35mm for large prints?

[Les Sarile]

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

No doubt ability plays a major factor along with film and paper choice.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Keep in mind that there is a big difference in stating "you can't print 35mm that big" and "the biggest I prefer is 8x10". One is applying your opinion as fact which is ludicrous and makes you look like an idiot, and the other is just stating a preference which is completely valid.

I remember back in the early oughts seeing Nachtwey prints in a museum. They were (I believe) the same prints shown in the video "War Photographer" when he was consulting with the printer. They were spectacular, utterly jaw dropping, and I thought to myself that a lot of people are really full of sh!t! Great images can be blown up huge when done right. I also remember seeing a Capa image from D-day that was massive. My memory is vague of it, but I think it was across three panels. Again, no problem with it. On the other end of it I have also seen images that looked like crap. I recently saw two prints from a famous Magnum photographer printed roughly 3/4 feet across and they were pretty horrible. Mushy and low contrast. Someone paid for them though, and that brings me back to the point I made a while back in this thread. If it is good enough for you and whoever is buying the print, then it is good enough. For some that might be an 8x10, for others that might be ten feet.

 

[darinwc]

1. Frankly, your best lens will be your tripod.
Camera shake is going to be your biggest obstacle.

2. Film grain is going to be your next problem. Make sure you use the finest grain film you can get. Or, use a film with attractive grain like tri-x.

3. If you are shooting outdoor landscapes, I imagine 90% of your shots will be stopped down to f8-f16?
There is no real reason to need the super-fast lenses.

4. A strong image is a strong image. No one is going to walk up to a billboard and complain they cannot make out the gargoyles eyes on the top of the building.
Just make sure the image is sharp for 35mm. It does not need to be anything more than that, because to see the whole image, you need to be some distance away.


Recommendations:
The Canon FD 24mm f2 was my favorite lens for landscape when I used FD.. Some people say the f1.4 L is even better.
Actually I had the f2.8 as well and I could not tell the difference. All excellent.

The 20mm f2.8 is also excellent. I'd pass on the 17mm f4.

 

[removed account4]

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

hi wiltw

sounds good to me. i'm glad you have found your "sweet spot".

back around 2000-2001 i met a photochemist who worked for photo lab index.
he told me about 8mm film he enlarged to 16x20, and displayed...
AA saw it and thought it was made with a LF camera....
===
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

YMMV

 

[RattyMouse]

On the face of it super-compacts like the Klass W ....... I certainly wouldn't invest £400-800 in a two decade old film camera that might/probably will be a paperweight.

Klasse W and S cameras only went out of production a few years ago. I'm STILL Kicking myself for not picking up one the last time I was in Japan. Only $400 back then!!!!

 

[Christian G]

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....

Yes. Good points. I do like grain oftere times. Depends on the subject matter and how the grain looks, but I did find Delta 3200 to be a bit to grainy for my taste. Bought a special developer though, to minimize that grain.

 

[Christian G]

Klasse W and S cameras only went out of production a few years ago. I'm STILL Kicking myself for not picking up one the last time I was in Japan. Only $400 back then!!!!

Different subject; is it worth to to visit Japan to pick up cheap film cameras? Or are the prices much the same because of eBay et al?

 

[RattyMouse]

Different subject; is it worth to to visit Japan to pick up cheap film cameras? Or are the prices much the same because of eBay et al?

Well, the Klasse cameras are now gone so Ebay is the best place to find them. Japan can be cheap but it's hit or miss. I bought my Fuji GF670W in Japan back when it was available. The yen had fallen to 120 to the dollar plus there was no sales tax, AND a 5% discount for Unionpay card holders so that camera was something like $800 cheaper than I could buy it anywhere else. I would not go to Japan just to buy a camera. I would go there because it is an AMAZING country and then shop on the side to find deals.

The prices are not going to be any cheaper than you'd find elsewhere (the Japanese arent stupid). What will possibly make it cheaper is the currency and sales tax exemptions.

 

[Serg Lavrenchuk]

Bob, I have seen in another post that you are using APO Rodagons mostly.
Have you any exp in comparing APO / Regular 50mm Rodagons vs Rodagon G in 30-50-70x magnifications?

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.

 

[narsuitus]

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?

When I know I will be making large prints (16x20 inches or larger), I abandon the 35mm film camera and select a medium format camera or a large format camera instead.



Large Print Camera Selection by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Dismayed]

LOL! A lot of nonsense in this thread, and some reasonable guidance. I expect to see, "I can print murals from 110 film!" Sure you can - if your standards are low enough!

You would have to be blind not to see the difference between 35mm and medium or large format for prints of 1m and up.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

the jump in negative quality from 35mm to MF is huge but so is cost and weight.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Bob, I have seen in another post that you are using APO Rodagons mostly.
Have you any exp in comparing APO / Regular 50mm Rodagons vs Rodagon G in 30-50-70x magnifications?

Rodagon-G, no questions. Especially if you're going above 20x. Bigger problems are enlarger stability & output so that you get reasonable exposure times, but most importantly of all: why do you need a print that big? Once you can answer that in a reasonable way, the rest will fall into place if you spend the money.

 

[AgX]

LOL! A lot of nonsense in this thread, and some reasonable guidance. I expect to see, "I can print murals from 110 film!" Sure you can - if your standards are low enough!

You would have to be blind not to see the difference between 35mm and medium or large format for prints of 1m and up.

It depends on type of film and taking optics. And whether one compares apples to oranges.

The basic issue is that with stepping up format, the absolute resolution of the film rises stronger than the resolution of the larger format taking lenses falls of.
On the other hand one may take better photographs in resolution with a small camera, good optics and high-resolution film than with a larger camera mediocre film and optics and most important: the bulk of it all.

 

[Serg Lavrenchuk]

I have tested 150 G vs 150 Componon S on 20x ... 105AEn and even 210 El-Nikkor (old one) that was installed at the moment . 150 G is at its hot-spot theoretically. But practically it is an outsider of 4..

So I wish to hear somebody who tested 50mm G vs regular or Apo rodagons.

Maybe just my 150G is so bad...

I do not print that big. But some client wish 170+ cm from 35 or even half 35mm... That is their right. For lab it is even better - more food to buy per 1 print
But when things go over 30x... I do not know what lens should I use. At the moment we use regular Rodagon 50n. It is very good for the money. Actually, second good in glass res chart tests against AEN105. So I feel that might be sadly surprised if a bonus from 50g would be like a bonus from 150G.

Rodagon-G, no questions. Especially if you're going above 20x. Bigger problems are enlarger stability & output so that you get reasonable exposure times, but most importantly of all: why do you need a print that big? Once you can answer that in a reasonable way, the rest will fall into place if you spend the money.

 

[Dismayed]

It depends on type of film and taking optics. And whether one compares apples to oranges.

The basic issue is that with stepping up format, the absolute resolution of the film rises stronger than the resolution of the larger format taking lenses falls of.
On the other hand one may take better photographs in resolution with a small camera, good optics and high-resolution film than with a larger camera mediocre film and optics and most important: the bulk of it all.

Medium and large format lenses are much better than you imply, particularly when considered in the contest of less enlargement to print. Here's actual data:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

 

[AgX]

In those tests the 35mm format lenses are ommitted. Only a side by side test with larger format lenses under the same testing circumstances (unless MTF given) would yield results representative.

 

[Dennis-B]

Thanks - but I'm afraid you lost me. What is a inter-negatives? 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?

I've had a number of negatives made from medium format transparencies. A high contrast color negative is made from the transparency, and then printed by hand. Most of mine were shot onto 4x5 negative stock.

The internegative does not sharpen the image. You're, in effect, enlarging grain onto grain. The downside, is that contrast usually goes up, and that's not always a good idea. Not all scenes, people, etc., benefit from increased contrast.

I've taken all the transparencies which had inter-negatives originally made, and scanned them to digital. To an image, they've all been improved, since I didn't want hugely contrasted scenes.

According to my two photo labs, they machine print up to 8x12, and larger than that, they scan the negatives and digitally print them. I would imagine that most commercial labs now do this.

Now, as to your original post, I'd recommend investing in medium format in either a quality 6x6 Rollieflex, maybe even a Hasselblad. Even with wrist problems, the Hasselblad is a well-balanced camera, and can be used with a couple of different types of pistol grips. Balance goes a long way toward easing wrist strain. For the money you're considering a Hasselblad 503 CX would be a great choice. The 80mm and 50mm lenses make for great general use, and a 150mm lens makes a great short range telephoto, while well balanced. Add a good digital meter, and you can get really good results. You can always find a nice Pentax Digital spot meter, even one converted by Zone VI. I use a hand held meter exclusively with my Hasselblad, Bronica SQ-A, Mamiya C330, and my view cameras.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I have tested 150 G vs 150 Componon S on 20x ... 105AEn and even 210 El-Nikkor (old one) that was installed at the moment . 150 G is at its hot-spot theoretically. But practically it is an outsider of 4..

So I wish to hear somebody who tested 50mm G vs regular or Apo rodagons.

Maybe just my 150G is so bad...

I do not print that big. But some client wish 170+ cm from 35 or even half 35mm... That is their right. For lab it is even better - more food to buy per 1 print
But when things go over 30x... I do not know what lens should I use. At the moment we use regular Rodagon 50n. It is very good for the money. Actually, second good in glass res chart tests against AEN105. So I feel that might be sadly surprised if a bonus from 50g would be like a bonus from 150G.

Well, I may have an unusually good one, but 2-stops down, my 50G is a good deal better at holding sharp grain than a Componon-S or 50N - and at 25x upwards (to my eyes) it begins to pull ahead of the highest resolution scans from the handful of scanners that can tickle 7000ppi+. I'd get the 150G checked, it might have been 'adjusted' in the past. At 20x, it should be delivering razor sharp grain.

 

[jim10219]

The best way to print large from 135 film is to scan it into a computer. You can enlarge the image much better with less apparent grain using software than traditional methods. Of course, you'll loose the look of real grain and can run into issues with digital artifacts, but if done correctly, you should be able to get a better looking larger print that way.

Of course, it all depends on the subject. You can print a portrait a lot larger than a landscape because no one gets close to a portrait to look at the model's pores. But they will often get close to a landscape to look at a tree's leaves or rock's texture. And how big you can go will depend on how the grain works with the photo. Sometimes street photography looks better with heavy grain, to give it a gritty look.

For me, I don't usually trust landscape photos above around 8x10 enlargements with 135 film. That's why I generally shoot landscapes with my 4x5 or digital. And among 135 cameras, I don't feel one is particularly better for going large than any other. Some lenses are better, for sure. But I've got a few extremely sharp lenses for most of my camera systems that can easily outresolve any 35mm film. That being said, sharpness isn't always a good thing.

My point is, every photo has to be considered individually, and what works best for one, may not work best for another. So rather than look for "the best" or apply general rules across the board, learn all of the strengths and weaknesses of the gear you have and how to best apply them.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The best way to print large from 135 film is to scan it into a computer. You can enlarge the image much better with less apparent grain using software than traditional methods. Of course, you'll loose the look of real grain and can run into issues with digital artifacts, but if done correctly, you should be able to get a better looking larger print that way.

Of course, it all depends on the subject. You can print a portrait a lot larger than a landscape because no one gets close to a portrait to look at the model's pores. But they will often get close to a landscape to look at a tree's leaves or rock's texture. And how big you can go will depend on how the grain works with the photo. Sometimes street photography looks better with heavy grain, to give it a gritty look.

For me, I don't usually trust landscape photos above around 8x10 enlargements with 135 film. That's why I generally shoot landscapes with my 4x5 or digital. And among 135 cameras, I don't feel one is particularly better for going large than any other. Some lenses are better, for sure. But I've got a few extremely sharp lenses for most of my camera systems that can easily outresolve any 35mm film. That being said, sharpness isn't always a good thing.

My point is, every photo has to be considered individually, and what works best for one, may not work best for another. So rather than look for "the best" or apply general rules across the board, learn all of the strengths and weaknesses of the gear you have and how to best apply them.

BTDT & while a drum or high-end CCD scan may be 'easier' & faster to make, there is a visible difference (if you use the optimal enlarging lenses), especially once you get above about 3ft across. The sharp, noise free resolution of grain has a lot to do with it. If 135 fits your aesthetic & 30x45" prints are essential to your vision, TX at that size is pretty amazing, especially when you are not fighting aliasing from a scanner.

 

[Alan Gales]

I'll just say that $2,000 to $3,000 is a nice budget for a 4x5 outfit.

 

[guangong]

I knew several photographers that exhibited large prints at the ICP as well as many other prestigious galleries internationally who shot 35 mm almost exclusively. Really depends upon skill in shooting, development and enlarging as well as subject. I have even seen large high quality prints from Minox that were wondrous and way beyond anything I could ever accomplish. But art is enjoyable for the quest perhaps even more than the results.
Except for certain technical and scientific applications, I don’t understand the aversion to grain. Seems to me that a watercolor should look like a watercolor, an oil painting should look like an oil painting and a photograph should look like a photograph, which is made up of clumps of silver crystals. If you don’t like grain do digital capture instead of photography.

 

[jim10219]

BTDT & while a drum or high-end CCD scan may be 'easier' & faster to make, there is a visible difference (if you use the optimal enlarging lenses), especially once you get above about 3ft across. The sharp, noise free resolution of grain has a lot to do with it. If 135 fits your aesthetic & 30x45" prints are essential to your vision, TX at that size is pretty amazing, especially when you are not fighting aliasing from a scanner.

I use a DSLR for scanning 135 film. I find it easier and quicker to work with, and can get a higher resolution than any other method. You can stitch together an enormous file if you so choose. Hwever, it doesn’t work as well with larger film formats. Drum scans are still king with large and medium format.

With proper processing, you can interpolate information that isn’t in the original negative for bigger enlargements without increasing grain size. It doesn’t work for every photo, and there’s an art to it. It can look plastic or noisy if not done right. But for certain images, it can far surpass anything done with an enlarger.

But it all depends on the photo you’re working with and what you want to do with it. If the grain is meant to be seen, it always look better if you can keep it out of the digital realm. Digital does funky stuff to grain. Sometimes the grain is part of the aesthetic. Sometimes it adds character. And sometimes it’s a distraction. They are all just different tools for different jobs.