loses definition and increases contrast significantly. Some labs will make a 6 x 6 negative of the 35 slide in order to get better detail. Of course this costs more.
Others use a scanning process.
I believe using a high quality slide scanner and then printing on a high quality printer such as the Epson would give you a good result. That is what I do and am very happy with it. But you need to make sure that the paper and ink is something that will last and not fade quickly.
Gerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 31
Reply 6, posted (13 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1874 times:
I think, for a real comparison, I would have to scan the slides with a film-scanner. What I did was, to scan the paper prints, which were made at the already mentioned photo shop, with a flatbed (UMAX 1220S), which normally isn't that bad.
The prints already have a bad quality. I think, I'll go back and ask what happened. Perhaps I could try another shop.