Perfect Enlargements on the 7D

[This is the Edge]

My wife wants to take some pictures of our 9 year old daughter and enlarge them to 24x25 to fit inside a frame that is part of some IKEA furniture we are getting . Here is what I am thinking
-Use the 70-200 f2.8L II lens stopped down a few stops (set to 70mm)
-Use a Tripod
-Use ISO 100
-Fast a shutter speed as possible
-Shoot in RAW
-Let the photo processor do the color adjustments
Anything I am missing or overlooking?

I also have an old Canon film camera. Would film enlarge better than digital (18MP)?
Thanks,

This is the Edge

 

[zerotiu]

If you've got enough shutter speed, it will be better if you don't put your camera on tripod. Your movement will be limited. Your camer is 7D, ISO 400 is still okay if you want to print to 24x25 size.

although I prefer fix lenses for portrait shot

 

[liberace]

It's said that the 7Ds native ISO is in sets of 160 too. 160, 320, etc. Not 100% certain on that though.

 

[Hillsilly]

I'd say you're on the right track. But maybe you're thinking too much about it. 24" x 25" is a big enlargement, but both the 7D and film can handle it. Personally, I'd stick with the 7D as you can check the file on your monitor before getting it printed. With work, I regularly print A1 sized posters from similar cameras. That's 23.39 × 33.11. Admittedly, if you look very very closely, you can identify some pixelation. Film at this level of enlargement also shows grain and is a bit harder to print. My Personal opinion - at such a high enlargement, I can almost guarantee you'll get a sharper, crisper print in digital than 35mm film. Unless you've got a very sharp photo, and using a good lab, 35mm film tends to look a bit soft after 11x14. In fact, I've got a big medium format enlarger, and it won't even enlarge 35mm beyond 11x14, but a professional lab shouldn't have any problems going bigger. Of course, if they are scanning the file first, which is more common these days, then that adds another step for the image to be degraded. End of the day, I'd stick to digital.

But for all intensive purposes, both should look fine. Once you have yours inside a frame, 24x25 should look fantastic. I'd be more focused on getting a good photo - eg expression, smile, pleasing background etc. Try some with the tripod, as any camera shake will be magnified. But if you like the photo, and it looks good enlarged on your monitor, it should print fine.

If you're indoors (or even outdoors) have you considered a flash (or two)? Bounced off a wall or ceiling, it can help produce good effects and help keep a high shutter speed (reducing the possibility of camera shake).

 

[UncleFester]

I'd use the 17-40 instead. IMO, indoors with a portrait set-up usually looks too stiff for kids.

Get her outside up close doing something natural like one leg over her bike, or something, and shoot her at 17mm f/4 hand held. On a bright day you can use 100iso. 400 or whatever for overcast.

 

[NotABunny]

You haven't said what you want to do: inside or outside, portrait or full body.

If you do it outside and full body, as I suspect you want to, you should use 200 mm and F2.8 for the highest background blur you can get with that lens. The less of her height you get in the photo, the more you can increase the F number and decrease the focal length (and still have a similar background blur).

Attached you have a background blur graphics:
* Red: 200 mm, F 2.8 (the reference distance is 20 meters, but it's irrelevant because everything scale with it)
* Blue: 70 mm, F 2.8
* Green: 200 mm, F 4
* Yellow: 70 mm, F2.8

The horizontal axis is the distance from the subject to the background, in meters. The vertical axis is the blur in microns. (Sub 18 is considered sharp for a 1.6 crop.)


If you want to do portraits, you can use F 5.6 - 8.0 and even down to 70 mm and still have great background blur.

 

[dr croubie]

pentacon six + zeiss biometar 80mm f2.8 + 1 roll of 100/200iso 120film = maybe €1-200 on ebay, blow up a 6x6cm negative to 6x6' and you'll start seeing grain...

 

[unfocused]

Well, of course you can enlarge the image to 24 x 25 with no problem.

I can't imagine trying to shoot a nine year old using a tripod. I'm assuming you don't have a strobe. If not, go find yourself a park that has lots of nice, open shade. Shoot in the morning or late afternoon. Try lots of different things and shoot until she's bored and cranky or until your card is full. Use both lenses and shoot at a variety of focal lengths and in a variety of situations: walking, running, sitting, playing. Get down to her level, shoot from below, above, beside, etc., experiment and have fun.

When you frame the picture, try to remember that even though your format is rectangular, the final image is going to be nearly square.

I'm a little confused why if you are shooting in RAW you are letting the photo processor do the color adjustments. The advantage of RAW is that you can fine tune the exposure and color balance yourself.

 

[Admin US West]

My wife wants to take some pictures of our 9 year old daughter and enlarge them to 24x25 to fit inside a frame that is part of some IKEA furniture we are getting . Here is what I am thinking
-Use the 70-200 f2.8L II lens stopped down a few stops (set to 70mm)
-Use a Tripod
-Use ISO 100
-Fast a shutter speed as possible
-Shoot in RAW
-Let the photo processor do the color adjustments
Anything I am missing or overlooking?

I also have an old Canon film camera. Would film enlarge better than digital (18MP)?
Thanks,

This is the Edge

You can get pretty good enlargements with 6mp. Since you want a nearly square inage, you will have a lot less that 18mp left after cropping, but it should not be a issue. You must actually enlarge to about 37.5 X 25 and then crop. Leave room for a 1.5-2 in border and make a smaller image.

If you use a tripod and the subject is still, you can use one shot AF, if handheld, use AI Servo. Everyone has their idea of what childrens photos should look like, so take several in different situations and pick the best.

If outdoors, take them in the morning before bright sunlight makes too many harsh shadows. You can setup reflectors and use fill flash to soften shadows, but it is another level of complexity, and if the subject is moving, not likely to work as well as naturally diffused morning light.

 

[This is the Edge]

Thanks for everyone's feedback so far. Her vision is to do a three portrate picture "hear no evil, see no evil, tell no evil" theme. My daughter models so she knows what to expect as far as sitting still (she still doesn't like to smile :-\ for the camera). We do have a 430EXII and have used it off camera with good results. My wife only has iPhoto and Photoshop LE so image enhacements aren't going to be too advanced. I will contact the company that does the englargement to see what type of file want (RAW, JPEG, Inc).

She wants to do this in B&W but so far iPhoto doesn't do that great a job. PS LE seem like a P.I.T.A. to convert to B&W. Would Silver EFEX Pro 2 work best?

 

[Hillsilly]

It comes with a 15 day trial. Once you've decided on some photos, download it and give it a try. I've been playing with DXO's film pack recently. This has some good B & W presets and comes with a 30 days trial.

 

[NotABunny]

For portraits, a long focal length is particularly flattering for people with a narrow face.

http://www.stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm