35mm for large prints?

[Gerald C Koch]

Professionals that shoot for various publications like the Sports Illustrated and the National Geographic usually use 35mm. Weight and size certainly are important considerations as well as the large number of lenses available for these cameras fish eyes to very lone teles.

 

[baachitraka]

I may invest on a good tripod...

 

[btaylor]

Back in the day I shot Kodachrome with my Olympus OM-1 and made many sharp Cibachrome (well, as many as I could afford!) 16x20" enlargements. Mirror up, on a tripod. Medium format is easier to work with for big enlargements I think. Personally I use lenses other than "normal" less and less. That makes shooting with a nearly silent, no vibration Rollei tlr easy. That Yashicamat will serve you well in the right circumstances.

 

[JWMster]

Assumption is that OP wants high res and low grain in a light weight rig... may be jumping too fast. Grain can be like a "pop" on a recording and adds some life to an otherwise overly smooth (almost like cake icing) digital image. Won't tell you what to like and what not to, but there is more variety out there.... though current "style" seems to favor grainless. Been there, done that, and moved on... maybe as you are doing now. BTW, I like to print big 'cause it pushes the skill curve out as well as highlights what you've really got... a useful exercise of its own. One of the skills not talked about much is simply "editting"... picking which shots are the real keepers. That said, I find "small" has its virtues, too.

Lots of stuff for which 35mm may actually prove optimal relative to larger formats. I ponder the same thing, but MF is a whole way of life different that for now, I am resisting without much system stress. "Resistance is NOT futile!" Agree with the tripod thing, but especially with exhausting every option within the gear you have, and only reluctantly switching. I find every camera hop involves a bit of time to get comfortable and back under control. Done a bunch of that over the last few years - and not proud of it btw. Althought there is a circular staircase perhaps, it feels increasingly as if there's too much time wasted in shooting while you get back into gear with new "stuff". My current biggest dis-suader keeping G.A.S. at bay.

+1 to the Rangefinder for easily managed, razor sharp focus without a digital "live view" focus (magnification) assistance. My aging eyes can manage the RF without much assistance, but an SLR has put me back in the hunt for diopter adjustments, and while the tripod may part of the answer and shutter speed another, it's eliminating one variable at a time.

 

[Huss]

..
Use a tripod. ....

... 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.

Ahem

 

[flavio81]

I agree 100% Bob and I have a mirror slapping Pentax 6X7 and Hassy 500C.

There are techniques to overcome those problems on those cameras. And there's always the Mamiya RB/RZ which have mirror governors that elliminate the shock.

BTW, "Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!"

 

[flavio81]

- 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?

Canon FD system is excellent. Try a Canon New F1 if you want to experience a top FD camera. BTW the mirror and shutter slap -if for some reason you are worried about them- are as low as they can be on the AE-1 series, and on all the F-1 cameras.

You can make big enlargements from 35mm with no problem. 120 film usually looks better with regards to tonality or grain, but there is nothing to prevent you from making a nice 16x20" enlargement from 35mm.

 

[RichardJack]

my two cents...
For most professional applications a 24x36mm frame will hold up to a 12x18" print under perfect conditions (fine grain film, great optics, perfect exposure and processing, tripod). Do the math: A 12x18" enlargement requires 12.7x enlargement. If the film's resolution is 100 l/mm the final resolution on the 12x18" print is only 7.87 l/mm. The human eye is capable of resolving 13 l/mm at a 10" viewing distance. I have made 24x36 color enlargements from Ektar 25 (long gone but great) and they looked OK. BUT...Not as good as I have made from medium format or my old 10mp DSLR.
If your into grain that is another story, but I don't recommend using 35mm film for prints larger than 8x12" when you have so many better options out there (MF & digital).

 

[Bob Carnie]

my two cents...
For most professional applications a 24x36mm frame will hold up to a 12x18" print under perfect conditions (fine grain film, great optics, perfect exposure and processing, tripod). Do the math: A 12x18" enlargement requires 12.7x enlargement. If the film's resolution is 100 l/mm the final resolution on the 12x18" print is only 7.87 l/mm. The human eye is capable of resolving 13 l/mm at a 10" viewing distance. I have made 24x36 color enlargements from Ektar 25 (long gone but great) and they looked OK. BUT...Not as good as I have made from medium format or my old 10mp DSLR.
If your into grain that is another story, but I don't recommend using 35mm film for prints larger than 8x12" when you have so many better options out there (MF & digital).

Its obvious to me you have never saw Salgodo's show at George Eastman house, the prints were magnificant at 24 x30 in fact two printers IMO did this show one for the larger size and one for the smaller
size 18 x22 , the larger prints were much better.

I actually saw people weep looking at these photos.

 

[RichardJack]

I was told by a Kodak rep that most of the color transparency's displayed were from 6x6 Rollieflex or large format films, he never mentioned 35mm. Have you ever seen a slide presentation using 6x6 slides? They were breathtaking.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Yes , quite lovely I agree but I am talking about large prints and I know they can go large. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder or something like that.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Oh Yea. All my Kodak reps over 30 years told me Kodak Colour paper would not fade....

 

[ic-racer]

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?

In my darkroom I get better results enlarging 35mm to 8x10 positive material. With my lens, diffraction is not an issue for this step. Then, 8x10 to 50" with 360mm Componon, and again I am not plagued by diffraction at usual apertures.
With my 45mm HM Schneider, even wide open, the effective diffracting aperture is very small when going straight to a 50" print. Your milage may vary.

 

[jim10219]

A 1x1.5m or 1.5x2m print made from a 35mm negative is going to show a TON of grain! I definitely wouldn't be exhibiting something like that in a gallery, nor would I feel comfortable selling it to someone unless the grain was intentionally part of the aesthetic. Of course, not everyone feels the same way. But if there are going to be other photos hanging on those walls besides yours, I would think you'd want yours to at least be on par, if not superior to those around it.

Ultimately how large you can print something will depend on the sharpness of the original shot, the type of film/developer you use, the method of enlarging, the desired aesthetics, and the skill and equipment used in each step. In my experience, even the best 35mm films start to show their limitations in an 8"x10" enlargement under the best of circumstances when compared to other formats. I'm not saying it looks bad. But I can definitely see a lack of sharpness at normal viewing distances when compared to a medium format film print or quality digital photo of the same size sitting next to it.

 

[removed account4]

'm not saying it looks bad. But I can definitely see a lack of sharpness at normal viewing distances when compared to a medium format film print or quality digital photo of the same size sitting next to it.

too many photographers believe normal viewing distance is 3mm away from the print ...
flotsam said "That is called grain. It is supposed to be there" and i tend to agree with him

YMMV

 

[jim10219]

too many photographers believe normal viewing distance is 3mm away from the print ...
flotsam said "That is called grain. It is supposed to be there" and i tend to agree with him

YMMV

I was meaning "arms distance" or about 2-3 feet when I stated normal viewing distance for 8x10. At that distance, you don't necessarily see the individual grains, but you can see that it's got grain, which you may not notice from a similar print made from a 120 negative.

Anyway, by the time we're looking at prints in excess of a meter in size, the difference between a 35mm and larger negative print will be pretty obvious even at 2 meters away. Plus prints of those sizes aren't cheap or easy to make. So a lot of potential buyers will balk at paying a fair price for a fuzzy photograph, unless of course, the grain itself is part of the aesthetic. Galleries know this and may not want to show your piece if it doesn't have the potential to generate enough money to justify how much space it takes up. So if you're going to go through all of the hassle and cost to print at that size, I'd recommend using a higher resolution format unless the grain and fuzziness is intentional.

Of course every situation is different, and there are no rules in art that can't be broken. But speaking from personal experience, I've entered 8x10 prints of good quality made from 35mm negatives into photo contests before and have been told by judges that my compositions were great, but the lack of sharpness held me back. I don't agree with their mindset, but I can see what they're seeing.

 

[Alan Gales]

too many photographers believe normal viewing distance is 3mm away from the print ...

YMMV

I'm one of those who likes to put their nose up to a print. My nose is pretty big though so my eyes end up further from the photograph than most.

 

[Swordman]

OK, I'm very ignorant on this topic, so don't shoot me down completely. Back in the days, cinemas had 35mm film projected on the silver screen and it looked fantastic. Does this mean you could print a picture the size of a cinema screen (and still hold up at cinema viewing distances)?

 

[Anon Ymous]

OK, I'm very ignorant on this topic, so don't shoot me down completely. Back in the days, cinemas had 35mm film projected on the silver screen and it looked fantastic. Does this mean you could print a picture the size of a cinema screen (and still hold up at cinema viewing distances)?

Nope, if you had the chance to see a still frame, then you'd notice the grain.

 

[cooltouch]

Regarding movie films, it's worth noting that, because of the way the film moves through the camera and projector, what we think of the short side of a 35mm frame (24mm) is the long side in a movie's film print. Assuming the same 2:3 format, that means the size would be 16mm x 24mm. So even though a single frame, when frozen, may not appear as sharp as when the film is moving through the projector, it needs to be noted that it is a significantly smaller frame. 56% smaller, in fact, assuming a movie format is 2:3. I know movie formats are often wider, like 16:9, but this means an even smaller image in mm^2. A 16:9 format image size is 13.5mm x 24mm, so this would be 62.5% smaller. Assuming it's a 35mm film camera, of course.

All of this neglects Sound-on-Film, of course, which occupies an additional portion of the media between the sprocket holes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound-on-film

 

[Ron789]

What kind of photos do you make? Is sharpness at all relevant? You can print any size from any negative if sharpness does not matter. If sharpness matters you may consider a larger negative size. At what distance will the prints be viewed? A 1x1,5m print may appear really sharp when viewed from a 5 meter distance while it may be really unsharp when viewed from a 1 meter distance. First, decide what you want to show; only then you can decide on the technique that will be required.

 

[removed account4]

I was meaning "arms distance" or about 2-3 feet when I stated normal viewing distance for 8x10. At that distance, you don't necessarily see the individual grains, but you can see that it's got grain, which you may not notice from a similar print made from a 120 negative.

Anyway, by the time we're looking at prints in excess of a meter in size, the difference between a 35mm and larger negative print will be pretty obvious even at 2 meters away. Plus prints of those sizes aren't cheap or easy to make. So a lot of potential buyers will balk at paying a fair price for a fuzzy photograph, unless of course, the grain itself is part of the aesthetic. Galleries know this and may not want to show your piece if it doesn't have the potential to generate enough money to justify how much space it takes up. So if you're going to go through all of the hassle and cost to print at that size, I'd recommend using a higher resolution format unless the grain and fuzziness is intentional.

Of course every situation is different, and there are no rules in art that can't be broken. But speaking from personal experience, I've entered 8x10 prints of good quality made from 35mm negatives into photo contests before and have been told by judges that my compositions were great, but the lack of sharpness held me back. I don't agree with their mindset, but I can see what they're seeing.

IDK
i have sold 11x14s from 35mm negatives and shown plenty of 11x14x & 16x20s made from 35mm negatives
there was never excessive grain ( i have never used rodinal ) and the people buying or having me put on their walls / displaying
never had any problems. i've also sold 40x60" prints from 35mm negatives and 42x69" prints made from something about 2x3"
never troubles. as i said i never quite understand folks that suggest 8x10 or maybe a little bigger is maximum for a 35mm negative,
it just doesn't make any sense ...
but to each their own

I'm one of those who likes to put their nose up to a print. My nose is pretty big though so my eyes end up further from the photograph than most.

 

[tomfrh]

as i said i never quite understand folks that suggest 8x10 or maybe a little bigger is maximum for a 35mm negative,
it just doesn't make any sense ...

I don't like to go bigger than that, if possible. Beyond that the grain starts showing.

It's just a preference thing.

 

[wiltw]

Yes , quite lovely I agree but I am talking about large prints and I know they can go large. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder or something like that.

And -- key fact -- beauty is also defined by the VIEWING DISTANCE...

• 8x10" viewed at 12" is like 80" x 100" viewed at 120"; the grain size is IDENTICAL to the viewer under those conditions.
• But when you view both the 8x10" at 12" and also put your nose close to view the 80" x 100" at 12", the grain size is 10X larger in the 80" x 120" print at that viewing distance.

I have long held that 135 format was close to the limit of its enlargeabilty at 16X, unless you used very fine grain film to capture the image so grain did not become objectionable (unless used artistically). 645 could be enlarged to 1.8X larger final print size than 135 because it was still the same magnification of grain, and 4x5 could be enlarged by 4X larger print than 135 while retaining grain at the same magnification factorl

 

[John Koehrer]

This all reminds me of "different strokes" or opinions.