35mm enlarging - who is passionate about it?

[JCJackson]

I have shot the same scene with Fuji Acros 100 in 645 format, and with ADOX CMS 20 in 35mm format. Enlarged to 16 x 20 the results are indistinguishable in detail, even under a loupe. I used Pentax cameras in both cases, working with "normal" prime lenses. Stopping down to f8, and using a nice heavy tripod were also common factors. The 35mm negative was scanned at 4000dpi and printed (digitally) at 2ft x 3ft, and the result was amazingly sharp. It is, in some respects, easier to print the 645 negatives. Among other things, the dust specs are much smaller. 4x5 would undoubtedly be even better. But I find the level of detail and resolution that I get from the 35mm CMS negatives to be more than adequate for enlargements at 16 x 20, and 35mm offers a greater variety of lenses (especially the wide angle shift lenses), so I will continue to work with it. Since there were so many 35mm lenses produced during the "golden era," they are also available at more reasonable prices than the medium format stuff. As to enlarging, I am using an Omega condenser with Schneider lenses, but it is in a communal darkroom so perfect alignment is unlikely.

 

[puptent]

Thomas, a fresh bulb made a big difference in my 23C. I was still getting light output, but I think the old bulb was, well, old. And I liked the article you linked to so much I went ahead and printed it for my notebook. And as I said earlier, I think the explosion in 35mm 30 years ago helped elevate the "quality" of the medium. Some of those pre-CAD lenses are amazing, maybe a little bigger and heavier than computer engineered lenses, but they have a personality, they have life. And there have been huge improvements in emulsions and film stock, anti fogging, etc. 35mm has been transformed from being adequate to being preferred (not said perfectly, but the gist should be there...).

 

[2F/2F]

Oh my goodness, yes. The large prints I make from Delta 3200 / Rodinal negs I could probably spot with Crayons...


Absolutely. I think the people that designed and built Omegas must have thought they could get second careers as experts in aligning the enlargers they built. The hardware really isn't very good quality, and I work on that sucker almost every month, trying to keep it aligned. It's a lot of work. When properly set up, it's not a bad enlarger. But I salivate at the idea of owning a Durst 138 or a DeVere.

I have never dared doing it as of yet. I'm afraid I won't get the neg clean again afterward. I usually just use compressed air to blow the dust off, and usually that gives me even 11x14 and 16x20 prints that I don't have to spot at all.

Keep enjoying those small negs. It seems as though you really like using the format, which I think is great.

Hi, Thomas.

The oil goes on the base side, not the emulsion side. And you really have no need to clean it, since you will need it there any time your print the neg anyhow, and the oil is not everywhere in the end, but only in the cracks themselves. I rub it on with my finger as if polishing a car ("wax on"). The oil fills any scratches on the base side, but the whole surface is also then covered with streaky oil, like after you put the wax on a car. Then I gently smooth the streaks out with a cotton ball ("wax off"), hopefully leaving only the oil that has been pushed down into the scratches.

I thought when first trying it that it would simply soften the line on the print, making spotting easier. But it actually appears to "fill" the scratch on the print.

It saved my butt really, really big once. I was printing a portfolio on a deadline, and I had finally got to the final print, a print which was very important to close the series; no other neg would have worked as well. I had two pretty-much identical negs, but one was exposed better and slightly straighter. The slightly crooked and underexposed one also had a nasty scratch on the base side. So, of course, I was printing the better one, and unfortunately (and I have forgotten exactly how I did it), a little splash of stop bath landed on the emulsion when I was dusting the neg. I didn't notice when it happened, but I started seeing this weird thing appear on the print, and started obsessing over cleaning the neg again. I busted out the film cleaner, which I rarely do. Then I realized that what I thought was some schmutz was actually an area where the emulsion had been partially eaten away, leaving a depression. Being horrified and desperate, I started printing the other neg, but it had a big, long, sharp white scratch through the sky, about 4 inches long on an 8x12 print. Nose oil on the base side to fill the crack made it look as if I had scanned the neg and fixed the scratch with a clone stamp in Photoshop. It didn't even require any touch up with spot tone.

It's really worth trying on a junk neg or two if you have the time. But AFAIK, it is only useful for scratches on the base side. For scratches on the other side, a mechanical pencil to fill the scratch on the emulsion followed by some good spotting is the best way I have found. It is a PITA and rarely looks perfect when I do –*just better than not doing it.

 

[vpwphoto]

This article does explain it extremely well:

Most people simply doesn't want to believe that 35mm can be an extremely serious contender, even for landscapes, if all aspects of photography is applied properly and with a lot of critical thinking.

A fellow graduate student who's work I was always in awe of enlarged 35mm to 16x20.

Yes the light source and projecting lens have a lot to do with it. I used to use a Focomat in college, always missed it, although I think my Bessler 45mxt and Rodenstock 80mm are dialed in. I mostly use the Cold Light/ AND ABOVE LENS VC filtrateion (even though it doesn't matter:confused. I find some negatives print better with the condenser head... TRI-x.

I love all the instruments at my disposal... different lenses, chemistry, papers, etc etc.

 

[vpwphoto]

Bob,
own.

My Omega enlarger may be a lemon, for all I know, but no matter how I align it, I just can't get the same quality print from it as I can from the Leitz. it's a pain in the neck to work with compared to the Leitz...

I always thought the Omega's attachment to the baseboard was suspect and could be a source of micro vibrations/amplification, especially dependent on what it is attached to. The Bessler 45 has that neat trapezoid attachment that has less resonance. Of course the Focomat is a work of art.

All this being said... when I am printing long exposure time I always let the enlarger "quiet down" before starting the print... I also TURN THE MUSIC down. That negative is like an ear-drum... think about it folks. If you have an eye for sharpness, a quiet darkroom is key!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Hi, Thomas.

The oil goes on the base side, not the emulsion side. And you really have no need to clean it, since you will need it there any time your print the neg anyhow, and the oil is not everywhere in the end, but only in the cracks themselves. I rub it on with my finger as if polishing a car ("wax on"). The oil fills any scratches on the base side, but the whole surface is also then covered with streaky oil, like after you put the wax on a car. Then I gently smooth the streaks out with a cotton ball ("wax off"), hopefully leaving only the oil that has been pushed down into the scratches.

I thought when first trying it that it would simply soften the line on the print, making spotting easier. But it actually appears to "fill" the scratch on the print.

It saved my butt really, really big once. I was printing a portfolio on a deadline, and I had finally got to the final print, a print which was very important to close the series; no other neg would have worked as well. I had two pretty-much identical negs, but one was exposed better and slightly straighter. The slightly crooked and underexposed one also had a nasty scratch on the base side. So, of course, I was printing the better one, and unfortunately (and I have forgotten exactly how I did it), a little splash of stop bath landed on the emulsion when I was dusting the neg. I didn't notice when it happened, but I started seeing this weird thing appear on the print, and started obsessing over cleaning the neg again. I busted out the film cleaner, which I rarely do. Then I realized that what I thought was some schmutz was actually an area where the emulsion had been partially eaten away, leaving a depression. Being horrified and desperate, I started printing the other neg, but it had a big, long, sharp white scratch through the sky, about 4 inches long on an 8x12 print. Nose oil on the base side to fill the crack made it look as if I had scanned the neg and fixed the scratch with a clone stamp in Photoshop. It didn't even require any touch up with spot tone.

It's really worth trying on a junk neg or two if you have the time. But AFAIK, it is only useful for scratches on the base side. For scratches on the other side, a mechanical pencil to fill the scratch on the emulsion followed by some good spotting is the best way I have found. It is a PITA and rarely looks perfect when I do –*just better than not doing it.

I'll keep it in mind some time when I need it. I have been lucky so far, in that I haven't damaged any really important negs with scratches (yet).

It's a neat trick, for sure, and I have a strange admiration for the person that came up with it...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Larger formats have in general better tonality, less grain and higher resolution. But the visible grain structure and sometimes harsher tonality is also a valuable quality of 35mm...

I agree with most of what you say, Trond. But I once again refer to the article I hyperlinked in post number 6. It proves that if you use the right film, and apply the same care to exposing 35mm negatives that you do with 120 and 4x5, you will in fact get resolution that is comparable, for various reasons, but mainly relating to lens resolution.

So while I agree with you that you get a different, smoother tonality, and less enlarged grain, from a larger negative, resolution is still a territory where 35mm holds its own like there was no tomorrow.

Either way, I get what you're saying, and I am glad you're aboard and enjoying the format.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas, a fresh bulb made a big difference in my 23C. I was still getting light output, but I think the old bulb was, well, old. And I liked the article you linked to so much I went ahead and printed it for my notebook. And as I said earlier, I think the explosion in 35mm 30 years ago helped elevate the "quality" of the medium. Some of those pre-CAD lenses are amazing, maybe a little bigger and heavier than computer engineered lenses, but they have a personality, they have life. And there have been huge improvements in emulsions and film stock, anti fogging, etc. 35mm has been transformed from being adequate to being preferred (not said perfectly, but the gist should be there...).

Oh, I absolutely agree that the materials we have today is a very big contributor to making 35mm such an amazing format that it is in our age.
If you compare modern films with traditional films, the numbers in resolution is wholly in favor of the TMax, Delta, and Acros films. That doesn't necessarily make them better films, but since they resolve a lot more detail, it is much easier to get a great large print from them. When size gets big, it becomes evident which films have enough resolution, and which don't.
It's almost impossible to believe that Ilford Delta 3200 has higher resolution than Kodak Plus-X. But it does! More grain - yes. But sharper details. Pick your medicine carefully.

I tried out a Leica camera not so long ago, and a friend loaned me a 50mm f/1.5 Summitar to use with it. While the 50mm Summicron was technically more correct, I liked the results from the Summitar better, especially for portraits. I'm sure the same is true for enlarging lenses.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have shot the same scene with Fuji Acros 100 in 645 format, and with ADOX CMS 20 in 35mm format. Enlarged to 16 x 20 the results are indistinguishable in detail, even under a loupe. I used Pentax cameras in both cases, working with "normal" prime lenses. Stopping down to f8, and using a nice heavy tripod were also common factors. The 35mm negative was scanned at 4000dpi and printed (digitally) at 2ft x 3ft, and the result was amazingly sharp. It is, in some respects, easier to print the 645 negatives. Among other things, the dust specs are much smaller. 4x5 would undoubtedly be even better. But I find the level of detail and resolution that I get from the 35mm CMS negatives to be more than adequate for enlargements at 16 x 20, and 35mm offers a greater variety of lenses (especially the wide angle shift lenses), so I will continue to work with it. Since there were so many 35mm lenses produced during the "golden era," they are also available at more reasonable prices than the medium format stuff. As to enlarging, I am using an Omega condenser with Schneider lenses, but it is in a communal darkroom so perfect alignment is unlikely.

You know, I was meaning to try some of that CMS 20 film a while back, but I had reported by sources I trust that there are a lot of developing problems, even using their proprietary developer. Black specks in the emulsion for no good reason, and so on.
Reliability is amazingly important to me, so I canned that project. Have you had reliability issues?

 

[2F/2F]

Thomas, you might like Rollei ATP in POTA. It is slow as molasses, but stunning.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas, you might like Rollei ATP in POTA. It is slow as molasses, but stunning.

I might find time for it some day... Testing new films is something I have little time for, unfortunately. Too much work and school in addition to photography, I'm afraid.

When it was available, I used to use Agfa APX 25. What a film that was!

 

[2F/2F]

Just thought I'd mention it, since we are talking about resolution, and pushing 35mm to the limits. That would be my combo if I decided to approach 35mm like larger formats.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Just thought I'd mention it, since we are talking about resolution, and pushing 35mm to the max.

You know, my reply was fairly selfish... My brain isn't working too well sometimes. It might of course be beneficial to someone else. Sorry.

 

[2F/2F]

I didn't mean to make you feel selfish, Thomas! I didn't feel that way at all. Just thought you might like to try it if you are ever interesting in really pulling the max possible out of a piece of 35mm film. Combine that film with excellent lenses, and you are going to give larger formats a run for their money...and the film is made in medium and large formats too!

 

[bwrules]

Some pictures you can take with 35mm are simply impossible with larger sizes. Trade-offs. I noticed most people shoot landscapes and nature on APUG, and in the case of landscape larger sizes and slow photography certainly make a lot of sense. Neither I know someone, nor have I seen him/her shooting street with large format.

 

[vpwphoto]

I shot Basketball on a Graflex for kicks in 1982.

 

[Trond]

I agree with most of what you say, Trond. But I once again refer to the article I hyperlinked in post number 6. It proves that if you use the right film, and apply the same care to exposing 35mm negatives that you do with 120 and 4x5, you will in fact get resolution that is comparable, for various reasons, but mainly relating to lens resolution.

So while I agree with you that you get a different, smoother tonality, and less enlarged grain, from a larger negative, resolution is still a territory where 35mm holds its own like there was no tomorrow.

Either way, I get what you're saying, and I am glad you're aboard and enjoying the format.

The article is very interesting. But if the highest possible resolution is the goal, I have to carry and use a tripod and then I could just as well bring my medium format camera along as well. I am thinking that if high resolution is that important, then maybe finer grain is important too? With larger formats I get both.

Also, sharpness is not the same as resolution. Resolution is measurable, while sharpness is not. Many grainy 35mm photographs can look incredibly sharp, despite low resolution.

Anyway, I love 35mm, but not necessarily because of the high resolution possible with the format.

Trond

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Nice to observe the personal experiences and observations of somebody working devotedly in the 35mm format and enjoying it enough to share the satisfaction. It has been my chosen and much-loved format since the 1970s before a brief stint using 6x6 around 1981, then back to 35mm all the way to now. People visiting my studio and seeing prints on the wall wonder aloud: "so, are they from big [medium/large] format cameras?". Imagine the reaction, and it is very common, to be shown a humble 35mm tranny on the lightbox. The reactions are classic.

Yes, some fantastic imaging quality can easily be achieved in the small format with quality optics and a refined skills approach, but you do have to work toward it as a quality objective, and not give up on small failings (which will occur if you let the camera do all the thinking for you!). It is harder to meter than, say 6x6 or my other pet-love format now, 6x17cm, but of course practice over many years in many, many different situations (bracketing, for instance) will cement you and the small image size together.

I have a B&W print here that was made in 1991 using T-Max 3200 pushed to 6400 to accentuate grain; the lens was an el-cheapo Minolta AF 50mm and definitely not a top-drawer optic, yet the detail is astounding. The print is 50cm in height and could go much, much bigger (cost considerations counter doing that). Images printed from 35mm Velvia trannies are slightly bigger than this.

What troubles me often is people spending many thousands of dollars on medium- and large format outfits and only printing to postcard sizes (!), or filing negatives away and not printing anything. Vetting and printing (...matting, framing etc.) should be the automatic second-task to making the photograph.

 

[markbarendt]

The "fascination" I have with enlarging 35mm film is rooted 1-in the cameras making shooting easy/fast, and 2-the control of detail possible.

For 2 what I mean is that I don't normally want to portray every pore on a brides face or every blade of grass in a scene, just not my style.

35mm gives me options to control detail, like how many zits I want to see in the print.

This doesn't mean I don't want sharp/no-blur shots, I'm just after more pictorial results normally.

F64 style is ok on occasion and 35mm can do that too.

 

[jamusu]

Thomas.

I will be switching to the 645 to broaden my horizons. I feel the time has come that I learn to use it, especially since I have lot's of frozen medium format film. Also, for my next project, I believe medium format will be the better choice so it is only practical that I learn to appreciate it more in advance by using it before hand. Also it is interesting that you mentioned Salgado and Bresson. They are my favorite photographers and it is there 35mm work that first inspired me when I began photography. Here is a combined video of their work that I view quite frequently for inspiration. Take a look:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzpaXiRyoi4

Jamusu.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Jamusu,

That's an excellent reason to try something new. Have fun with it!

Thanks for the video.

- Thomas

 

[JCJackson]

You know, I was meaning to try some of that CMS 20 film a while back, but I had reported by sources I trust that there are a lot of developing problems, even using their proprietary developer. Black specks in the emulsion for no good reason, and so on.
Reliability is amazingly important to me, so I canned that project. Have you had reliability issues?

It has worked well for me with the proprietary developer. Having heard that it is a thin, delicate emulsion I have opted to use a water rinse as a stop bath. Even with the ADOX developer, I think you will be better please if you rate it at ISO 12-16 than the box speed. Because of the (polyester?) film base it is also tough to load on metal reels.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks for the explanation. I'm glad it has worked out for you. It's as though the local water supply has something to do with the outcome.

Either way, from those that do use the film, and are able to make it work without issues, I hear really good things. Perhaps some day I will try it out, but today I'm busy trying to support Eastman Kodak by buying most of my film, film developer, and stop bath from them, and I think they need my help...

- Thomas

 

[Роберт]

Low contrast document developers are sensitive for iron in the (tap-) water. So you have to take care about this problem.

Here an example of 35mm ATP1.1 (= Agfa Copex with extended red sensitivity, like T.P.) in the ATP-DC developer which has been made by SPUR.

The lady is from Kazachstan. Leica M7 + Summarit 2,5/75mm.

 

[jamusu]

Jamusu,

That's an excellent reason to try something new. Have fun with it!

Thanks for the video.

- Thomas

You are welcome Thomas.