35mm enlarging - who is passionate about it?

[Bill Burk]

Hi Poisson Du Jour,

I am a critical viewer and so for me to be happy with a print larger than 11x14, I might have to use fine-grain film on 4x5. The way I use 4x5 TMY-2 these days might not give me negatives that will make me happy enlarged to 20x30.

I appreciate color 4x5 on Ilfochrome, we have some Jeffrey Becom works on our walls. I can imagine a fine-grain color 35mm will make a successful 20x30 Ilfochrome.

I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread that grain becomes part of the beauty in larger prints. If a large print is carelessly made and the grain is soft, viewers will complain about lack of resolution. But if the grain is sharp, then the print seems sharp.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Bill, Velvia 50 or 100F makes beautiful Ilfochromes — I cannot seem to get this through to the digital brigade who still form the opinion that "nobody uses film anymore because digital is better". Oh my goodness, tell me if I'm not missing something here! But I digress. Though very fond of Fuji, in fairness, Kodak's E100 stock also makes a beautiful 'chrome, though with its own peculiar palette that some people have found jarring viewed beside Velvia and vice versa ("all a matter of personal taste!"). It was during the years of Ilfochrome printing that I formed a qualified, resolute opinion that it is not necessary at allto move to 5x4 for chrome work, but the bigger picture is that large print costs and matting, framing would have seen me go from living on a can of baked beans each week to just a boiled egg!!

Yes indeed. Grain can be successfully exploited for effect if it is planned from the start and incorporated conceptually and creatively, rather than "run into it" by accident and then turn the air blue because "that film is too grainy!". All films have grain though. Velvia 50 and Provia 100 — both of which have well modulated grain structures permitting quite big prints to be made. Elsewhere on APUG I have posted relating to a 35mm TMAX P3200 negative pushed to 6400 with breathtaking tonal range and enunciation of grain which leant itself very much to the romantic, old world setting of the subject (1948 Ford Zephyr parked underneath a Heritage listed private hotel with ornate lacework on the verandah).

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Thats exactly it. Grain and sparkle. If you have those, its amazing what can be done with 35mm and to that end, for really large prints, films with real nice grain (even if it is not small) and crisp developers can look an awful lot more impressive than the fine grained solutions. I think my 24" prints of TriX in Xtol 1+2, or Foma 100 in rodinal, look better than D100 in Xtol 1+1. Sure, the latter has more resolution and smoother tonality, but the other have that X factor.

Hi Poisson Du Jour,

....

I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread that grain becomes part of the beauty in larger prints. If a large print is carelessly made and the grain is soft, viewers will complain about lack of resolution. But if the grain is sharp, then the print seems sharp.

 

[patrickjames]

In order to make a big enlargement from 35mm the grain absolutely has to be sharp in the print. I think that is where many people go astray. Everything must be in order. There really is no room for sloppiness.

One of my "things" used to be to take Neopan 1600 and overexpose it (around 250 EI) and overdevelop it in Rodinal. It was absolutely gorgeous like this. The series Deconstructed on my website was mostly done this way, although it doesn't really show up in a 500 pixel image. People often asked me how I got that look but I never said. Since Neopan is gone, I might as well fess up. Neopan 1600 was sharp. I stopped using it a few years ago but was really sad when I found out it was gone. There is nothing else like it.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

In order to make a big enlargement from 35mm the grain absolutely has to be sharp in the print. I think that is where many people go astray. Everything must be in order. There really is no room for sloppiness.
[...]

I had to read that paragraph a few times, but something doesn't quite gel to me.
Do you mean focus should be absolutely sharp in the image? Grain is what it is in any image, very small, visible or enunciated (as some of the foregoing posts describe). Certainly a poorly focused imaged would be patently obvious at anything larger than A4, and disastrous at big enlargements of course.

 

[patrickjames]

Poisson, you are assuming! At larger sizes the most important thing is that the grain is resolved on the paper. The negative does not have to be perfect. Of course this is my opinion, but if our eyes see the grain as sharp, our brains accept the image. The best example of this is a print of one of Capa's D-Day landing images I saw once blown up to probably six or seven feet. Terrible negative, but beautiful print. This differs though according to situation so it is not absolute.

You have to keep in mind when you read my opinions though that I am not concerned about most technical issues. I abandoned that carrot chase a long time ago. People that are overly concerned with technical issues at the time of taking a picture take the most boring f'in pictures imaginable. I don't need to make sure that my highlights fall on a certain zone for example. I get it close by experience and feel and do the rest in the darkroom. In the darkroom you have to start from a good foundation otherwise everything you do is crap. That means an enlarger that is aligned with even illumination and a good lens. I am amazed how often people talk about their camera lenses but the most important lens you own is your enlarging lens! You can get the best lenses now for so cheap, barely more than a box of paper. There really is no excuse for not having one. To illustrate my point, right now there is a 40mm Focotar in the classifieds for a measly $110 and it has been there all day! That is a better lens than practically everyone reading this thread, or any thread, has yet it sits there, languishing. The one lens out of all the lenses I own that I would freak about losing is my enlarging lens. Think about that.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I agree with Patrick. I bought a laser alignment tool for my enlarger and this, along with the 63mm nikkor (and the 60mm rodagon I won at the same time on ebay), made making large 35mm prints easier and better. Before them I had a bizarre vignetting/corner blurring issue with my set up and 50mm lenses (lets not go there, I never solved it and neither did anyone else after lots of posts on this forum).

The Nikkor is astonishingly good (the rodagon is too) and I have learnt what F stops I need to use to get the best corners depending on enlargement size. I check with my laser alignment tool every time I adjust the column height because it needs tweaks to get perfect alignment. And yes, it makes a difference.

I prefer either no grain and incredible tonality from small enlargement factors or visible grain. I find the in between is where I get disappointed, because your brain can sense the disruption to tonality but you cannot see the grain clearly yet.

I also agree that the more pics I take the less I worry about technical quality. This does not mean I do not enjoy larger formats- I stil use my Mamiya 7 a fair amount - only that I have seen how little it comes into play with my own final satisfaction in an image and that of others too. Feel is the most important thing and techical quality makes a variable contribution depending on the image.

Seeing a Salgado exhibition in London many years ago, where the prints sparkled and glowed despite being large and from 35mm, showed me what was possible and changed how I went forwards.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thats exactly it. Grain and sparkle. If you have those, its amazing what can be done with 35mm and to that end, for really large prints, films with real nice grain (even if it is not small) and crisp developers can look an awful lot more impressive than the fine grained solutions. I think my 24" prints of TriX in Xtol 1+2, or Foma 100 in rodinal, look better than D100 in Xtol 1+1. Sure, the latter has more resolution and smoother tonality, but the other have that X factor.

That's another really important factor in enjoying a print, I think. Some people complain about grain, and to each their own, but I absolutely agree that a crisp and sharp grain looks fantastic in a print, and can definitely enhance the enjoyment of viewing it.
I confess that I've been on a bit of a high being able to make grainless 11x14 prints from 35mm TMax and Acros, but the other night I re-printed some portraits that I had done with Tri-X and Pyrocat a few years back, and I don't see those prints as being any less appealing than the less grainy ones.
Instead of thinking of grain as simply 'grain', I like to think of it as 'texture'. There are so many ways of doing things, but I really appreciate the discussion about sharpness. If the picture is 'textured' - let the grain be sharp and an integral part of the picture, clearly visible and defined.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I am amazed how often people talk about their camera lenses but the most important lens you own is your enlarging lens!....... .......To illustrate my point, right now there is a 40mm Focotar in the classifieds for a measly $110 and it has been there all day!............. .......... The one lens out of all the lenses I own that I would freak about losing is my enlarging lens. Think about that.

Absolutely! I use the Focotar myself, and it's a really stellar performer. I will explore the APO lenses eventually, based on posts to this thread by MichaelR, Bob Carnie, and others. It seems as though I can raise the bar even higher than I thought, and that will surely become an interesting endeavor!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I bought a laser alignment tool for my enlarger and this, along with the 63mm nikkor (and the 60mm rodagon I won at the same time on ebay), made making large 35mm prints easier and better....... ........Seeing a Salgado exhibition in London many years ago, where the prints sparkled and glowed despite being large and from 35mm, showed me what was possible and changed how I went forwards.

Tom, can you tell us if those 60mm and 63mm lenses are intended to be used as wide angle medium format enlarging lenses? I'm just curious.

Salgado's prints are amazing! I've seen some of his big prints here in Minneapolis, in collaborative exhibitions, showing work of many photographers. When the prints are as good as his, with very carefully selected tonality and contrast, in combination with a very sharply printed grain, it's as though I see 'through' the grain and go directly to the content. It is fascinating to behold.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

Hello 'fish of the day'...

I'd love to see one of those Ilfochromes! My mind usually wanders in the black and white world, and I seldom think of color, but when I see a great color print it usually arrests me!
I like how you went beyond the obvious print sizes and went much larger with your 35mm work, trying out what most people don't believe is possible. Kudos to you for that!

- Thomas

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Hi Poisson Du Jour,

I am a critical viewer and so for me to be happy with a print larger than 11x14, I might have to use fine-grain film on 4x5. The way I use 4x5 TMY-2 these days might not give me negatives that will make me happy enlarged to 20x30.

I appreciate color 4x5 on Ilfochrome, we have some Jeffrey Becom works on our walls. I can imagine a fine-grain color 35mm will make a successful 20x30 Ilfochrome.

I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread that grain becomes part of the beauty in larger prints. If a large print is carelessly made and the grain is soft, viewers will complain about lack of resolution. But if the grain is sharp, then the print seems sharp.

Hi Bill,

Did you know that Kodak TMax 400 and Panatomic-X have almost the same RMS granularity? Panatomic-X slightly finer at 9, and TMY-2 at 10.
But Panatomic-X is decidedly sharper, with twice the resolving power of TMY-2.

Sorry for posting the geek numbers, since this thread seems to be going in the direction of enjoying the advantages of 35mm photography, which sometimes directly contradicts the raw data we have regarding things like lens- and film resolution, granularity, and sharpness.
We have seen several accounts now where the idea of embracing the visual element that grain constitutes is as important to some, as the lack of the same is to others.
But what really seems to matter is to make prints that emphasize the content of the picture, however you feel that is best achieved.

This just keeps on getting more interesting with each post.

 

[Bill Burk]

At larger sizes the most important thing is that the grain is resolved on the paper. The negative does not have to be perfect.... This differs though according to situation so it is not absolute.... The one lens out of all the lenses I own that I would freak about losing is my enlarging lens...

Absolutely right all the way through Patrick. I want to stress the importance pertains when the print has visible grain.

One thing that is amazing about photography is the contradictions. I want to bring one seeming contradition to add to this thread.

This pertains to black and white, not sure about color.

So long as the grain is invisible, for example by staying on 11x14 print size, I am not bothered if my enlarging lens is not perfect. When soft corners or vignetting work for an image, fine grain can mask the fact that the transition to softness happened in the darkroom.

My eye is drawn towards the sharpest part of a print where I linger. Soft edges gives me reason to keep looking within the print, if the edges support the image (continuation of a forest for example), a print that fades to softness at the edges provides a transition from the illusion of reality.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Absolutely right all the way through Patrick. I want to stress the importance pertains when the print has visible grain.

One thing that is amazing about photography is the contradictions. I want to bring one seeming contradition to add to this thread.

This pertains to black and white, not sure about color.

So long as the grain is invisible, for example by staying on 11x14 print size, I am not bothered if my enlarging lens is not perfect. When soft corners or vignetting work for an image, fine grain can mask the fact that the transition to softness happened in the darkroom.

My eye is drawn towards the sharpest part of a print where I linger. Soft edges gives me reason to keep looking within the print, if the edges support the image (continuation of a forest for example), a print that fades to softness at the edges provides a transition from the illusion of reality.

Bill,

As a (perhaps) interesting complement to your logic above, I shoot a lot of 6x6 pinhole. When I print those I have light fall-off in each corner of the negative, and it too helps draw the attention of viewing into the picture. So I completely understand what you mean about soft corners. It isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I also understand the reasoning behind that 'middle ground' discussed above, where the picture displays either clear and sharp grain, nor a completely smooth and grainless appearance, but if falls in between. That, to me, can look a bit strange as well, and takes the appearance of being a photograph that isn't quite focused, or looks very soft, like a poor resolution digital print. And it does detract from my viewing experience as well.
I think this is why I am so torn between a clear acutance developer like Rodinal, and a very fine grain developer like replenished Xtol. Both give a very sharp print, but the appearance of the grain is radically different. I love them both, but I don't know which I like the most.

 

[Bill Burk]

Kodak TMax 400 and Panatomic-X have almost the same RMS granularity...

I know. This means I am not even getting the best that 35mm can deliver! Anyone reading this thread can try film combinations that are superior to the best I have shown.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Thomas,

I think these two were designed for the baby Rollei format - was that 44x44? So a touch bigger than needed for 35mm. They work for me because of some sort of bizarre issue with my 10x8 Devere, even when using a recessed panel. I can focus no problem, but find past 14" on the long side I get progressively fuzzier corners and have to stop down to like F11 to get them good on a 20" print with my 50mm lenses (any of them). The slightly longer lenses fixed this (probably mechanical) problem. Both the 60 and 63 are darned sharp, but no more so than my 50mm Durst Neonon (Pentax) and all are noticeably 'crisper and sparklier' (very technical, I know) than the almost new Schenider 50 componon s, which incidentally also produces a tonality I dont like!

Tom, can you tell us if those 60mm and 63mm lenses are intended to be used as wide angle medium format enlarging lenses? I'm just curious.

Salgado's prints are amazing! I've seen some of his big prints here in Minneapolis, in collaborative exhibitions, showing work of many photographers. When the prints are as good as his, with very carefully selected tonality and contrast, in combination with a very sharply printed grain, it's as though I see 'through' the grain and go directly to the content. It is fascinating to behold.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Interesting, Tom.

I think the Baby Rollei took 127 film, making 40x40mm negatives. It makes sense that a 60mm lens would cover that format.

It's a bit strange what you describe about your enlarger, but I'm glad you have a solution that works to your satisfaction, especially to get that 'sparkly' print... ... which is what I'm trying to achieve as well. For me, the Focotar 40mm in the Leitz does everything I ask it to do, but I really am keen on trying an APO lens in the future.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[patrickjames]

Tom's post brings up a good point about focal length. If you use a lens that is a lot longer than the normal one it can get around issues with alignment somewhat. When I first started printing I used a 100mm lens for 35mm and my prints were pretty good. This makes sense if you think about it. The farther away from center you go the more out of focus you go, so if you are using only the very middle of the lens alignment issues are mitigated somewhat. You also have greater depth of field the farther away your negative is from the paper.

Tom also mentions the difference in tonality between lenses and I have found the exact same thing to be true. That is not to say any particular manufacturer is inferior to another, but they all are a little different so it pays to find the one that suits your style. I have used just about every enlarger lens under the sun, and among the main three that you will encounter (being Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider) Nikon has the most micro contrast. Rodenstock is in between. Schneider is the smoothest lens from a tonality standpoint.

 

[clay]

Thomas, I just ran across this thread, and I realized that you have found something that I have discovered over the last few years as well: with careful technique, you can achieve spectacular results with 35mm film.

I'll throw out a few things I have discovered and use:

Focomat V35 - anybody who uses one just loves it. Here's a tip: replace the leitz lens with the 40/2.8 APO-Componon HM. It is noticeably sharper in the corners than the factory lens, and the focal length allows you to keep the autofocus in the enlarger.

FX-37 developer for FP-4, Tri-X and TMY400. The sharpest speed maintaining developer I have found.

A Leica M and one of their newer aspheric lens like the 50/1.4 or the 35/2.0. These are just a world apart from most small camera lenses. My 16x20'ish prints from the leica and the 50/1.4 are as sharp or possibly sharper than the same size print made with by blad and the 80 planar.

Shoot for a negative CI of about .45-.55 to keep the negatives nice and sharp and printable.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Tom's post brings up a good point about focal length. If you use a lens that is a lot longer than the normal one it can get around issues with alignment somewhat. When I first started printing I used a 100mm lens for 35mm and my prints were pretty good. This makes sense if you think about it. The farther away from center you go the more out of focus you go, so if you are using only the very middle of the lens alignment issues are mitigated somewhat. You also have greater depth of field the farther away your negative is from the paper.

Tom also mentions the difference in tonality between lenses and I have found the exact same thing to be true. That is not to say any particular manufacturer is inferior to another, but they all are a little different so it pays to find the one that suits your style. I have used just about every enlarger lens under the sun, and among the main three that you will encounter (being Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider) Nikon has the most micro contrast. Rodenstock is in between. Schneider is the smoothest lens from a tonality standpoint.

Patrick,

I have done what you describe, using a lens that is a fair bit longer than the normal focal length for the 35mm format, mainly to eliminate the poor quality of my past 35mm enlarging lenses. I think the quality of the prints increased somewhat (using an 80mm f/4 Rodagon), but I ended up not being able to make the size print I wanted, due to the column height requried to get there... So it may be a slight improvement, but not one without limitations. At the time I put the slight print quality improvement down to the Rodagon just being a better lens in general, and not because it was a longer focal length, using just the center of the lens rather than most of the image circle. I can't tell whether using a longer lens had something to do with it or not.

Either way, it's definitely good to try to find solutions, and to go outside the normal frame of thought. I'd imagine that if I had more ceiling height I'd be able to use the 80mm lens successfully.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas, I just ran across this thread, and I realized that you have found something that I have discovered over the last few years as well: with careful technique, you can achieve spectacular results with 35mm film.

I'll throw out a few things I have discovered and use:

Focomat V35 - anybody who uses one just loves it. Here's a tip: replace the leitz lens with the 40/2.8 APO-Componon HM. It is noticeably sharper in the corners than the factory lens, and the focal length allows you to keep the autofocus in the enlarger.

FX-37 developer for FP-4, Tri-X and TMY400. The sharpest speed maintaining developer I have found.

A Leica M and one of their newer aspheric lens like the 50/1.4 or the 35/2.0. These are just a world apart from most small camera lenses. My 16x20'ish prints from the leica and the 50/1.4 are as sharp or possibly sharper than the same size print made with by blad and the 80 planar.

Shoot for a negative CI of about .45-.55 to keep the negatives nice and sharp and printable.

Clay,

Thank you very much for the post, as well as the great suggestions!

I looked at the Schneider 40mm APO you recommended, and some day down the road, when there's more money in the photography bucket I'll check it out for sure. It's not like the standard Focotar sucks, exactly...

I also wasn't aware that the newer Leica glass was that much better, but that's worth considering down the road as well. But with the cost of that camera system, it's lucky that I'm very happy with what I've already got.

Seems like your book is selling like hotcakes! I hope I'll be in with a chance to get one. I saw one of your prints over at Ike's not too long ago, and I was most impressed!

- Thomas

 

[patrickjames]

Thomas, I only mentioned the improvement that can be had in using a longer lens because some people who read this thread may be able to take advantage of it. Obviously one can't make big prints this way, but there can be an improvement all other things being equal. I was throwing it out there for the people who are having trouble getting a good small print.

Clay, the only downside to using the Leica lenses you are talking about is that they are so expensive few people have a chance to own them. I for one think most modern lenses are too good, and by all accounts the Leica asph. lenses are the best. A while back, I had both an old 35mm Summicron and a Zeiss Biogon. I ended up keeping the Biogon, but I sometimes wonder if that wasn't a mistake because the lens is almost too contrasty. I just picked up a bunch of Fomapan 400 to see if I can't control the micro contrast a little bit. The Foma film has a tendency to halate if I remember correctly and that should take the edge off. We'll see.

I looked up the FX-37 Clay uses. That is really quite a stew! It has practically everything in there including two restrainers.

Congrats on the book Clay. I wish I had some extra moolah. It sure looks beautiful.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas, I only mentioned the improvement that can be had in using a longer lens because some people who read this thread may be able to take advantage of it. Obviously one can't make big prints this way, but there can be an improvement all other things being equal. I was throwing it out there for the people who are having trouble getting a good small print.

Patrick, thanks. My reply above was a bit too self centered, and I should have thought about it in broader terms.
However, my own printing suggests that the improvement I saw was more down to the lens design, than to be using a longer focal length lens. As I fitted the enlarger with a decent Nikkor 50mm lens, that difference was no longer visible. I'm not really arguing that you are wrong, absolutely not, but can you quantify what differences you saw? I saw 'sharper corners' mentioned, for example, and I was silently thinking that perhaps that was more of an alignment issue than anything. Was there anything else?

I'm just curious to learn what you know, as you seem to have considerable experience and a keen eye.

 

[BetterSense]

I just enlarged some cropped 35mm TMAX negatives last night. Sure, the grain is fine, but it reminded me of why I hate everything about 35mm. Giant dust spots, fine scratches that would be invisible if I wasn't enlarging 10x, requiring nose oil, and that veiled chunky look that I think comes from the thick base and emulsion--nothing like the tight, precise look of larger formats. I still use 35mm because my 35mm equipment is way better than my MF and I get some good pictures with it...in fact, I was enlarging 35mm because none of the MF shots from that day turned out. I'm glad some people are passionate about enlarging 35mm, but that doesn't mean I have to be.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

My goodness. You certainly don't have to be passionate about it if you don't want to, and thank you for sharing your experience, and I'm very sorry to hear of your troubles.

Dust and scratch problems can be largely omitted. About five years ago I was in your situation, with larger 35mm prints looking 'unclean' and dust was a real problem. Since then I have undertaken some process steps to avoid that as much as possible, and now I usually only get two or three spotting points in 11x14 prints. In no particular order, I have:
1. Made sure to remove any excess water and wetting agent from the film before I hang it to dry. Believe it or not, I do this with a windscreen wiper that I have cleaned, and I wet it with wetting agent, and then just run it along the length of the film as it hangs. Both the base side and the emulsion side. Works fantastically well.
2. I let the film hang and dry without force drying it. To get it completely dry takes two days in my darkroom.
3. I use archival 3-ring binder boxes to store my negatives. They keep the dust out of the Print File sleeves, and insure that any changes in humidity/temperature happen slowly to the negatives.
4. I used compressed air to blow the negatives clean before I put them in the enlarger.

I have never really managed to scratch any negatives, so I'm not sure how to give you a suggestion on how to make that easier for yourself, but the above has really helped me get very very clean negatives to work with. One more thing is worth mentioning, and you can take this with a grain of salt if you wish:
When I got the V35 enlarger, I was forced to switch from condenser enlarging to a diffused light source. For some reason, since I switched to the V35, there is less spotting to do. Don't ask me how that works, but it does. It happens sometimes that I make a 16x20 and there is absolutely nothing to spot on it, and I am flabbergasted every time. But mostly I end up with two or three spots that need attention after the print is completed, but that usually only takes me about two or three minutes per print.

I really hope the above can help you in your process, and get cleaner prints from your 35mm negatives. Since you use the medium a fair bit, it would be nice to see you have better success with it.

- Thomas