I have a negative of an image that I took with a disposable camera, of all things.
Its a VERY good photo. I had it developed at wal mart. The 4x6" came out beautiful, the colors were deep, the details were crisp.
I had wal-mart blow it up to 5x7 (they scanned the print, I believe). It came out meh. Colors slightly dull, some definite fuzz on the details. Ok enough to frame, but nothing I’d put in an art show.
I still have the negative and want to do this right. What is the best way to get it blown up to even an 8x10 without losing much detail?
I know much of the quality of the blow up will depend on the quality of the camera that took it, but in any case it’ll be far better than blowing it up via scanning a print and then printing out a larger copy.
Should I go old fashioned and just send away to a higher quality development company? (I’m also weary of losing the negative in the mail or whatever)
Is there a quality way to get it done digitally from the negative?
What, generally, is the limit on quality for physical negative blow ups (I mean, the film doesn’t say 8 mega pixel or whatever)… Again, done with a kodak, I believe, disposable camera.
And lastly, what could I generally expect to pay for a few copies? Would any give me a perfect digital copy also so I don’t end up scanning the image again and end up in the same problem for future copies?
If you take or send the negative to a specialist photographic services company and explain what you want, they will get the best possible result for you, and I think you’ll be happier than you were with the result from Walmart.
If it’s impractical for you to physically visit such a place, then there’s no magic solution: you just have to entrust the negative to the mail (using the most secure service they offer that you are willing to pay for) or a courier company (usually more secure and correspondingly more expensive).
Scanning the negative to produce a digital file and then producing a larger print from that digital file can produce good results, but it obviously depends on the amount of detail the scanner can obtain, which in turn depends partly on the hardware, partly on the scanner software, and partly on the skill of the person using it. In general, this process tends to work less well than going the ‘old-fashioned’ route and trying for an optical enlargement from the neg.
To state the obvious, the more information that was captured in the original shot the greater the scope for producing an enlarged print from the negative. However, the ‘acceptable’ limit for any enlargement process is a very subjective issue. I might think a 10 x 8 print looks just fine, whereas you might think it’s too grainy or lacking in detail. What’s more, sometimes the results of enlargement can introduce qualities (blurryness, lack of edge definition) that some might actually find aesthetically pleasing or satisfying.
With 35 mm film, you can easily do 8x10 prints and have them look fantastic. There’s no hard limit to what you can do, actually - you could probably go to 16x20 before the film grain even starts to become objectionable. The main factor would be the film’s “speed” - faster films will have larger silver halide grains in the emulsion, so all things otherwise equal, an enlarged image from 100-speed film will be smoother than one from 400-speed film. I’d wager that the disposable cameras are preloaded with 400.
As you learned with Walmart, the key is that this has to be done photographically in a darkroom. Look for something like Ritz or Wolf Camera, or whatever “real” photography store is in your area. I don’t think most of the drugstore-type photo services can do photographic work any more - they’re down to just being able to chuck rolls of film into an automated “minilab” and press the buttons to control whether you wanted one or two sets of 3x5 or 4x6 prints.
If you want to do this digitally, it’s possible to put the film into a film scanner and wind up with a TIFF image file that’s in the neighborhood of 3,000 x 5,000 pixels or more.
These aren’t devices for casual home use - they start at about $2,000 and go up from there. (A month ago, I was scanning some negs at roughly 8,000x12,000 pixels on a local art shop’s professional scanner that costs more than many cars.)
Don’t lose sight of the fact that the neg was taken with a disposable camera.
While the film has the capability if quite large degrees of enlargement the image will not have, due to the relative simplicity of the lens and the lack of precision in locating the lens and film.
The chemical way is likely to produce the best results with the materials in hand.
Go to a professional lab, they will have the equipment and expertise to handle your requirements. Include the original print with your order to give them an aim-point.
Ok, I believe I have a good solid idea on what I should do
Thank you much all. Your advice has been valuable.
This thread can be closed now, then.