35mm big enough for quality prints?

Snapshot · Dec 19, 2007

I generally don't make anything larger than 11"x14" in B&W but I have made some x15 B&W and colour enlargements that I am very happy with. Grain wasn't a problem but you will still see it at those magnifications. It's really a matter of personal taste.

Russ - SVP · Dec 19, 2007

With today's film, glass and proper technique, yes, you can make some large prints from 35mm. And the 35mm films of today, blow away the films of only ten years ago. I've got some 11x17 prints that look very good. For ultimate quality, you'll want a high quality scan from a well exposed, focused negative or slide. I have a few of my snaps drum scanned and printed up rather large, and they are sometimes mistaken for medium format prints.

Kiron Kid

Nick Zentena · Dec 19, 2007

I don't think it's been directly mentioned but what are you photographing? Gritty factories might look better in 35mm. Fields of spring flowers might not.

The other thing with the price of used MF gear you could get a small kit together for the price of a couple of lab prints. Darkroom gear can be even cheaper.

BrianShaw · Dec 19, 2007

Richard Kelham said:
With the camera on a tripod...

That was going to be my line. It is a bit surprising (to me, at least) that it took 20 posts before anyone mentioned 'tripod' and it hasn't been mentioned again. If the neg isn't as crisp as humanly possible, then it doesn't really matter what lab is used, etc, etc. I've managed to make 4x5 negs that wouldn't even contact print in a quality manner so I'm not too much of a believer in one format being better than another, or one camera/lens being better than another, or one lab being better than another... unless all possible attempts at producing a decent neg have been exercized first.

Lol999 · Dec 19, 2007

Nick Zentena said:
I don't think it's been directly mentioned but what are you photographing? Gritty factories might look better in 35mm. Fields of spring flowers might not.

It definitely WON'T be flowers, I like my photography b&w and definitely on the gritty side!

Tripod? Oh yes, that's a given.
As an aside, I'm enjoying the work of George Tice at the moment, seen him before in B&W mag but it's the sort of thing I'd like to have a go at if I scale my street stuff down.

Cheers, Lol

Jim Jones · Dec 19, 2007

The limiting factor in big enlargments from 35mm is often technique. You can see more detail in a big enlargement than in the camera's focusing screen. Too small an aperture incurs diffraction. Too large an aperture exaggerates lens abberations. The depth of field scale on lenses is for moderate size prints, not for large and critically sharp enlargements. The vibration of the mirror and shutter can affect sharpness at modest shutter speeds, even with the camera mounted on a good tripod. Sometimes I can get decent 11x14 B&W prints from 35mm; often I'm not happy with them. Nikon gear in top condition is certainly capable of 11x14 prints that would satisfy many photographers. Technique, from selecting the optimum film to making the final print, is critical. It's easier to get good results from large format. Unless you must produce traditional prints, large format negatives can be printed economically with certain equipment that I won't discuss in an analog forum.

Lol999 · Dec 20, 2007

Hi Jim and thanks for the reply. To be honest at this stage in my photographic career I don't have the experience to critically assess the likely outcome. i think i need to shoot plenty of film and when I have a picture I like have it printed porfessionally and perhaps a forum member will give their opinion of it if posted to them. Or I could even send it on a cicrcular I'm interested in your comments regarding aperture size and the dof scale on the lens, can you point me towards any resources where I can read more on these factors please? Wrt medium format I would have to consider blasphemy and go the full digital route post processing and whilst I can raise cash for the camera it would take a long time to get the latest offering from either epson or hp plus a dedicated scanner.

Cheers, Lol

Lee L · Dec 20, 2007

Lol999 said:
I'm interested in your comments regarding aperture size and the dof scale on the lens, can you point me towards any resources where I can read more on these factors please?

DOF scales are based on having what should be a point rendered on the film as something larger than a point, but acceptably close to a point to appear sharp. The amount of "spreading" of the point that is acceptable changes with the amount of enlargement and the viewing distance from the print. Typical DOF scales for 35mm format lenses allow a point to spread to a diameter of .025 to .033 mm or so on the film, this is called the "circle of confusion", and different manufacturers use slightly different standards.

If you want tighter constraints, or want to find your personal acceptable limit for blurring of the image, you can shoot at, for example f:8 and then set your focus to have objects at the limits for f:8, then f:5.6, f:4, etc. You can then decide if working with lens markings for DOF at the chosen stop, one stop "tighter", two stops "tighter", etc fits your personal preferences. I often work with one stop tighter DOF than indicated on the lens, so that I know I can get sharper looking results and have room for more enlargement if needed.

This method allows you to set your own personal standard for sharpness for the degree of enlarging and viewing distance from the print that you prefer. It's also pretty consistent across a manufacturer's range of lenses, and relatively easy to test and use.

Lee

removed account4 · Dec 20, 2007

hi lol

i guess it all comes down to personal preference ...
as seen in responses to your question, some folks
think nothing of a nice large print from a 35mm negative
while others say "- x -" is just big enough ...

maybe you should enlarge some of your favorite negatives
to different sizes and see which ones you like the best.
you know what you like .... and how you want to display them.

i like making small books of prints ... some made without film,
some made with small film ( 35mm ) and some made with large format
film ( 4x5 and 5x7 ) ... i am a fan of small prints, so 1/2 frame or 110 would work for me too

pentaxuser · Dec 20, 2007

If it helps I went to a gallery of stills today, taken by Michael Peto of the Beatles 1965 film "Help". I think that he shot all of them on a 35mm. That's what's shown in his hand and as they are all candids and it was 1965 it would be difficult to imagine what else he could have used.

Anyway the smallest print was at least 12x16 and most were more like 24x30 or bigger. The quality was terrific. Yes they were grainy if you stuck your nose to the frame but at normal viewing distance there were not grainy. Given the improvement in 35mm films, certainly, and possibly lenses since 1965 I'd imagine that even better prints( less grain) could be produced today.

Any APUGers in the North West of the U.K. interested in such stills, I'd recommend a visit to the National Conservation Centre in Whitechapel near the Mersey ( Birkenhead) Tunnel entrance. If you have a car and fancy a trip through the tunnel to Port Sunlight on the Wirral to the Lady Lever Art Gallery in the Port Sunlight village they are showing Victorian Visions. A series of landscapes, portraits and documentary by such as Juliet Margaret Cameron, BB Turner. Roger Fenton, Francis Frith etc.

Entrance to both exhibitions is free.

pentaxuser

RobC · Dec 20, 2007

Jim Jones said:
The limiting factor in big enlargments from 35mm is often technique. You can see more detail in a big enlargement than in the camera's focusing screen. Too small an aperture incurs diffraction. Too large an aperture exaggerates lens abberations. The depth of field scale on lenses is for moderate size prints, not for large and critically sharp enlargements. The vibration of the mirror and shutter can affect sharpness at modest shutter speeds, even with the camera mounted on a good tripod. Sometimes I can get decent 11x14 B&W prints from 35mm; often I'm not happy with them. Nikon gear in top condition is certainly capable of 11x14 prints that would satisfy many photographers. Technique, from selecting the optimum film to making the final print, is critical. It's easier to get good results from large format. Unless you must produce traditional prints, large format negatives can be printed economically with certain equipment that I won't discuss in an analog forum.

Yes, but using a larger format is no excuse for sloppy technique. If you have great technique on 35mm and then apply that same stringent technique to medium format, then the difference is patently obvious. If you then try to apply that technique to 4x5 you will struggle because of problems with film flatness and alignment of your equipment. So if you see a marked improvement from medium format to largeformat, then it probably signifies that your technique on medium format was not very good.

Also note that all lenses have a sweet spot. That is the aperture which gives sharpest images. You must test for this by photographing a static subject at different apertures. The differences are visually apparent in the print. This applies to your enlarging lens as well. So the same test should be done with your enlarger lens apertures. When you combine the sahrpest aperture from your lens with the sharpest aperture from your enlarger, the difference is immediately obvious in your prints.

Lol999 · Dec 21, 2007

Thanks folks for your replies, I understand the principles you outline and obviously need to do some testing of my lenses.It appears it's easy to make "okay" pictures but there's a lot more to it to make"good" pictures.

Cheers, Lol

RobC · Dec 21, 2007

And don't forget that your enlarging lens is optimised for a certain enlargement factor. If it's for a 10x image and you are making 20x16 prints then a lens which is optimised for 20x enlargements would be better. This assumes you are not printing full frame. You will have to work it out. i.e. have one lens for 10x8's and one for 20x16's.

now you are going to ask which lens. Well from rodenstock:

Rogonar-S 50mm f/2.8 2-10X (4X)
Rodagon 50mm f/2.8 2-15X (10X)
APO Rodagon-N 50mm f/2.8 2-20X (10X)
Rodagon-G 50mm f/2.8 15-50X (25X)

so if you only enlarge 10x you would be hard pressed to see any difference between the Rodagon and the APO Rodagon-N. But if you enlarged 20x then the APO Rodagon-N would easily out perform the Rodagon but it may not be as good as Rodagon-G which was well within its range.

Slower films generally are better for bigger enlargements because they have smaller grain but if you use Ilford perceptol with HP5, then the grain on a 20x16 isn't so bad. Infact it can lend some atmosphere to the print. But these are subjective considerations.

Christopher Walrath · Dec 21, 2007

Just make sure your focus is dead on. The better the focus, the bigger the prints can be.

PHOTOTONE · Dec 21, 2007

National Geographic photographers primarily used 35mm for the last 30 years or so until the gradual adoption of digital. I have never felt their vision was compromised by the size of the film they used.

Bandicoot · Dec 21, 2007

pentaxuser said:
If it helps I went to a gallery of stills today, taken by Michael Peto of the Beatles 1965 film "Help". I think that he shot all of them on a 35mm. That's what's shown in his hand and as they are all candids and it was 1965 it would be difficult to imagine what else he could have used.

I don't know what he actually used, and 35mm is likely. In 1965, though, a Rolleiflex with prism would probably be the other obvious contender for someone working on a film set. Just a thought.

Peter

DanielOB · Dec 21, 2007

35 mm is good enough to make beutiful B&W photographs 16x20 or less.
Do not be afreid of grain. Grain is one of very properties of photography. Just tou need to master photography to make master photographs. Then you will know to choose right film, lens, and developer, for right image.
For start:
do not take a lot of detaild into the frame. Less details better (eg. one tree yes, forest no)
use film delta 100 or Pan-F + developer rodinal 1:50
Correct exposure is critical, so learn zone system
IMPORTANT: do make paintings make photographs.

The best photographs ever are made with 35 mm cameras. No format counts as long as it take a shot. Many photographs are just not possible to make with lerger format.

Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com

pesphoto · Dec 21, 2007

funny lol, I have been thinking the same way lately and just today bought a medium format rig from KEH to try out.
I love 35mm but am looking for something new to challenge myself with.

aldevo · Dec 22, 2007

35mm is a successful format because of the inherent portability of the cameras built for it. And that portability enables us to get shots that would otherwise elude us with larger formats.

But let's not kid ourselves. In photography there's no substitute for square inches and 35mm gives you all of 1 1/2 to play with. And the real issue here isn't necessarily grain or apparent sharpness - it's smoothness of gradation, particularly in the highlights. You can create adjacency effects till the cows come home in 35mm - so much so, in fact, that I believe you can actually make an 8x10 print in 35mm appear sharper than a print of the same size taken in 120 with good equipment. But smooth, translucent highlights? Not a chance. I've viewed prints from many photographers who claim to be achieving them but upon reviewing the fruits of their labors I can only conclude that they are seeing what they want to see.

I never enlarge above 7 or 8 x because I deem the loss of smoothness at larger enlargements to be unacceptable. I don't care which brand name was on the film or lens. An 8x10 print made from Delta 3200 120 using a Seagull TLR will simply lay waste to a print of the same size made with a Leica M7 Summicron ASPH and Efke 25 developed in the formula of your choice.

Don't believe me? Try it for yourself.

I do the majority of my shooting in 35mm and it has made me a better photographer faster than any other format could. But I rarely ever make prints greater than 8x10 from the negs and I'm, frankly, at a little bit of a loss as to why so many other photographers insist on doing that.

aldevo · Dec 22, 2007

Bandicoot said:
I don't know what he actually used, and 35mm is likely. In 1965, though, a Rolleiflex with prism would probably be the other obvious contender for someone working on a film set. Just a thought.

Peter

It's quite possible to hand-hold a Rolleiflex with good technique as long as your DOF needs are relatively modest.

David H. Bebbington · Dec 22, 2007

aldevo said:
An 8x10 print made from Delta 3200 120 using a Seagull TLR will simply lay waste to a print of the same size made with a Leica M7 Summicron ASPH and Efke 25 developed in the formula of your choice.

Don't believe me? Try it for yourself.

I have tried it! In the 1970s I spent 2 years on the staff of the Victoria & Albert Museum, London. Among my tasks was publicity shots of exhibitions, for which I normally used a 4x5" MPP with a 90 mm 6.8 Angulon and HP4 film - when pressed for time, however, I used a tripod-mounted Leica IIIf with a 28 mm 5.6 Summaron or 35 mm 2.8 Summaron and loaded with Pan F which I developed in stock ID-11. Neither my fellow photographers or the PR department could tell the difference when shots on the 2 formats were mixed together. To achieve this, it is essential to use a solvent-type fine grain developer and NOT Rodinal or any specialist sharpness-enhancing brew. More recently I have tried Delta 3200 - it's not bad for a true ISO 1000 film but in my tests, developing in ID-11 and DDX, there was always visible grain in an 8x10" print from a 6x7 or 6x9 neg.

Regards,

David

catem · Dec 22, 2007

pentaxuser said:
If it helps I went to a gallery of stills today, taken by Michael Peto of the Beatles 1965 film "Help". I think that he shot all of them on a 35mm. That's what's shown in his hand and as they are all candids and it was 1965 it would be difficult to imagine what else he could have used.

Anyway the smallest print was at least 12x16 and most were more like 24x30 or bigger. The quality was terrific.

A couple of years ago I saw an exhibition of Jane Bown's celebrity portraits.

She always describes herself as a working hack and always uses 35mm. I don't remember the precise print sizes, but all were more than 12 x 16.

It was an astonishing exhibition.

pentaxuser · Dec 22, 2007

Cate. I noticed that Jane Bown had an exhibition in London recently. I don't know how long it goes on for but I would love to visit it. I always look at her portraits/scenarios on the back page of the Observer. Not only are they excellent but most are a little piece of post war history. A whole exhibition could teach you a lot about post war Britain and its politicians, events, personalities etc.

pentaxuser

David H. Bebbington · Dec 23, 2007

catem said:
A couple of years ago I saw an exhibition of Jane Bown's celebrity portraits.

She always describes herself as a working hack and always uses 35mm. I don't remember the precise print sizes, but all were more than 12 x 16.

It was an astonishing exhibition.

Actually, JB used a Rolleiflex for quite a while in the earlier part of her career:
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1722998,00.html#article_continue
I believe she then switched to an Olympus 35 SLR because of its small size and low weight. She used to (maybe still does) carry her camera in a wicker shopping basket.

Regards,

David

aldevo · Dec 23, 2007

David H. Bebbington said:
I have tried it! In the 1970s I spent 2 years on the staff of the Victoria & Albert Museum, London. Among my tasks was publicity shots of exhibitions, for which I normally used a 4x5" MPP with a 90 mm 6.8 Angulon and HP4 film - when pressed for time, however, I used a tripod-mounted Leica IIIf with a 28 mm 5.6 Summaron or 35 mm 2.8 Summaron and loaded with Pan F which I developed in stock ID-11. Neither my fellow photographers or the PR department could tell the difference when shots on the 2 formats were mixed together. To achieve this, it is essential to use a solvent-type fine grain developer and NOT Rodinal or any specialist sharpness-enhancing brew. More recently I have tried Delta 3200 - it's not bad for a true ISO 1000 film but in my tests, developing in ID-11 and DDX, there was always visible grain in an 8x10" print from a 6x7 or 6x9 neg.

Regards,

David

I've developed 35mm FP4+ negs in straight Edwal 20 from the photographer's Formulary (and that's about as solvent as you can get, btw) and at 8x10 there is still, very definitely, inferior highlight gradation relative to any MF negative enlarged to the same print size I have ever seen. And I've seen many of those.

The highlights will betray 35mm every time once we are above about 4x.

Not even document films will get you past this hurdle.

35mm big enough for quality prints?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency