35mm enlarging - who is passionate about it?

Jon Butler · May 11, 2011

I got one of the last new V35s in the UK when they stoped making them. By that time they had the Leica lable not Leitz and it cost me over £2500.
Use a 4x5 enlarger mostly now but for 35mm there's nothing better, I love using it and it's still in mint nick, I will never sell it.
J..

jm94 · May 14, 2011

35mm is all i can afford, but you really can push it if done right! I had over exposed a negative which i proceeded to develop in rodinal at box speed and that mistake was made instantly obvious once enlarged! 35mm is cheap, fun, and what is better than watching your print appear under the red light? (i hope a colour safelight at least lets me see that). The only downside, as my friend whom does 120 and 4x5 tray processing told me, is any scratch, loss of emulsion or defect is more lethal on 35mm than the larger formats. Only last night me and my friend shot a roll which had water marks after drying.... so he proceeded to wipe them off on his T SHIRT! the scratches added a lovely effect to the darkish sky at 5x7. (I had gone up the side of the abandoned factory, up the fire escape and up a ladder and i could see alot of the town from up there, so i shot a few shots! These i push-processed. 35mm rocks although i do want to give the 120 format a try once ive completely found my feet, but I don't see the point really until i start doing giant enlargments. A4 is about as big as i will go for a while until ive completely found my feet. ISO25 is bound to give you grain-free if used properly at ISO25. So to sum it up? cheap, fun, easy, great for starters or professionals alike.

heespharm · May 14, 2011

I learned this weekend I hate enlarging 35mm... After working with my hassy, and 4x5 for so long I've found that 35 is not as sharp and the dust drives me nuts!!! Even a small spec annoys me... Less visible dust means less spotting prints

bwrules · May 14, 2011

heespharm said:
I learned this weekend I hate enlarging 35mm... After working with my hassy, and 4x5 for so long I've found that 35 is not as sharp and the dust drives me nuts!!! Even a small spec annoys me... Less visible dust means less spotting prints

I just stopped caring about dust. Let it be.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 14, 2011

heespharm said:
I learned this weekend I hate enlarging 35mm... After working with my hassy, and 4x5 for so long I've found that 35 is not as sharp and the dust drives me nuts!!! Even a small spec annoys me... Less visible dust means less spotting prints

Thank you for your valuable post to this thread regarding being passionate about 35mm enlarging. Your contribution is very helpful.

Seriously? Why would you post something like that here? Are you trying to ruin the joy for everyone else?
There are ways to work around the problems you have, and trust me there are ways to get prints from 35mm film sharp. Big ones too, if that's what you like.

declark · May 14, 2011

Really enjoying this thread Thomas. I usually shoot 120, but love the convenience of 35mm cameras and the cameras themselves. Got me to thinking how large I could print with 35 before it started falling apart. 8x10 is no problem, but wanted to see what 16x24 would look like so I racked the B23C almost to the ceiling and took an 8x10 crop from this frame. Technical stuff: $30 Stylus Epic, Agfa APX100, Rodinal 1:100, Freestyle VC RC, 50mm El-Nikkor at F5.6. The crop is very gritty, but I like the grit. I was pleasantly surprised.

8x10 Crop from what would be 16x24 enlargement:
https://picasaweb.google.com/109299860992050931051/Monochrome#5606636390814628418

8x10 mostly full frame:
https://picasaweb.google.com/109299860992050931051/Monochrome#5606636362379218306

patrickjames · May 14, 2011

heespharm said:
I learned this weekend I hate enlarging 35mm... After working with my hassy, and 4x5 for so long I've found that 35 is not as sharp and the dust drives me nuts!!! Even a small spec annoys me... Less visible dust means less spotting prints

This kind of cracked me up, although that probably wasn't your intention. I never have problems with dust, and I never have problems getting sharp prints. Dust is a much bigger problem with large format because it rears its ugly head on the negative not just with sloppy darkroom technique.

patrickjames · May 14, 2011

Declarck, I wonder how many people have believed the "experts" who rail on about how you can't make an enlargement from 35mm and keep passing that fallacy onwards. People should do like you did, and find out for yourself. And you did yours from a point and shoot, not some high falutin' leica with a $3000 lens on a tripod!

Tom Stanworth · May 14, 2011

35mm does test you, but it is nowhere near as bad as some might suggest. I have never found dust or scratches a regular problem, but then again I use a diffusion head.

As for dust that does cause blemishes on the print, its well worth putting in the time to become seriously good at spotting. This will mean that when you are not only able to sort out dust marks, but damaged negs too.

I have had some negs affected by air bubbles during development. One seriously important neg (645) also ended up with scratches (no idea how) and I have to print it perfectly, which entails bleaching back the dark spots on the print and then spotting them out along with the scratches once dry. The straight print looks a mess, but the spotted one looks absolutely perfect. Sure, it takes me a while (about an hour of extra work per print), but its important. 35mm teaches you to be really good at this stuff and once you are, it is a breeze when dealing with prints off bigger negs. Most of the time spotting takes anything from zero to about five mins per 16x20 print, so big problem it is not.

PS As for Tmax or D3200, I only very recently used the former and found I prefer it. Much finer grain and higher resolution, but somehow a 'colder' look to it.

Newt_on_Swings · May 14, 2011

I just picked up a free Omega C700 =] I'm planning to build my home darkroom soon. Its practically new except the bellows for fine focusing doesnt lock! i think the previous owner taped it with scotch tape, and locked its focus, how odd. but condenser lens is spotless, the rodenstock el omegar that came with it has a thick layer of haze over the front element, rear is fine, dont think thats fixable as ive tried cleaning it off, ill have to pick up an el nikkor soon.

I'll take the bellows attachment apart later and see how I can fix it. the plastic lens does not want to come apart, does anyone know how to? its a 3.5f 50mm

I usually do all my enlarging at the school I teach at on their larger lpl7700 enlargers, but I find that I have zero time to do any personal work, as I never get to be alone there to work myself. Thats why I'm converting a room in the basement for enlarging.

35mm enlarging is great fun, but I wish the format fit on the paper a bit better.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 14, 2011

declark said:
Really enjoying this thread Thomas. I usually shoot 120, but love the convenience of 35mm cameras and the cameras themselves. Got me to thinking how large I could print with 35 before it started falling apart. 8x10 is no problem, but wanted to see what 16x24 would look like so I racked the B23C almost to the ceiling and took an 8x10 crop from this frame. Technical stuff: $30 Stylus Epic, Agfa APX100, Rodinal 1:100, Freestyle VC RC, 50mm El-Nikkor at F5.6. The crop is very gritty, but I like the grit. I was pleasantly surprised.

8x10 Crop from what would be 16x24 enlargement:
https://picasaweb.google.com/109299860992050931051/Monochrome#5606636390814628418

8x10 mostly full frame:
https://picasaweb.google.com/109299860992050931051/Monochrome#5606636362379218306

Very cool! Keep up the good work, and don't let anyone fool you into thinking that better equipment will make you a better photographer.
Although a good enlarger really helps, I must admit.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 14, 2011

Tom Stanworth said:
35mm does test you, but it is nowhere near as bad as some might suggest. I have never found dust or scratches a regular problem, but then again I use a diffusion head.

As for dust that does cause blemishes on the print, its well worth putting in the time to become seriously good at spotting. This will mean that when you are not only able to sort out dust marks, but damaged negs too.

I have had some negs affected by air bubbles during development. One seriously important neg (645) also ended up with scratches (no idea how) and I have to print it perfectly, which entails bleaching back the dark spots on the print and then spotting them out along with the scratches once dry. The straight print looks a mess, but the spotted one looks absolutely perfect. Sure, it takes me a while (about an hour of extra work per print), but its important. 35mm teaches you to be really good at this stuff and once you are, it is a breeze when dealing with prints off bigger negs. Most of the time spotting takes anything from zero to about five mins per 16x20 print, so big problem it is not.

PS As for Tmax or D3200, I only very recently used the former and found I prefer it. Much finer grain and higher resolution, but somehow a 'colder' look to it.

Tom,

I wholly agree the 35mm format really puts a photographer and printer up against the wall with some challenges to overcome. I always used to have problems with dust on the negatives, and it was dust that wouldn't come off. Ever since I started storing my negative sleeves where the dust can't get to them, my problems are gone.

Anyway, there is so much evidence out there, in the world of photography, that 35mm is a format that is absolutely capable of producing gorgeous prints at almost any size. Anyone that tells me it can't be done I'm almost suspicious of. Problems are meant to be solved, and the challenge will make us stronger.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 14, 2011

Newt_on_Swings said:
I just picked up a free Omega C700 =] I'm planning to build my home darkroom soon. Its practically new except the bellows for fine focusing doesnt lock! i think the previous owner taped it with scotch tape, and locked its focus, how odd. but condenser lens is spotless, the rodenstock el omegar that came with it has a thick layer of haze over the front element, rear is fine, dont think thats fixable as ive tried cleaning it off, ill have to pick up an el nikkor soon.

I'll take the bellows attachment apart later and see how I can fix it. the plastic lens does not want to come apart, does anyone know how to? its a 3.5f 50mm

I usually do all my enlarging at the school I teach at on their larger lpl7700 enlargers, but I find that I have zero time to do any personal work, as I never get to be alone there to work myself. Thats why I'm converting a room in the basement for enlarging.

35mm enlarging is great fun, but I wish the format fit on the paper a bit better.

Hey, good for you! Have fun with your enlarger, and I hope you solve the problems without too much trouble.

heespharm · May 14, 2011

patrickjames said:
This kind of cracked me up, although that probably wasn't your intention. I never have problems with dust, and I never have problems getting sharp prints. Dust is a much bigger problem with large format because it rears its ugly head on the negative not just with sloppy darkroom technique.

Hahaha yeah I used to be passionate about 35mm but I guess the love is gone... I guess I posted out of frustration... I feel like I spent half my day two days ago trying to get good enlargements out of 35mm but in the end I only got 2 good ones... Where I spent the other half enlarging medium format and almost everything was a keeper....

I AM passionate about all types of enlarging... Just 35mm is my least favorite ... Maybe because I'd print from 35mm 1-2 times weekly in the past and the newness is gone...

I also print mostly 11x14 so maybe I feel like I'm wasting paper... Maybe I should print smaller and I'll be happier with 35mm (not saying that 35mm can't be enlarged that big but I'm saying for myself I think I'd like 35mm to be more about my personal snapshots)

heespharm · May 14, 2011

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Thank you for your valuable post to this thread regarding being passionate about 35mm enlarging. Your contribution is very helpful.

Seriously? Why would you post something like that here? Are you trying to ruin the joy for everyone else?
There are ways to work around the problems you have, and trust me there are ways to get prints from 35mm film sharp. Big ones too, if that's what you like.

Yeah but have u contact printed a 4x5 or 8x10 neg... It's jaw dropping.. But I agree 35mm is challenging but is awe-inspiring once it is enlarged.. I think my favorite shot of all time that I've done has been on 35mm with a canonet ql17 and a crappy durst m301... Sharp as a tack and did not need the best gear in the world to produce... It is amazing how much info is stored on such a small neg

patrickjames · May 14, 2011

This is going to sound like anathema to some, but I clean my negs right before I put them in the glass neg holder by breathing on them and then gently wiping on the non emulsion side in one direction only (away from the other hand holding the end of the neg strip) with a clean microfiber. This takes care of almost any water mark/dust issue you could have. Sometimes with a persistent water spot you may have to go back for seconds. It leaves the neg spotless. Don't press down hard and make sure you do it on a clean surface so you don't embed anything into the emulsion. Once I started doing this and saw how well it worked, I stopped wiping my negs before they dried and just let the water spots happen if they were going to. There is your tip for the day!

dfoo · May 14, 2011

Great thread, that leaves with a thirst for a V35! And to think I just bought a new enlarger. That leaves with 3 already!

Thomas Bertilsson · May 15, 2011

heespharm said:
Yeah but have u contact printed a 4x5 or 8x10 neg... It's jaw dropping.. But I agree 35mm is challenging but is awe-inspiring once it is enlarged.. I think my favorite shot of all time that I've done has been on 35mm with a canonet ql17 and a crappy durst m301... Sharp as a tack and did not need the best gear in the world to produce... It is amazing how much info is stored on such a small neg

Forget about the size of the negative for a while, and just focus on the picture instead. If you believe that it's impossible to make good large prints from 35mm, then you probably can't do it either.
But I am here to tell you that with the right technique, care, and critical eye, you can make very large prints from 35mm and retain amazing print quality. If you try it, and still say it can't be done, then you need to work on your technique.

heespharm · May 15, 2011

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Forget about the size of the negative for a while, and just focus on the picture instead. If you believe that it's impossible to make good large prints from 35mm, then you probably can't do it either.
But I am here to tell you that with the right technique, care, and critical eye, you can make very large prints from 35mm and retain amazing print quality. If you try it, and still say it can't be done, then you need to work on your technique.

I think u missed my point... I have made great enlargements with 35mm and I think that it can make just as good as quality as enlarged MF however just frustrated from the other nights printing... I'm a fan of all analog processes and actively participate in all types....

I guess in the end all formats are a tool... Just depends what look your trying to portray

declark · May 15, 2011

Thomas, any chance you could post an Omega vs V35 sample from one of your negatives? Or did I miss that somewhere in the last 20 pages of this thread.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 15, 2011

heespharm said:
I think u missed my point... I have made great enlargements with 35mm and I think that it can make just as good as quality as enlarged MF however just frustrated from the other nights printing... I'm a fan of all analog processes and actively participate in all types....

I guess in the end all formats are a tool... Just depends what look your trying to portray

Good. If I misunderstood you, then nobody is happier than I. I'm certainly not the smartest person on Earth, and do that sometimes.

I'm glad we're back to a discussion about being passionate about 35mm enlarging.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 15, 2011

declark said:
Thomas, any chance you could post an Omega vs V35 sample from one of your negatives? Or did I miss that somewhere in the last 20 pages of this thread.

Hey, I haven't promised Omega vs V35... I have promised a snip from a 16x20 vs an entire neg scan.
I have a job that requires about 45 hours of my time every week, and I'm an adult student, and that requires another 20-25 hours. My posts here are done on breaks during either activity, and I will try to get that post up one of these days. Just bare with me, please. It isn't easy to manage my time constraints.

declark · May 15, 2011

No hurry Thomas. I just figured since you are such a prolific poster in the forums and the gallery that you had a sample at arm's reach.

thaung · May 17, 2011

Thought I would share some of my experience I gathered this weekend using both my Focomat V35 and my Durst M800 with diffusion setup. I printed the same negative (Tri-X rated at iso 400 developed in D76 1+1). I used the Focotar 40mm F2.8 on the V35 and an EL-Nikkor 50mm F2.8 on the M800. I know that using the same lens on both machines would make the test more valid but this was just an initial test and based on the outcome I intend to do further testing using the same lens (Focotar) on both enlargers.

What struck me the most was how much more the light was diffused on the M800, the grain was much less visible but naturaly the sharpness was also lacking. I used a grain-focuser to check focus on both enlargers of course. The things I´ve read before regarding the V35 not being a "true" diffusion enlarger" seems to have some truth, at least based on the very unscientific test I did. But this is at least to me not a bad thing, the V35 seems to have the contrast of a diffusion enlarger but almost the grain (sharpness) of a condenser.

When I have done the test using the same lens I will try posting some scanned pictures so you can look a the results yourself.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 17, 2011

Interesting observations regarding light source and diffusion. Perhaps that was a conscious decision by Leitz, in order to get the best of both worlds? The sharpness and contrast of a condenser enlarger, and the benefit of decimating some of the otherwise painful negative artifacts. I can only guess.

Do you use something like a PEAK grain focuser when you enlarge? I find that to be an invaluable tool to make perfectly sharp prints.
I look forward to your results.

35mm enlarging - who is passionate about it?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency