Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Digital cameras
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Digital cameras

post #1 of 42
1/11/08 at 6:22pm
Thread Starter 
I am searching for a digital camera that can produce extremely high-quality images to have enlarged up to 50"x50". I have only a rudimentary knowledge of digital cameras. Do the members of the forum have suggestions as to where I should begin? Does anyone have experience with enlarging digital images to this size?

Thanks!
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 42
1/11/08 at 6:33pm
I believe at that size you'd be looking at a 20 Megapixel Hasselblad. They're quite expensive.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 42
1/11/08 at 7:23pm
How much money do you want to spend?

Jon.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 42
1/11/08 at 7:56pm
I suggest film, which comes in at approximately 25+ megapixels for 35mm. Medium format is about 100MP, and 4x5 is about 500MP.

However, with digital DPI will be your biggest issue, not megapixlels.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 42
1/11/08 at 9:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCsommerreid View Post
I suggest film, which comes in at approximately 25+ megapixels for 35mm. Medium format is about 100MP, and 4x5 is about 500MP.

However, with digital DPI will be your biggest issue, not megapixlels.

With 35mm at those enlargement sizes, you'd need a damn good lens and a damn solid tripod to have presentable images.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 42
1/11/08 at 10:31pm
It's not the MP that counts, really. For example Adobe Camera Raw can up-rez a 10mp file raw file with no visual loss of quality. I'd recommend around a 8-12mp camera uprezzed through ACR to 25.3 (There's probably a way to go higher than that, too). At 150 dpi, which should be fine for large prints as they're not meant to be viewed close-up, it will be about 41" wide. Down to 100 dpi and the print is almost 62" wide. I think even 100 dpi is going to be okay if you're looking at a 50" print. There's a big difference of looking at an 9x6" where 360dpi is the minimum for retaining good detail, and a 50" print.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 42
1/12/08 at 12:16am
At those sizes, you'll probably want film. Unless of course you want to plunk down $26K + for a Hasselblad H3D.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 42
1/12/08 at 1:08am
And even with film, at 50" x 50" you want good film. Slow film. I've enlarged a 4MP image form my Olympus E-10 (a very good, very well lit and exposed abstract product shot) to 36x24, and it was fine. But that won't work most of the time. If you're shooting high detail, I'm with everyone above. 12MP minimum, upsamled (I'd use genuine fractals, but maybe I'm behind the times) to alot and printed by someone who knows what they're doing. ~ Huntsman
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 42
1/12/08 at 1:51am
You may wish to browse through the Fred Miranda Forums for ideas. It is mostly DSLR talk though.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 42
1/12/08 at 6:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by retronotmetro View Post
With 35mm at those enlargement sizes, you'd need a damn good lens and a damn solid tripod to have presentable images.

Any lens that isn't utter crap should work fine, and for high detail you should always use a tripod. Even with that, though, 35mm for a 50x50 would be pushing it a little unless you had good film, a good lens, a good camera, a good rig, good lighting, good negatives, good enlargers, good paper, and really good development processing.

A larger format film would make a 50x50 or even large a breeze, especially something crazy like 4x5.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 42
1/12/08 at 11:15am
A simple medium format camera and film would do the job.

Helmut Newton often had his images enlarged to huge sizes, and he usually only used a film Hasselblad or Rolleiflex.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 42
1/12/08 at 1:31pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing View Post
A simple medium format camera and film would do the job.

Helmut Newton often had his images enlarged to huge sizes, and he usually only used a film Hasselblad or Rolleiflex.

My film camera is a Nikon FM, about 40 years old. I begin with that. The printing place I want to use offered to scan the film shots and enlarge those up to 50"x50".
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 42
1/12/08 at 7:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnapril View Post
My film camera is a Nikon FM, about 40 years old. I begin with that. The printing place I want to use offered to scan the film shots and enlarge those up to 50"x50".

You already have a very fine camera, and I assume you have the lenses you need. In that case, just use really slow slide film (like Fuji Velvia 50), have it scanned in with a very high-resolution scanner, and print it out.

--Andre
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 42
1/13/08 at 11:01am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Yew View Post
You already have a very fine camera, and I assume you have the lenses you need. In that case, just use really slow slide film (like Fuji Velvia 50), have it scanned in with a very high-resolution scanner, and print it out.

--Andre

Thanks LK, Andre, and others. I shot a roll of Fuji Velvia 50 and bracketed the shots between ASA 25, 50, and 100 at an aperture of 4. I used a Manfrotto tripod. I hope I can use these tools to produce something worthwhile, for even the $3500 digital cameras won't achieve what the Nikon FM can.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 42
1/13/08 at 12:32pm
Having searched in vain for a digital camera that offered both high quality pictures and a satisfying experience, I've now relegated digital to the realm of point-and-shoot and sunk serious money into shooting film with a Leica M system. I'm now averaging a dozen rolls a month with a high rate of keepers.

The local lab transfers my photos to CD at a sufficient resolution to look good online and the negatives can be printed any size. (Of course, I live in a major metropolis full of inveterate shutterbugs.)

It will be a long time before digital will catch up with your Nikon.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Digital cameras