35mm enlarging - who is passionate about it?

Thomas Bertilsson · May 5, 2011

Michael R 1974 said:
Thomas, I'd say from an artistic perspective I'm also influenced by masters (in my opinion) of a variety of media from music to painting and movies. An interesting topic for another thread perhaps.

I must say your excitement regarding 35mm is inspiring and a little contagious. My tendency is to be very hard on the format, and my own prints from 35mm negatives no matter how exacting, because in essence I'm always chasing large format. In general terms my 35mm photography consists of necessity rather than an affection for that particular format per se. I use it when it is not feasible to use sheet film for one reason or another, for the same subject matter, and the same vision, so in a sense the format is a necessary compromise for me. I've grown to like 35mm a lot more, but it is nice to read in this thread about people who have so completely embraced the format.

Contrary to you, Michael, I gave up on using 4x5 film, because I couldn't use the cameras the way I want to. I spent a lot of money, time, and effort to try to make it work, but ultimately decided that in order to continue enjoying photography, I had to give it up. I gave up 4x5, sold the camera and lenses, and focused on mainly medium format. The enjoyment came back to me, and now with a well working 35mm system, I have two formats that serve me incredibly well.
It is true that I use a 5x7 camera as well, but it's mainly for contact printing. And I haven't used it in about two years.

In return, your view of format, and how you approach the picture, makes me wonder if I should try sheets again some day...

Thomas Bertilsson · May 5, 2011

Uncle Bill said:
I run with two enlargers, a Devere 504 that I only use for 120 format now and a Leitz V35 for 35mm. Honestly since I started printing with the V35, my 35mm prints improved by leaps and bounds. Having an autofocus system helps a long way so you have contend with is the contrast and exposure.

That's exactly what happened to me too, Bill! Funny how that goes. Maybe different strokes for different folks? Some find the Leitz to be a revelation, while to others it's just another enlarger... But I'm glad it helped you, and that you're having great results. That's ultimately what matters to all of us.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 5, 2011

BetterSense said:
How big of a print can you make from 35mm?

I'm not sure what the limit is, but with horizontal enlarging, projecting onto a wall, using lenses designed for the task, I imagine space might be the main limitation.
You'd also have to find a way to process the paper too, and I have seen pictures of Bob Carnie's Olympic sized indoor swimming pools, in which he processes his prints...
30x40 is certainly doable, and probably bigger from roll paper.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 5, 2011

Sim2 said:
Wriggle room for mistakes/errors is much less though with the smaller format compared to medium or larger formats.

I actually believe that this very aspect of enlarging small negatives will potentially make us better printers and craftsmen (women). With all the extra challenge it presents, we'd better be on our toes!

Thomas Bertilsson · May 5, 2011

lajolla said:
Younger shooters will eventually find out that both age and visual acuity will ultimately determine what film formats still can be dealt with both in-camera and in the darkroom when you pass the age of retirement and your body begins to noticeably break down

That is an aspect of photography that I am yet to encounter, but try to be cognizant of as I amass piles of exposed negatives. My idea is to retire early and print a lot...

lajolla said:
There will always be a fond place in my heart for 35mm auto-focus cameras and lenses. And my larger format enlargers have always done a superb job with miniature 35mm negatives. But the key is to keep working with your enlarger in the darkroom, no matter what the format. Like everything else in life, when you get older, you either use it or you lose it.

Amen to that. Use it or lose it! Thanks for your reply and perspective.

Bill Burk · May 6, 2011

I want to share a side-by-side comparison.

The left is 4x5 TMY-2 printed with Xenar 135 f/4.5 @ f/11
The right is 35mm Panatomic-X printed with APO Rodagon 50mm f/2.8 @ f/11
Both developed in D-76 1:1

perkeleellinen · May 6, 2011

Thomas, you're about to hit 10,000 posts!

I'm really enjoying this thread, lots of great comments. I'm hesitant about posting here as I don't think what I do is very special - but it is in 35mm. I'm limited in my print size to a maximum of10x8 because I use a Nova and I think this is why all my experiments with 120 film cameras have been unsuccessful: the larger negative is total overkill and thus there's no trade off from having to carry heavy and expensive equipment.

I like to travel light: usually just a body and lens; I like to standardise things so I always use the same film, paper and chemistry. I print 5x7 on 5x7 paper or 5x7on 10x8 paper to have a big border. I've grown to like small prints and simple camera set ups firstly out of necessity and now because I don't see anything wrong with them. I really hope I don't get another bout of GAS and get another medium format camera - it's happened four times already and I sell them on within months. I'm going to subscribe to this thread and whenever I get 120 urges, I'll come back to it.

Tom Stanworth · May 6, 2011

I love printing from 35mm. A great image is a great image and that it did not come from a bigger format is usually immaterial if the subject matter and technique is 35mm appropriate.

Good crunchy grain in a 20x24 can look amazing, but would I use 35mm TriX for a detailed landscape where tonality is important, no.

The more I shoot digital and MF, the more I love 35mm B&W with 400 or 3200 films. With the work I am doing these days I am finding no correlation between my overall appreciation of the print and grain size. Thats incredibly liberating and shooting a Leica M with a couple of lenses is always a pleasure to carrying a 20lb backpack. Always!

This said, there are plenty of times when I know it is MF and slow film that I want to use, but it is rare that I find myself thinking 'if only I had.' If I wander out the door with 6x7 it has an impact on what I see and what I do.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 6, 2011

Bill Burk said:
I want to share a side-by-side comparison.

The left is 4x5 TMY-2 printed with Xenar 135 f/4.5 @ f/11
The right is 35mm Panatomic-X printed with APO Rodagon 50mm f/2.8 @ f/11
Both developed in D-76 1:1

Hi Bill,

Thanks for sharing your prints!

It seems, to me, that the differences between your two prints would be largely subjective and relating to what flavor we like. How do you perceive the differences, personally?

- Thomas

Thomas Bertilsson · May 6, 2011

perkeleellinen said:
Thomas, you're about to hit 10,000 posts!

I'm really enjoying this thread, lots of great comments. I'm hesitant about posting here as I don't think what I do is very special - but it is in 35mm. I'm limited in my print size to a maximum of10x8 because I use a Nova and I think this is why all my experiments with 120 film cameras have been unsuccessful: the larger negative is total overkill and thus there's no trade off from having to carry heavy and expensive equipment.

I like to travel light: usually just a body and lens; I like to standardise things so I always use the same film, paper and chemistry. I print 5x7 on 5x7 paper or 5x7on 10x8 paper to have a big border. I've grown to like small prints and simple camera set ups firstly out of necessity and now because I don't see anything wrong with them. I really hope I don't get another bout of GAS and get another medium format camera - it's happened four times already and I sell them on within months. I'm going to subscribe to this thread and whenever I get 120 urges, I'll come back to it.

Any excuse to be passionate about 35mm photography and printing is a good excuse to participate in this thread, Steve! Thanks for chiming in.

I too like how light, compact, and spontaneous a 35mm camera can be. It is a major advantage compared to almost any other film camera. I carry modest Pentax camera equipment, a KX with a 50mm or 35mm lens isn't going to be bulky at all, and it weighs almost nothing. I can either hand hold it for general purpose documenting, or I can set it up on a tripod and make some negatives that can be enlarged seriously big without falling apart. It is, to me, almost limitless freedom built into one single camera format, and I love that aspect of it.

120 or 35mm will give similar results in 8x10 prints in my darkroom. But you really should be using the cameras you love to use and know best, at least for your more serious stuff. The less you have to think about the camera, the better the pictures will be. That's my mantra, and it works for me.

- Thomas

Thomas Bertilsson · May 6, 2011

Tom Stanworth said:
I love printing from 35mm. A great image is a great image and that it did not come from a bigger format is usually immaterial if the subject matter and technique is 35mm appropriate.

Good crunchy grain in a 20x24 can look amazing, but would I use 35mm TriX for a detailed landscape where tonality is important, no.

The more I shoot digital and MF, the more I love 35mm B&W with 400 or 3200 films. With the work I am doing these days I am finding no correlation between my overall appreciation of the print and grain size. Thats incredibly liberating and shooting a Leica M with a couple of lenses is always a pleasure to carrying a 20lb backpack. Always!

This said, there are plenty of times when I know it is MF and slow film that I want to use, but it is rare that I find myself thinking 'if only I had.' If I wander out the door with 6x7 it has an impact on what I see and what I do.

Hi Tom,

It seems like you have many different outlets for your passion, and that's wonderful. 35mm is pretty cool, isn't it?! When I started out in photography I was pretty obsessed with minimizing grain, getting ultimate sharpness, and all of that. But as I have continued, I have become a lot more focused on the pictures themselves, and their content, and grain - well, it's supposed to be there! One of our own APUG past members, who went by 'Flotsam' here on APUG, sadly deceased, used to have that in his signature: 'That's called grain. It's supposed to be there!'.
I just learned to embrace it, and to me it usually doesn't make the picture, and it never breaks the picture. But that is obviously just my personal take on it. Other people disagree, and that's definitely a valid opinion as well. We're all passionate about photography from different viewpoints.

I'm glad you still love 35mm, in spite of all the other temptations that are out there.

- Thomas

Thomas Bertilsson · May 6, 2011

Michael R 1974 said:
Perhaps I'm a bit off topic again, but since you brought up swimming pools I thought I'd mention Clyde Butcher's insane darkroom. Granted, he only does large format, but every piece of equipment in his darkroom makes me feel like a Smurf in some giant's lair. You could swim laps in his sinks, and his gigantic Salzman enlargers are probably the safest things to hide under in the event of an earthquake.

Michael, I'm not sure I've ever seen his darkroom, but I'm pretty sure I'd feel like an amoeba too... My darkroom is in a dark corner of an uninsulated stone wall basement, right next to the furnace and washing machine... Even if I ripped all of the equipment out, there isn't enough elbow grease and pry bars to fit even one of those sinks in there...

brucemuir · May 6, 2011

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Hi Bruce,

I humbly apologize; it's certainly not the intent.

Oh, I know Thomas. I was just screwing around.

Funny how alot of things folks say on this site mirror my own thought.
Your mention of obsession with minimizing grain etc and going to MF but returning to 135.

I have a range of excellent MF equipment but have recently been trying out single coated optics on 135 just to expand my toolbox.

I think it's a backlash from digital. The sterility of digital capture just gets a bit...well, sterile.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 6, 2011

Bruce, I think there are many ways we can be passionate about 35mm film photography.

It seems to be the most common vessel of moving from shooting digital, to trying film, for example. I see many digi-shooters trying film, and it's almost always with 35mm.

Any reason to loving 35mm, and any other format, and to be passionate about using it as a serious imaging tool, is a great reason!

Have fun! Shoot more 'organic' looking film.

Dave in Kansas · May 6, 2011

This has been a most interesting thread. I didn't notice it right away and have now read every post. Much of what has been said applies to me.

I recall some 30 years ago I had an opportunity to shoot some pictures of a steam locomotive coming into town one snowy winter morning. I grabbed several film holders and my 4 x 5 Speed Graphic and went out. My dad went with me and I had him shoot my 35mm Pentax as a back up. Guess which one made a better 11 x 14 print? The 35mm was just better, mostly because of composition and timing, and I think the focus was a little better too.

One thing I can say for certain is that my darkroom skills have improved considerably in the past few years due in large part to what I have read here on APUG, and this has improved what I can get from 35. I never had any formal instruction. 35mm can certainly produce excellent results, but there is truth to saying "Use the right tool for the job." Somehow, I feel I need to justify my investment in medium format equipment.

I also believe that the film has been improved over the years and what is available today is simply outstanding.

One drawback 35mm has for me is the small negative, which makes small contact prints. My eyes have not improved with age so I often look at my negatives on my computer monitor to determine which ones to print. 35mm is a very capable format, in my opinion, and should not be sold short.

Dave

jamusu · May 6, 2011

Enough! This thread has forced me to do something that I have neglected to do. Dust of my Voightlander Vito B and use it this weekend. I purchased it over two and a half years ago, and besides the initial test roll, have failed to appreciate it. Thomas, you are the blame for the 35mm pictorial rampage that I am about to unleash on the public.

Jamusu.

Tom Stanworth · May 7, 2011

Its official, my 35mm film Ms are just killing my desire to shoot anything else:

I took my 5dII and Ms to the US and ended up shooting the Ms constantly.
I took my M6 and Mamiya 7 to India, shot my Mamiya a lot, but felt on balance I should have used the M6 more to increase fluidity. In fact, I will be going back to the same spot for a month with 35mm only to sort out what I should have done the first time!
I am back in Kabul with my M and 5DII. I have used the 5D once and felt totally 'weird.' Instead I am messing about with flash lit 35mm docu work... when really I should be working on my digital workflow.

Yes, I know I will have to make prints when I get home and digitise them to get to the point of a working file I could be shooting now on digital.

The current trend is for very large prints and so the natural inclination is to shoot MF, but you know what? I think I can produce better large prints in some cases simply because of the fluidity of 35mm use and one's ability to get in so close to the action and exploit DOF. That's my theory and I am sticking to it! I have nto gone larger than 20x24, but very soon I will be trying double that size.

35mm thrills me, because it does not get in the way of my thrills...

Bill Burk · May 7, 2011

Hi Thomas,

Here is a closer side-by-side comparison. Same two prints. 4x5 on the left, 35mm on the right.

Earlier comparison was 300 DPI this is close to 1800 DPI.

Bright specks are surface reflections on the prints not on the negatives. The 35mm print background is not as white.

My DII enlarger is not aligned, but that's a non-issue because I picked a particularly sharp area for the closeup.

Conclusion: 35mm fine-grain film on a tripod can rival 4x5 fast film on a tripod. Both are appropriate for 11x14 silver gelatin prints viewed extremely critically, where the eye can sense 1800 DPI.

patrickjames · May 7, 2011

Tom Stanworth said:
35mm thrills me, because it does not get in the way of my thrills...

Couldn't agree more Tom. There is a real freedom to the format.

Poisson Du Jour · May 7, 2011

Why is the scan 1800dpi? The higher dpi results only results in a higher file size that will be disproportional to, for instance, web viewing (set at 72 to 100dpi or specifically, digital output, where most printers are at the 300dpi end with scans from 2420 to 3,000 dpi before fine downsampling.

The comparison between 5x4 and 35mm is technically too shallow. Even as a devout, decades-long 35mm users, I acknowledge that 5x4 is a superior format in terms of resolution and detail; it is just too slow, unwieldly and potentially troublesome in a great many conditions.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 7, 2011

Poisson Du Jour said:
Why is the scan 1800dpi? The higher dpi results only results in a higher file size that will be disproportional to, for instance, web viewing (set at 72 to 100dpi or specifically, digital output, where most printers are at the 300dpi end with scans from 2420 to 3,000 dpi before fine downsampling.

The comparison between 5x4 and 35mm is technically too shallow. Even as a devout, decades-long 35mm users, I acknowledge that 5x4 is a superior format in terms of resolution and detail; it is just too slow, unwieldly and potentially troublesome in a great many conditions.

That's just it, though. 35mm CAN have resolution very similar to 120 and almost 4x5. In fact, it can even be superior, depending on film choice.
Grain will obviously be more visible, because of magnification, but it's so fine at 11x14, (and sometimes 16x20), that to some it neither makes or breaks the picture. It is more than adequate for making stunning prints.

I'd like to re-emphasize that the thread isn't really about comparing ultimate print quality between 4x5 and 35mm. 4x5 will probably make for a better print.
What is astonishing, though, is how incredibly close we can get with that tiny little negative. That is just mind-boggling and incredibly rewarding.

Keep having fun with whatever you're shooting.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 7, 2011

patrickjames said:
Couldn't agree more Tom. There is a real freedom to the format.

This is exactly what I love about it too! It's a fantastic format for portraiture, street shooting, documentation, events, weddings, artistic expression like abstracts, etc. But it can also be coaxed into delivering amazing prints for landscape use, which seems untraditional. But with the right film, the right treatment, and a keen eye making use of the strengths of the 35mm format, it can really give a crisp and refreshing landscape as well.
My latest thrill with the format has been shooting urban landscapes with it, using Ilford Delta 3200, developed in Rodinal. I print these at 16x20 size, and about a 1" border all around, and while it is grainy (which is intentional), it is also surprisingly sharp! I checked into it, and as it turns out, both Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200 resolves more detail than FP4+ and Plus-X does.
And I'd like you all to be reminded of the work of Clay Harmon. He just released a book with Bill Schwab's North Light Press, of his 'Telos' work, which is night time urban landscapes, shot with 35mm film and TMax 3200. Check it out! It's amazing work, with a seemingly unlikely process.

I am having such a blast shooting and printing 35mm that I'm having a hard time holding back my enthusiasm.

- Thomas

Bill Burk · May 7, 2011

Hi Poisson Du Jour,

The illustration is from analog silver gelatin prints. Shown here at 1800 DPI equivalent just to support this discussion.

Don't forget, my conclusion is the two prints have the same resolution and detail!

What I'm saying is that when everything comes together, 35mm can be as good as 4x5.

Bill Burk · May 7, 2011

Thomas Bertilsson said:
...depending on film choice...
...it's so fine at 11x14...

Exactly!

Imagine how large a print you could make if you can't see the grain at 1800 DPI on an 11x14 print - but you accept 300 DPI for prints - is it 6 times larger?

I should have tried to calculate lines per mm which is a more appropriate way to quantify resolution of analog processes...

Poisson Du Jour · May 7, 2011

An 11x14 inch print is on the smallish side that will of course preserve good detail. Go bigger to fully exploit the potential of 35mm to the point where a print no longer looks attractive through loss of resolution. For years I my gallery Ilfochrome prints were printed at 20x30 (50x75cm) from 35mm. I am printing bigger than this now through digital colour output.

35mm enlarging - who is passionate about it?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency