Really large (poster size) perfectly sharp photos?

[Garbz]

Hi all.

Since this is my first post i'd like to just start of by saying i'm new to photography, an amature really but i can't keep my fingers off my camera. My question regards what can be seen in each and every magazine. I'm talking about really large, ultra sharp pictures.

Take for example a car magazine or the centerfold for penthouse :roll: . There will be a 2 page picture, which may or may not be composed very well, but will most certainly be crystal clear and noiseless.

The equipment i'm using is old, i mean really old but it was some of the best of it's time. A Nikon FE Camera, Tokina 25 - 70mm lens, Vivitar 70 - 150mm lens, 2x Matched multiplier for the Vivitar lens, Skylight filter for the Vivitar lens, and a Polariser (bought last week and really enjoying it) for the Tokina lens.

This is fairly standard equipment for standard film. If i want to get beautifuly sharp poster quality photos can it be done with this equipment? Do i need special film? Will the film work with this camera? How do i reduce noise in photos? (i work with ISO400 film but ISO100 sometimes shows noise as well).

I don't do any developing myself, (that's a future project : ). Any ideas to help me start out ?

 

[voodoocat]

You couldn't do it with that equipment. Sharp poster size prints are not possible with 35mm film. You can get ok results with a very sharp lens and slow film but it still won't look anywhere as sharp as what you see in the magazines. You would need to step up into medium format for that.

 

[ksmattfish]

I would imagine that the images you are looking at are shot with medium or large format cameras (whether they are using film or digital backs).

Some tips to help you get high quality enlargements from 35mm (or any format):

Use a tripod and a cable release. You cannot hold your camera as still as a tripod can.

Typically you will get less grain (noise is usually used to describe aspects of digital photography) with a slower ISO film, but grain is what makes a photo sharp, so you may have to experiment with some different films to get one that you like.

Get yourself a fixed focal length lens. Most modern zooms are probably as sharp as the fixed focal length lenses, but I think that older zooms suffer in comparison. You need a fast 50mm lens anyway for low light situations. You should be able to find one for pretty cheap.

Avoid using the 2x teleconverter when sharpness is critical. At the least it'll probably soften your corners and edges, and it may soften the whole image.

 

[Garbz]

i do have a 50mm fixed nikkor lens which apparently came with the camera.

What are these other formats ? What type of film do they use?

Edit: Also could a camera like a Canon D10 (or whatever that new SLR is) with 6.5mpixel take pictures of that high quality?

 

[ksmattfish]

Take some test shots of the same subject with your various lenses and see which one looks sharpest to you. Most lens are sharpest when using an aperture 2 or three stops back from wide open.

Medium format film is 6cm wide and comes in 120 and 220 rolls. Different cameras shoot a different size neg; common sizes are 6cm x 4.5cm, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9.

Large format film comes in sheets; 4"x5" and 8'x10" are the most common sizes. One sheet is one negative (or positive).

 

[Garbz]

thanks for all the help. I won't be abandoning 35mm slr for another format. Although pentax did have a 6x7 slr. (for distant future incase photography becomes more than an amature obsession

 

[havoc]

That Pentax 6x7 is a very nice camera, if scenic shots are your bag.

 

[Garbz]

hey just another thought as i walked through the kodak shop today.

Is high definition film worth the price tag?

I saw:

iso100 - $6.40 AUD each
iso200 - $8.50 AUD each
iso400 - $10.20 AUD each
iso400 - $16.00 AUD 3 pack

HD iso200 - $15.90 AUD each

The HD film boasts the usual market speak. Ultra high grain, sharper pictures, etc. but is is worth the double price tag (or tripple when it comes to 3packs)?

 

[voodoocat]

No, from what I hear HD is not worth the pricetag. I've never used it and never plan on it. I use kodak portra sometimes for portraits but fuji for everything else color.

 

[Jewel]

Garbz, I think you're looking at the HD at the wrong place! I bought a triple-pack of HD iso200 from the locak K-Mart for $16 thereabouts before we went to Melbourne.

I've since sent 3 rolls for development. My first experiment with it, so if there is anything outstanding I'll post it.

Jewel (also in Brisbane)

 

[Garbz]

thanks look forward to the results. And like i said it was at the kodak shop. I haven't the slightest doubt that i could get them for half the price somewhere else.

 

[drlynn]

Kodak HD film is just new packaging for the old Royal Gold product, or so I have been told by "professionals" in various camera shops.

Having used it and regular Kodak film, I can't really tell much difference, and would not pay the extra price (at the local Wal-Mart they have packages of 4 rolls of Kodak film plus a "free" roll of HD)

I have to agree with Voodoo. I like Kodak Portra, especially the 400 UC, but for everything else, I usually buy Fuji. I also like Polaroid print film, which is dirt cheap and does a pretty good job for "snapshots." But for important stuff, I stick with Fuji Superia or the NPS and NPC 160. I also like Velvia 50. I'd like to try Velvia 100, but the shops around here look at me like I have 2 heads when I ask for it. :?

 

[Josh]

(i work with ISO400 film but ISO100 sometimes shows noise as well).

Sounds like you may be underexposing your 100 iso film. The slower films will give you a better inlargment quality. Frome a well exposed 100 speed film, I can get a pritty good 11x14 print (not grait). I wouldn't try to go over that with 35mm though.

Your 50mm lens is a nice sharp one by the way =)