the thing that’s funny is that at the size Bluesky displays images on a phone screen, the shots I post here are smaller than the actual 6x9 negatives themselves - ThreadSky

victoriascott.bsky.social • 10 days ago

the thing that’s funny is that at the size Bluesky displays images on a phone screen, the shots I post here are smaller than the actual 6x9 negatives themselves

Reposted from victoria scott

they call me train shots Scott

Kodak Gold 200 | Fujica GW690i

Comments

mrbwa1.bsky.social•10 days ago

I often laugh at this. What will really get to is when you realize that Instax film sizes are almost perfectly 6x4.5, 6x6 and 6x6 negative when yo look at the picture area.

victoriascott.bsky.social•10 days ago

I know! And I know people that convert their medium format cameras to shoot instax, which is something I’d love to try out someday

turbofalcon.bsky.social•10 days ago

i've been looking at instax backs for my hasselblad 500c. they're a bit pricy but the prospect of shooting instant film with carl zeiss lenses is too funny not to try it

funkjunkins.bsky.social•10 days ago

what's the "resolution" of a 6x9 photo anyway? i.e. when you scan these, at what resolution do you typically stop getting more detail and start getting noise?

victoriascott.bsky.social•10 days ago

It’s all dictated by film stock and scanner but I’ve scanned photos that could be printed two feet wide at 300 DPI with my local shop’s Noritsu. I really want to get my hands on a drum scanner because then I could probably print three or four feet wide before grain is a serious issue

turbofalcon.bsky.social•10 days ago

the numbers i've heard floating around are around 80-140mp for a medium format negative. depends a bit on what lens/ filmstock you're using and so on.

i shot a 100 year old 6x9 camera on fomapan 400 a few weeks ago and you get all the detail out of the image at 24mp.

funkjunkins.bsky.social•10 days ago

neat, that's exactly consistent with vicki saying she can make three to four foot prints at 300 dpi

victoriascott.bsky.social•10 days ago

And I’m using Velvia as my standard here which is INSANELY fine grain, also - it would be a lot less if I ever shot regular film, I’m just insane

incidencematrix.bsky.social•9 days ago

Well, it does depend, as you say, but you can easily get about 24MP of detail (or better) from a 35mm negative with decent film, decently exposed (if your scanner can do it). So even w/Foma, I'd expect far more than 24MP at 6x9. (Basically, 4k-5k dpi seems a good rule of thumb.)

victoriascott.bsky.social•10 days ago

I’m in the pocket of Big Film