Unexpected 35mm Results
p.1 #1Unexpected 35mm Results
I have approached film with the assumption that it was an inferior technology. So, to mitigate this I maximized the fidelity and resolution of my digital copies and concentrated on shooting higher resolving film stock and utilizing larger format negatives. With all that said, I wanted to put up an image from my Nashville trip in my two channel music room, but on that trip I only shot 35mm. I ordered a 30”x40” stretched canvas print from MPIX and I’m shocked at the quality of this image on such a large print. Of course, canvas isn’t a high resolution surface, but I no longer view film as an inferior technology..just different.
Edited on Nov 28, 2025 at 06:31 PM · View previous versions
 |
|||||||||||
 0825 Leica M3 90mm Macro-Elmar Ektar 100-1 by gary, on Flickr
|
|||||||||||
|
Edited on Nov 28, 2025 at 06:31 PM · View previous versions
Nov 28, 2025 at 05:54 PM
p.1 #2Unexpected 35mm Results
Film is an older technology. I don't think older necessarily equates to inferior. It might be reasonable to compare it to digital on a technical level, but not on an aesthstic level which is ultmiately subjective.
Nov 28, 2025 at 06:06 PM
p.1 #3Unexpected 35mm Results
This looks nice!
Beyond a certain point adding more resolution does not really make a photo "better".
Beyond a certain point adding more resolution does not really make a photo "better".
Nov 28, 2025 at 06:12 PM
p.1 #4Unexpected 35mm Results
My guess is that they use a RIP, or modern equivalent. It rasters the file to a grid so it can maintain quality when up-rez'd. (Made larger)
Nov 29, 2025 at 09:22 AM