I disagree that an interneg would help for the kind of gallery shot you require. It can help if the original negative is precious or damaged, or a large number of prints are to be made from the negative, but I wouldn't use an interneg for a fine print because it introduces another layer of grain, increases contrast and shifts colour.
35mm for large prints?
-
A
- Thread starter Christian G
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikkor lenses and Nikon accessories
- Started by Manual Camera
-
For Trade 9 Leica IXMOO reloadable cans.
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Sold Olympus XA
- Started by RoboRepublic
-
For Sale Mint Nikon AI-s Lenses
- Started by Barlow
Forum statistics
You need to try it to see how this film (with proper developer) is unbelievable grain free. I have done 50x60cm prints, and then with 6x loupe - no grain. It is absurd how fine grained it is.
Having said that - I have made 50x60cm prints from Fomapan 400 - and they are pleasing to my eye, grain is something that I find as a positive thing on a print. Better interesting photo with a lot of grain, then boring grain-less photo. Don't overthink too much
.I'd say this: You already have quite a few cameras. Why don't you just take a step back, use them for a while, spend a bit of money getting your film scanned and printed in a high end lab. This is important as you don't want to waste your time, money and frustration on home scanning and printing at this stage. Then you will know what 35mm can *really* do and you go from there.
However, if you want to entertain a few thoughts here they are:
First of all, I'm assuming a 1kg limit on 35mm. That rules out anything with "Canon" and "L" on it as well as any of the newer Nikon, Sigma and whatevs stuff. Now, for the 1.5m print. As Sirius said it depends. Would a 35mm shot with Delta 3200 print well? Maybe, depends on the subject matter. Would a PanF shot print well? Most likely. So what subject matter are you thinking of? Beyond that, when it comes to MF, your Yashica will probably work better for large prints with Portra 400 vs some fancy 35mm system on Portra 160, for *most* occassions. Then again, you can't shoot everything with the Yashica that you would shoot with 35mm.
So...to not ramble too much. As you know the weight profile is just as important as a the actual value, so a TLR hanging from your neck is much easier on the wrist than a 35mm weighing just as much, but how long will your neck support it? As such if you have the cash (which you do) I would say consider these:
1. Fuji 645 rangefinder
2. A Rollei TLR. A 2.8d/e/f will basically run over any 35mm system when it comes to sharpness. But you're stuck with 80mm and a waist level finder.
3. A Hasselblad is heavy in comparison but as a waist level camera it is not that bad.
4. For landscapes your XPan is as good as anything, probably more useful if you want to wide vista type stuff vs medium format which has a more square-ish aspect vs normal 35mm.
5. A Mamiya 6 is just mind-blowingly sharp, light and compact even compared to current pro dSLRs. Then again it shoots square and you're stuck with 3 lenses.
Just some thoughts.
However, if you want to entertain a few thoughts here they are:
First of all, I'm assuming a 1kg limit on 35mm. That rules out anything with "Canon" and "L" on it as well as any of the newer Nikon, Sigma and whatevs stuff. Now, for the 1.5m print. As Sirius said it depends. Would a 35mm shot with Delta 3200 print well? Maybe, depends on the subject matter. Would a PanF shot print well? Most likely. So what subject matter are you thinking of? Beyond that, when it comes to MF, your Yashica will probably work better for large prints with Portra 400 vs some fancy 35mm system on Portra 160, for *most* occassions. Then again, you can't shoot everything with the Yashica that you would shoot with 35mm.
So...to not ramble too much. As you know the weight profile is just as important as a the actual value, so a TLR hanging from your neck is much easier on the wrist than a 35mm weighing just as much, but how long will your neck support it? As such if you have the cash (which you do) I would say consider these:
1. Fuji 645 rangefinder
2. A Rollei TLR. A 2.8d/e/f will basically run over any 35mm system when it comes to sharpness. But you're stuck with 80mm and a waist level finder.
3. A Hasselblad is heavy in comparison but as a waist level camera it is not that bad.
4. For landscapes your XPan is as good as anything, probably more useful if you want to wide vista type stuff vs medium format which has a more square-ish aspect vs normal 35mm.
5. A Mamiya 6 is just mind-blowingly sharp, light and compact even compared to current pro dSLRs. Then again it shoots square and you're stuck with 3 lenses.
Just some thoughts.
with 16x20 you are reaching the limits of 35mm photography in my experienceHi
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.
Maybe from the standpoint of a lab tech who is only looking at a measured bar for what is expected in terms of image quality. I have had 20x30's and beyond made from low speed 35mm films my entire career and have seen fantastic 30x40's from Tri-x from the likes of Salgado, Eugene Richards, etc. for decades.
Successful photographs are 90% talent and content and 10% technical outcomes in my opinion. There is a reason I own a 50mm Rodagon G mural lens, often enough medium and large format are not the right tools for a shot but that does not diminish the desire to make great enlargements from smaller formats.
I have made a lot of mural prints from 35mm in my career , I will say that I have always and mean always preferred negatives that are from rangefinder cameras like Leica and Contax G2.
I have always hated negatives from those mirror slap cameras.
I have always hated negatives from those mirror slap cameras.
The other thing about large prints is you'll notice camera shake in a way you don't in a 10 x 8". I printed some landscapes 16 x 20" and I'd never noticed how soft they were previously. I'd recommend 1/500 and up if you're going really big.
And always a tripod...
My posting is consistent with Ralph's posting. One can make prints bigger than 16"x20" from 35mm but it depends on the film, the developer, the enlarger optics, and the composition. Going larger is not a done deal.
Before you start spending more money, see what you can get out of the gear you already have. The Yashicamat and Xpan are already medium format cameras. The Xpan's image length is equal to that of a Pentax 6x7.
Use a tripod. Stop down the lens. Make a large print. See how you like it.
Use a tripod. Stop down the lens. Make a large print. See how you like it.
Plaubel Makina 67. Light, great lenses (hard-wired to the bodies, so either a wide or a normal body for your budget).
I agree 100% Bob and I have a mirror slapping Pentax 6X7 and Hassy 500C. In 35mm my best camera for least mirror slap was a Nikon FE2. The FE2 had a built in mirror brake system that really did make it great in the mirror slap department. Still, mirror lockup is the best on a 35mm, but even the focal plan shutter has a robust movement too. I now use a Contax G1 three lens kit for all my 35mm, which isn't much anymore. Nice camera, super-great lenses. Nuff said!
Hi John
I own a Pentax 6 x 7 love it but use mirror up when I can, used Hassalblad and loved it , but it was when I got a Contax G2 I fell in love with rangefinder, I have never had
enough disposable income to warrant a Leica , I tried friends but frankly I preferred the Contax G2 which I think is one of the most underrated cameras of all time.
Shit now I am sounding like a camera knob.
Yup, me too I guess. I used all the M series Leica model up to the M5 and now only own a user 1935 IIIa. Good cameras, great optics(most of them), but toooooo damn expensive for what they are. Besides I find my 28mm and 45mm G Contax lenses better. I don't think the 90mm G Contax is as good as my 90mm f2.8 Elmarit was, but that's even splitting hairs.
The only reason I had all the good stuff is because for good period of time I dealt in used photo equipment and did weddings. Otherwise I would still have my original 127film Mercury plastic camera I got when I was 9yrs old. Ha! Ha! Oh, I always enjoy your printing tips since I'm really into my darkroom now and have laid off a lot of digital printing and stuff(except for scanning). Oh, I am getting better at printing, but still find 11x14 or so about my limit. Maybe if I get better at it, but that's about it for 35mm. Medium format is sooooo much easier for me and 4x5 is like falling off a log. I'm in love with big negatives!
I was at this point once,now, I know that a truly sharp image depends on perfect focus(DOF does little for you)and AF is very hard to beat manually
When my eyes were young I could manual focus like I had the eyes of a hawk. Now at 67yrs. old it's a bitch unless the light is just right. Auto-focus isn't as shitty as it was when it first came out. Still, all my cameras with auto-focus have been set to center-point AF and I select my subject, lock, re-frame and shoot. Almost 100% hit rate that way.
For me limit for 35mm is about 8x10. However, an image from 35mm can be good any size.
You might not believe this, but I tried that trick with my FE2 after seeing it done by Nikon and it actually worked.
THIS! It really depends what you're shooting, not all subjects need the kind of technical approach Ansel Adams would take. 35mm is a system for shooting light, fast, and unencumbered. Grain is (one of) the trade-offs. Own it or go up to 6x6/6x9.
My two cents.
If your planning on prints larger than 12x18" it is wise to use a ultra fine grain film like Ektar 100 or Velvia 25, and scan them at 4000dpi or better. You might be able to push one to 24x36" which might look OK when viewed from a few feet away. If your into large prints it's time to move up to MF, LF, or digital.
If your planning on prints larger than 12x18" it is wise to use a ultra fine grain film like Ektar 100 or Velvia 25, and scan them at 4000dpi or better. You might be able to push one to 24x36" which might look OK when viewed from a few feet away. If your into large prints it's time to move up to MF, LF, or digital.
Step 1. We admitted that we were powerless over camera gear...
... it depends on where one standards when viewing. Even billboards look sharp sometimes.
But I don't recall anyone discussing my favorite option for getting sharp(er) 35mm images: a tripod.
I know that Kodak has used a number of of 35mm color slides for their colorama display so 35mm can be good very large. When I limit my print size to 8x10 that's because of the grain and the amount of details I can see up close (with corrected eye glasses) regardless of lens, tripod etc... There is simply no more details that I can see by making a larger print.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |