35mm for large prints?

[Christian G]

Hi

So I'm selling most of my digital gear and going analogue.
I currently have an Xpan 2 (got it yesterday) and a Yashica Mat 124g in the MF.

In 35mm format I have two Canon Ae1s, an Olympus Trip 35 and a Ricoh 500G.

I have about a $ 2-3000 budget to further invest in FD-LENSED and /or another 35mm/MF system.

I prefer light gear because of a wrist-injury. The Xpan is about 1kg (2pounds), with a lens. For that style of camera-body, that I'd about as heavy as I'd go. My tlr Yashica is actually 1 1 kg, but I really don't notice the weight.
So here's the question ;
If I one lucky day get the chance to exhibit or sell some large prints (say 1x1,5m or 1,5x2 meters), I'm wondering:

- Are there good alternatives in 135mm-systems that would give the needed detail and resolution? To stick with FD-mount would be very convenient.
-Should I change to another 135-system? Leica M, other?

- Should I just invest in Medium Format? Recommendations?


I have been looking at a wide 35mm compact such as Fuji Klasse W or Ricoh Gr 21 etc.. and also Fuji/Voigtlander G670 alternatives in MF and others ..

Any input would be welcome

P.s. posting in MF-forum as well.

 

[Fixcinater]

The weight issue is the largest problem I see with going MF, but if I knew I was going to print large at some point, I would try to do so. I generally don't need or want 36 shots on a roll, so MF works fine for me.

That being said, some top shelf lenses for the AE1s would go a long long way. Just depends if you prefer the look from MF or if a well done 35mm large print looks good to you.

You'd be spending a lot of money to get lens quality above what the nice Canon gear can provide, can you deal with just having a 35mm and 50mm in Leica? Depending on how new you wanted to go (quality into the corners and flare resistance), you could spend all of that on just the 50mm.

 

[Paul Howell]

I would think about a Canon EOS 1N or V with a few L glass primes and zooms or Sigma Arts lens. For high quality you want a camera with mirror lock up, accurate meter, ability to bracket exposure, auto bracket is nice, holds the film flat. the only reason for a Canon say vs Nikon F5 is all most all Canon EOS lens will work on all film bodies. New Nikon E lens will not work with F5 or 5. For lighter body think about ESO 3 or 5. Another option is Minolta 7 which will work all Minolta, Konica Minolta, and full frame Sony lens, either gear driven or micro motor.

 

[Christian G]

Did I mention I don't care for AF? Thanks so far, will read more carefully in a minute..

 

[ic-racer]

You can make a large print from any format negative. For 35mm and smaller I'd do an 8x10" internegative (or 4x5" if you don't have access to an 8x10 enlarger). Realize paper is 55" across maximum. You will likely need MUCH, MUCH darkroom space and gallons of processing chemistry.

 

[blockend]

On the face of it super-compacts like the Klass W and GR21 are the answer, but the truth is such cameras are expensive, non-repairable and have quirky controls. I certainly wouldn't invest £400-800 in a two decade old film camera that might/probably will be a paperweight. That leaves compacts like the Olympus clamshell cameras which have a similar lifespan but are considerably less expensive, a rangefinder, or compact SLR.

At normal home or gallery viewing distance a 35mm print will give lots of detail up to about 15 x 10". Bigger than that requires a high degree of printing skill, a different approach to sharpness or a longer view. As a starting point I'd use a camera that fits your FD lenses. You can spend many multiples of the price of your Canon SLR and see no discernible different in image quality.

 

[pentaxuser]

The smallest of the two print sizes you mention is the equivalent of almost a 40X magnification for 35mm which is truly massive.

It is just possible that a film such as Adox cms 20 might give you the resolution needed. If you make a 40X print from a 35mm negative I'd be interested to see the results

pentaxuser

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I think you are making mistakes. 1.5x2 prints are not going to be analog. Right? At this case you are not going analog. You are going scanner way and inkjet prints. It has nothing to do with analog.
Leica is not going to help. 2-3K $ for Leica M is one camera and two nothing special lenses.
FD lenses and cameras are something which kind of abandon gear these days. IMO. L Canon glass will outperform Leica lens or will be on pair. AF has nothing to do with it. It is the glass quality. I'm not sure if pre-AF L lenses are good enough.

I have seen 1.5x2 m prints for sale. To make it looks natural you will need load of pixels. Something like LF or 30+ MP.

Ansel Adams made 6x9 inches prints and even smaller. They cost and they are in collections. And they looks like art, not prints.
Selling 1.5x2 inkjet prints from 135 film scans... Good luck with it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I just made an 11"x14" print shot with a Contax G1 and 45mm f2 Zeiss lens that I find more than good enough for my tastes. I enlarged it on and old Leitz Focomat 1C with the LFE 50mm f4.5 Focotar. I believe I could have went to 16X20, but beyond that I don't know. I do believe I could get just as good a print using and old AE-1 Program and a late 50mm f1.8 Canon lens, but I don't know cause I didn't try. Canon, Nikon, Pentax and even Konica made some real sweet glass. Of course not all of their lenses were equal. I guess what I'm saying is that you should try out what you already have before buying and trying what you aren't sure will work any better than what you already have in your possession. I'm happy with what I got, but you might not be?

 

[benveniste]

Hi
So here's the question ;
If I one lucky day get the chance to exhibit or sell some large prints (say 1x1,5m or 1,5x2 meters), I'm wondering:

- Are there good alternatives in 135mm-systems that would give the needed detail and resolution? To stick with FD-mount would be very convenient.
-Should I change to another 135-system? Leica M, other?

Here's a bit of quick math. Let's say that you have perfect optics, perfect technique, and film that's capable of resolving 100 lp/mm at a usable MTF. Let's also assume no losses in scanning or enlargement and your gear fills the full 24x36mm frame. Under those ideal conditions and printing at a non-unreasonable 200 dpi, you would get a 24"x36" print. (0.915m x 0.610m). Under real world conditions, an "eye-sharp" 12x18" print is doing pretty good.

But there's a "trick." Very few subjects need to be eye-sharp frame to frame. Currently, I have a 12x18" print hanging in my home made from a Agfa Vista 100 negative and a lens of modest quality (Nikon 24-120mm AF-D). If I get close to it I can see the softness, but if the viewer is doing that, they aren't taking in the whole shot, so the composition is a failure. I've also had one of my portraits printed at 4'x6', but it was displayed high in an exhibition hall where people were viewing it from 10-20 feet away. On the other hand, if you are taking a group portrait, you can expect people to want to "focus in" on individuals, so you really want edge-to-edge sharpness. The same may be true in an exhibit setting.

So does it make sense to make large prints from 35mm film gear? It does sometimes, but it's not something I would rely on to produce gallery quality results.

 

[Maris]

If you are going really big shoot 4x5 not 35mm. Get the Travelwide 4x5 camera with 90mm lens and film holder at an all up weight of 630 grams. Correctly deployed 4x5 image quality blows everything smaller into the weeds.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Your skill as a printer and the quality of your enlarger/lens has more to do with how big of a print you can make than the quality of your camera beyond a certain point. Most people who bloviate on the internet about needing a large format camera, or the impossibility of big prints, probably have never made any big prints. Negatives have sweet spots as well. 35mm for example looks good up to a certain enlargement, then starts to fall apart, then starts to look good again.

The ultimate arbiter of quality is you. If the prints are good enough for you, then they are good enough. I have seen a lot of prints in my life. You would be amazed at some of the truly horrible ones I have seen by "famous" photographers. I wouldn't put much credence in people on the internet who quote resolution figures, or tell you what films you "have" to use. It is all b.s. When you do exhibit them the only ones who will put their noses up to the print and complain are photographers, and they aren't going to buy them anyway! True....

As far as cameras go with the limitations you set, I would recommend the Mamiya 7. It is light and the lenses are pretty spectacular. For 35mm, there is no reason to change from the Canons you currently have (unless you want to) since the best lenses for each system are roughly comparable to each other. Some people say Leica/Zeiss are better and while somewhat true, you won't see it unless you compare side by side. Since your prints will all be from the same lenses, no one will ever notice the slight difference.

Hope that helps you.

 

[blockend]

35mm for example looks good up to a certain enlargement, then starts to fall apart, then starts to look good again.

It changes depending on the type of print. If you print high contrast from high speed film, the grain structure binds the image together and there's no limit to how large you can go, even if the subject isn't sharp. That wouldn't hold true for a multi-tonal slow film prints which rely on subtle greys for their aesthetic effect. 35mm shots are blown up to huge sizes as promotional material, but they usually hang from elevated and inaccessible places. Close up it wouldn't read as anything like sharp.

 

[wiltw]

1x1,5m print from 135 format 24mm x 36mm frame = 41.7X enlargement. Starting with a superb lens capable of 100 l-p/mm, you end up with only 2.4 lines of detail per millimeter...the eye generally needs 5 lines/millimeter to perceive any print as 'sharp'. You need to really step back from the print in order to fool yourself that the print is 'sharp'.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have two 24"x36" color prints made from 35mm negatives that look stunning. Can any 35mm negative be printed that large and look good? No, but the right photographs can be made that large, it depends on the negative and the optics used to enlarge the print.

 

[Christian G]

You can make a large print from any format negative. For 35mm and smaller I'd do an 8x10" internegative (or 4x5" if you don't have access to an 8x10 enlarger). Realize paper is 55" across maximum. You will likely need MUCH, MUCH darkroom space and gallons of processing chemistry.

Thanks - but I'm afraid you lost me. What is a internegative? You create a new, larger negative? How does that work? So for an exhibition the printing lab creates this larger negative, and then a large print is a breeze? Sounds like a potentially very costly process?

 

[Christian G]

[QUOTE="blockend, post: 1931637, member: 15 x 10". Bigger than that requires" (...) "a different approach to sharpness.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for steering me away from the Klasse W and gr21. AF, also I guess.

What is the approach to sharpness?

 

[Christian G]

Adox cms 20

Asoz claims cms 20 II can print 2,5 diagonally W/o visible grain. Thanks for this great tip, I would love to try it. Now, it's only 20Asa, but still... I might be going to the desert this summer.. Really fascinating film, but I guess you have to develop yourself, which I want to get back into.

 

[Christian G]

Get the Travelwide 4x5 camera.

Looking into it, great tip - thanks!!

 

[Christian G]

Btw, I shoot cityscapes and landscapes. Quite strong contrast, but not always. A couple examples:
https://flic.kr/p/RgdfmV
https://flic.kr/p/Q1ym4y
https://flic.kr/p/Q1yiSj
https://flic.kr/p/Q1yjRd

 

[Ai Print]

Technicians will tell you don't overly enlarge 35mm and artists will tell you go for it if the image has impact and is simply a great photograph.

Tmax 100 in 35mm will handle 20x30 easily, a statement based on my experience.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Very simple question for the OP - why a 1.5x2m print? I'd be interested to know what your motivations for this are. The technical considerations are relatively simple to solve, once you have an idea of why you want/ need to do this.

135 will go there for sure, but you need to be accepting of what it'll look like & what it'll actually resolve, that's all. Avoid the document films if you wish to retain your sanity.

1.2m on the short dimension is more realistic if you want a wider choice of paper.

 

[removed account4]

as long as you have good technique you can print 35mm 32x40"
bad technique not so big
don't bother with small / MD format
you will pine for Large format soon ,
not too hard, just more stuff to remember ( all manual nothing digital )
good luck!

 

[PGillin]

I've never printed that big, but can back what's been said already by some others -
Changing lens brand isn't going to do you too much good. The real limiting factor (if you believe there is one) is the 35mm neg, not whether your lens says Leica or Zeiss, or Canon, or Nikkor, or Takumar, or.... on the front. All of the well-known, serious players in the 35mm pro market made good lenses.
Once a professor and I were comparing similar prints, in about the 16x24" range, his made on an 18mm Zeiss Contax lens and mine shot on a 20mm AF-d Nikkor, and to be honest I don't think you'd be able to tell any difference in optical quality. Grain & contrast where already much more important at that size.

 

[blockend]

What is the approach to sharpness?

If you look at the work of Daido Moriyama, many of his photographs are not sharp through the lens but are printed pin sharp through the enlarger. Sharp grain is all that matters to make the image work.