Question:
Hello everyone, A vague question, I know, but I’m wondering what kind of sharpness I should expect from an 8×12 enlargement of a 35mm slide. Here’s the situation: I recently had 8×12 prints made from two of my favorite slides. This is the first time I’ve had enlargements made, so I don’t know what to expect. The slides look beautiful on the light table with a 7x loupe. However, I am disappointed with the quality of the 8×12’s. They look ok from a distance, but up close (with naked eye, not a loupe) they just don’t seem very sharp- edges are dull, not crisp. I used Kodak Elite Chrome 200 in my Pentax body with a 35-80 zoom lens. I did use a tripod. What kind of quality should I expect ? The prints were made at a Kodak Qualex lab. I’m wondering if I would get better results at a pro lab. Thanks, – Robert (Scans of the images- not that they’ll reveal much about the sharpness of the slides- are at: http://www.stanford.edu/~rjh/StanfHills/tree1.JPG & http://www.stanford.edu/~rjh/StanfHills/tree2.JPG )
Response:
|How were the prints made? Internegative or directly with |cibachrome/ilfochrome? I’ve stopped making Internegative prints as the |quality just sucks, both sharpness and color. My direct prints turn out |great. I always use E200 and am very happy with the sharpness and |colour of my work, both on a light table with an 8x loop, projected and |blown up to 8×12". Hmmm… I know they weren’t internegative, because that’s what my local lab had in house, and they said quality would be better if they were sent out to the Kodak lab. But I don’t know any specifics of the process used. – Robert |
| | Hello everyone, | | A vague question, I know, but I’m wondering what kind of sharpness I should | expect from an 8×12 enlargement of a 35mm slide. | | Here’s the situation: I recently had 8×12 prints made from two of my | favorite slides. This is the first time I’ve had enlargements made, so I | don’t know what to expect. | | The slides look beautiful on the light table with a 7x loupe. However, I am | disappointed with the quality of the 8×12’s. They look ok from a distance, | but up close (with naked eye, not a loupe) they just don’t seem very sharp- | edges are dull, not crisp. | | I used Kodak Elite Chrome 200 in my Pentax body with a 35-80 zoom lens. I | did use a tripod. | | What kind of quality should I expect ? The prints were made at a Kodak | Qualex lab. I’m wondering if I would get better results at a pro lab. | | Thanks, | | – Robert | | (Scans of the images- not that they’ll reveal much about the sharpness of | the slides- are at: | http://www.stanford.edu/~rjh/StanfHills/tree1.JPG & | http://www.stanford.edu/~rjh/StanfHills/tree2.JPG ) | |– |<:-{} Harry C. Pulley, IV | member RASC Hamilton/KW centres, ALPO, IOTA, TPS | Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 43.51N, 80.28W
Response:
| |Here’s the situation: I recently had 8×12 prints made from two of my |favorite slides. This is the first time I’ve had enlargements made, so I |don’t know what to expect. | |The slides look beautiful on the light table with a 7x loupe. However, I am |disappointed with the quality of the 8×12’s. They look ok from a distance, |but up close (with naked eye, not a loupe) they just don’t seem very sharp- |edges are dull, not crisp. | |First of all, are you sure the slides are sharp? I mean, you said |this was your first time. How do you know it’s really sharp? Did you |ask somebody experienced to look at them? | |Marcio |– Hi, That’s a good point. They look sharp to me, but I don’t necessarily know what to look for. I will find someone to take a look. A feature I’m using as a reference is that one of my slides shows some tall grass silhouetted against some clouds. In the slide, the contrast between the grass and the clouds is very clear, and it is easy to distinguish individual blades. On the print, it’s not as easy to see the individual blades. – Robert
Response:
Find someone to do an Ilfochrome for you, direct slide to print with no interneg. Also, if they do use interneg, get 2 1/4" interneg taken for larger prints. 35mm internegs are overkill when going large. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – | |Here’s the situation: I recently had 8×12 prints made from two of my |favorite slides. This is the first time I’ve had enlargements made, so I |don’t know what to expect. | |The slides look beautiful on the light table with a 7x loupe. However, I am |disappointed with the quality of the 8×12’s. They look ok from a distance, |but up close (with naked eye, not a loupe) they just don’t seem very sharp- |edges are dull, not crisp. | |First of all, are you sure the slides are sharp? I mean, you said |this was your first time. How do you know it’s really sharp? Did you |ask somebody experienced to look at them? | |Marcio |– Hi, That’s a good point. They look sharp to me, but I don’t necessarily know what to look for. I will find someone to take a look. A feature I’m using as a reference is that one of my slides shows some tall grass silhouetted against some clouds. In the slide, the contrast between the grass and the clouds is very clear, and it is easy to distinguish individual blades. On the print, it’s not as easy to see the individual blades. - Robert
Response:
Actually, you are getting some good advice from all the responders. My experience with getting prints from slides is that your final quality is VERY dependent on the lab that you use. Internegative prints can be of high quality, if the lab is very good at doing that. Essentially, what I, and the other responders are saying, is that getting a very high quality print from a negative will cost money. There are various ways of getting that print, but it really depends on how good a job the lab does. All this is assuming, of course, that your original is indeed as sharp as you think it is. By the way, I have tried a few rolls of Elite Chrome 200, and I have been very pleased with the images. I don’t think that it is as fine a grain as Velvia, but you should be able to get a quality 8X12 from it. Good luck. John Koch – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello everyone, A vague question, I know, but I’m wondering what kind of sharpness I should expect from an 8×12 enlargement of a 35mm slide. Here’s the situation: I recently had 8×12 prints made from two of my favorite slides. This is the first time I’ve had enlargements made, so I don’t know what to expect. The slides look beautiful on the light table with a 7x loupe. However, I am disappointed with the quality of the 8×12’s. They look ok from a distance, but up close (with naked eye, not a loupe) they just don’t seem very sharp- edges are dull, not crisp. I used Kodak Elite Chrome 200 in my Pentax body with a 35-80 zoom lens. I did use a tripod. What kind of quality should I expect ? The prints were made at a Kodak Qualex lab. I’m wondering if I would get better results at a pro lab. Thanks, – Robert (Scans of the images- not that they’ll reveal much about the sharpness of the slides- are at: http://www.stanford.edu/~rjh/StanfHills/tree1.JPG & http://www.stanford.edu/~rjh/StanfHills/tree2.JPG )
Response:
<snip Essentially, what I, and the other responders are saying, is that getting a very high quality print from a negative will cost money.<snip
Ooops. What I meant to say in the above sentence was that getting a very high quality print from a SLIDE will cost money. Sorry about that. John Koch
Response:
A vague question, I know, but I’m wondering what kind of sharpness I should expect from an 8×12 enlargement of a 35mm slide.
It’s sounds like you had an internegative print made. These basically are lousy quality. Ilfochrome is best, but I’ve had good luck with digital prints of slides (2400dpi scan). Joel
Response:
How were the prints made? Internegative or directly with cibachrome/ilfochrome? I’ve stopped making Internegative prints as the quality just sucks, both sharpness and color. My direct prints turn out great. I always use E200 and am very happy with the sharpness and colour of my work, both on a light table with an 8x loop, projected and blown up to 8×12". – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello everyone, A vague question, I know, but I’m wondering what kind of sharpness I should expect from an 8×12 enlargement of a 35mm slide. Here’s the situation: I recently had 8×12 prints made from two of my favorite slides. This is the first time I’ve had enlargements made, so I don’t know what to expect. The slides look beautiful on the light table with a 7x loupe. However, I am disappointed with the quality of the 8×12’s. They look ok from a distance, but up close (with naked eye, not a loupe) they just don’t seem very sharp- edges are dull, not crisp. I used Kodak Elite Chrome 200 in my Pentax body with a 35-80 zoom lens. I did use a tripod. What kind of quality should I expect ? The prints were made at a Kodak Qualex lab. I’m wondering if I would get better results at a pro lab. Thanks, – Robert (Scans of the images- not that they’ll reveal much about the sharpness of the slides- are at: http://www.stanford.edu/~rjh/StanfHills/tree1.JPG & http://www.stanford.edu/~rjh/StanfHills/tree2.JPG )
– <:-{} Harry C. Pulley, IV member RASC Hamilton/KW centres, ALPO, IOTA, TPS Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 43.51N, 80.28W
Response:
|How were the prints made? Internegative or directly with |cibachrome/ilfochrome? I’ve stopped making Internegative prints as the |quality just sucks, both sharpness and color. My direct prints turn out |great. I always use E200 and am very happy with the sharpness and |colour of my work, both on a light table with an 8x loop, projected and |blown up to 8×12". Hmmm… I know they weren’t internegative, because that’s what my local lab had in house, and they said quality would be better if they were sent out to the Kodak lab. But I don’t know any specifics of the process used.
Have you ever projected them? Manual focus or auto? — <:-{} Harry C. Pulley, IV member RASC Hamilton/KW centres, ALPO, IOTA, TPS Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 43.51N, 80.28W
Response:
Chances are the lab you mentioned used an interneg, which means they shot your slide on neg film and printed from that. Loss here is a pickup in contrast, and slight loss in sharpness. Depending on your film, 8×12 should be easily attainable. Velvia and any ISO 100 slide film I can think of is fine. I have not shot with Elite Chrome 200, but I hated it’s predecessor Elite II 200’s grain, though I have one 8×10 enlargment from that film (same magnification), and it’s fine. I think camera shake when you took the shot might have been the problem… not always visible under the loupe. You have to be VERY critical with a loupe, because minor sharpness problems get enlarged and become far more apparent. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello everyone, A vague question, I know, but I’m wondering what kind of sharpness I should expect from an 8×12 enlargement of a 35mm slide. Here’s the situation: I recently had 8×12 prints made from two of my favorite slides. This is the first time I’ve had enlargements made, so I don’t know what to expect. The slides look beautiful on the light table with a 7x loupe. However, I am disappointed with the quality of the 8×12’s. They look ok from a distance, but up close (with naked eye, not a loupe) they just don’t seem very sharp- edges are dull, not crisp. I used Kodak Elite Chrome 200 in my Pentax body with a 35-80 zoom lens. I did use a tripod. What kind of quality should I expect ? The prints were made at a Kodak Qualex lab. I’m wondering if I would get better results at a pro lab. Thanks, – Robert (Scans of the images- not that they’ll reveal much about the sharpness of the slides- are at: http://www.stanford.edu/~rjh/StanfHills/tree1.JPG & http://www.stanford.edu/~rjh/StanfHills/tree2.JPG )
Response:
If you’re not happy with the print, take it back and have the lab try again. Chuck Wahlstrom
Response:
I used Kodak Elite Chrome 200 in my Pentax body with a 35-80 zoom lens. I did use a tripod.
This sounds similar to the problem I had years ago. What I finally decided was that I was using a consumer grade lens, but expected the quality you get from a really good lens. Once I started investing in really good lenses, most of my lack of sharpness went away. All it took was lots of money ;} This may not be the case for you, especially as your slides look sharp to you, but it is worth looking into.
Response:
I used Kodak Elite Chrome 200 in my Pentax body with a 35-80 zoom lens. I did use a tripod. This sounds similar to the problem I had years ago. What I finally decided was that I was using a consumer grade lens, but expected the quality you get from a really good lens. Once I started investing in really good lenses, most of my lack of sharpness went away. All it took was lots of money ;}
Please cite examples of "consumer grade lenses", and "really good lenses". My Nikon catalog doesn’t sort lenses to that degree. Thanks
Response:
… This sounds similar to the problem I had years ago. What I finally decided was that I was using a consumer grade lens, but expected the quality you get from a really good lens. Once I started investing in really good lenses, most of my lack of sharpness went away. All it took was lots of money ;}
… I’ve only found two lenses in modern times that were noticeably bad. One was the Tamron 28-200 f/3.8-5.6, and it was very good up to about 105. After that it gets worse so that by 200mm it would have much the same condition you describe. Looks ok with a weak loupe, but upon closer examination it was soft. The second was the Minolta Weathermatic 35 Dual fixed lens. Not very sharp, but maybe it was just mine. I still use the Tamron. It’s a great lens to carry all by itself, just don’t trust it at full extension. In general though, it’s hard to find a noticeably bad lens these days.
Response:
Scott Hardy wrote <Once I started investing in really good lenses most of my sharpness problems went away. Agreed, in general, but not in every case. I have a Pentax 35-80; I agree that it is not a great lens, but I have evidence to prove that it can make sharp 8×12’s. Occasionally, I have printed a slide from this lens to 11×14 (Ilfochrome) with adequate sharpness. That said, I will admit that it is NOT a top choice among my lenses. A suggestion – look at the slide projected or under a good-quality high magnification loupe. The problem may be with the slide. Regards, Ed
Response:
Take the slides and the prints to a pro lab and get their opinion. Look on the back of the print: is the paper type identified? (so you can tell if it’s from an interneg) 8X12 from a 35mm is an 8x enlargement and great care must be taken to get sharp results on the print in the darkroom. If using an interneg, you must use a larger format for the interneg. I would also recommend you try ciba/Ilfochrome print. Most likely a quality pro lab that does Ciba will give you better results. They will be able to look at the slide and prints and tell you. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello everyone, A vague question, I know, but I’m wondering what kind of sharpness I should expect from an 8×12 enlargement of a 35mm slide. Here’s the situation: I recently had 8×12 prints made from two of my favorite slides. This is the first time I’ve had enlargements made, so I don’t know what to expect. The slides look beautiful on the light table with a 7x loupe. However, I am disappointed with the quality of the 8×12’s. They look ok from a distance, but up close (with naked eye, not a loupe) they just don’t seem very sharp- edges are dull, not crisp. I used Kodak Elite Chrome 200 in my Pentax body with a 35-80 zoom lens. I did use a tripod. What kind of quality should I expect ? The prints were made at a Kodak Qualex lab. I’m wondering if I would get better results at a pro lab. Thanks, – Robert (Scans of the images- not that they’ll reveal much about the sharpness of the slides- are at: http://www.stanford.edu/~rjh/StanfHills/tree1.JPG & http://www.stanford.edu/~rjh/StanfHills/tree2.JPG )
Response:
Check out the lens tests at www.photodo.com. Lenses that receive a rating of less than about 3.0 (on a scale of 0 to 5, with 5 being perfect) would probably be considered ‘consumer grade’. In addition, the low speed (and low cost) of these lenses would be a tip off, not to mention the plastic lens mounts on some of the lenses. In the Nikon line, ‘consumer grade’ lenses would be the 35-80mm f/4-5.6D AF Zoom-Nikkor and the 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6D AF Zoom-Nikkor, as well as the 70-210mm f/4-5.6D AF Zoom-Nikkor . Colin – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I used Kodak Elite Chrome 200 in my Pentax body with a 35-80 zoom lens. I did use a tripod. This sounds similar to the problem I had years ago. What I finally decided was that I was using a consumer grade lens, but expected the quality you get from a really good lens. Once I started investing in really good lenses, most of my lack of sharpness went away. All it took was lots of money ;} Please cite examples of "consumer grade lenses", and "really good lenses". My Nikon catalog doesn’t sort lenses to that degree. Thanks
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I used Kodak Elite Chrome 200 in my Pentax body with a 35-80 zoom lens. I did use a tripod. This sounds similar to the problem I had years ago. What I finally decided was that I was using a consumer grade lens, but expected the quality you get from a really good lens. Once I started investing in really good lenses, most of my lack of sharpness went away. All it took was lots of money ;} This may not be the case for you, especially as your slides look sharp to you, but it is worth looking into.
If the slides look sharp it could be the problem is with wherever you got the print made.
Response:
Take the slides and the prints to a pro lab and get their opinion. Look on the back of the print: is the paper type identified? (so you can tell if it’s from an interneg) 8X12 from a 35mm is an 8x enlargement and great care must be taken to get sharp results on the print in the darkroom. If using an interneg, you must use a larger format for the interneg. I would also recommend you try ciba/Ilfochrome print. Most likely a quality pro lab that does Ciba will give you better results. They will be able to look at the slide and prints and tell you.
The sign of a good lab is one that recommends you don’t enlarge a particular slide as it won’t come out well. Telling you not to shell out for an 8×12" print because you won’t be satisfied with it is saying something about how they do business. I’m glad to have found such a lab locally. — <:-{} Harry C. Pulley, IV member RASC Hamilton/KW centres, ALPO, IOTA, TPS Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 43.51N, 80.28W
Response:
|Take the slides and the prints to a pro lab and get their opinion. |Look on the back of the print: is the paper type identified? |(so you can tell if it’s from an interneg) |8X12 from a 35mm is an 8x enlargement and great care must be taken to |get sharp results on the print in the darkroom. If using an interneg, |you must use a larger format for the interneg. |I would also recommend you try ciba/Ilfochrome print. |Most likely a quality pro lab that does Ciba will give you better |results. They will be able to look at the slide and prints and tell you. | | Hi, First, I’d like to thank all the people who’ve taken the time to respond to my original post. I’m learning some things. – The back of the enlargements say "Kodak Professional Paper"… does this indicate that an internegative was used? Based on what I’ve been hearing from people, I’m going to do two things: – Take the slide and enlargement to a good lab to see if they think they can do better. – Shoot a roll of Velvia using my best prime lens and a tripod to see what a really sharp slide looks like- that’d provide a nice reference point. – Robert
Response:
| |I used Kodak Elite Chrome 200 in my Pentax body with a 35-80 zoom lens. I |did use a tripod. | |This sounds similar to the problem I had years ago. What I finally |decided was that I was using a consumer grade lens, but expected |the quality you get from a really good lens. Once I started investing |in really good lenses, most of my lack of sharpness went away. |All it took was lots of money ;} | |This may not be the case for you, especially as your slides look sharp |to you, but it is worth looking into. Hi, First, I’d like to thank all the people who’ve taken the time to respond to my original post. I’m learning some things. Based on what I’ve been hearing from people, I’m going to do two things: – Take the slide and enlargement to a good lab to see if they think they can do better. – Shoot a roll of Velvia using my best prime lens and a tripod to see what a really sharp slide looks like- that’d provide a nice reference point. – Robert
Response:
| The slides look beautiful on the light table with a 7x loupe. However, I am | disappointed with the quality of the 8×12’s. They look ok from a distance, | but up close (with naked eye, not a loupe) they just don’t seem very sharp- | edges are dull, not crisp.
This is probably the most commonly asked question when it comes to viewing the results of prints from slides (no matter what the size) The problem is that we usually view a transparency with projected light, and view prints with reflected light. It’s like looking at a stained glass window in the day with sun comming through as apposed to viewing it at night with interior lighting. It just doesn’t compare. If you want outstanding results and are willing to spend a little extra, then get cibachrome prints. Paul Eby http://okphoto.webjump.com
Response:
| The slides look beautiful on the light table with a 7x loupe. However, I am | disappointed with the quality of the 8×12’s. They look ok from a distance, | but up close (with naked eye, not a loupe) they just don’t seem very sharp- | edges are dull, not crisp
I’m holding a black and white 91/2 x 12 print I made a few days ago. It’s on Ilford Gallerie paper, and it’s very sharp indeed. It’s shot on Delta 100 processed in Aculux2, and the grain is only just visible if you look really hard, and the sharpness is good; only if you get to the limit of close focus for your eye can you start to see any softness around low contrast edges. Having said that, I consider this the max limit for 35mm enlargement. It can be made bigger of course, but I prefer to use medium format for anything bigger than 12 inch. David.
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.