Re: filmscanners: Re: the 10 foot print from 35mm...

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

SKID Photography wrote:

> Yes, but the Kodak image in Grand Central Station could only be viewed from 
>very far away, not unlike a
> billboard, whereas at National Geographic you could walk right up to them, 
>and view the photos up close and
> personal in all their glory.


I have been corrected and informed that the source material for the 
Grand Central Station images were 9" x 18" film frames.

> 
> Did Geographic go through all sorts of machinations (probably including at 
>least 2 internegatives and contrast
> masks), most likely.  Does that make the final 8x10 foot images from 35 mm 
>originals any less valid?  No, I
> think not.


I've never quite understood the interneg logic.  The things I can see 
the interneg doing are possibly altering contrast ratios, softening of 
hardening the edges of the image, and breaking down each large grain or 
dye cloud on the original into a lot of variations of smaller grains/dye 
clouds to smooth out the image by making compound "noise".

I suppose all of this might allow the printer more latitude by 
optimizing the image for special use, but it seems to me it might also 
degrade some aspects of the imerge.  After all, the extra generations 
can't add something that isn't in the original other than more "noise", 
can it?

Art

> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
> 
> 
>>I know Kodak did this some years back with an image in Grand Central
>>Station in NYC which was just huge.  I believe it was made from a series
>>of 35mm Kodachromes (it was a very long image), but it was just amazing.
>>
>>I also know of a number of exhibits where 35mm frames were used to
>>produce huge prints.  They used a lot of tricks to get there, like a
>>liquid gate enlarger.  Back then it was all photographically reproduced
>>without the aide of any digital magic.
>>
>>Art
>>