35mm.. largest print size?

Michael R 1974 said:

It isn't snarky. It is a reasonable question, and something that has been troubling me for some time in my own search for a new 4x5. I'm trying to figure out why we quibble over minute differences in lens resolution when we don't quibble over camera alignment. In photographic situations requiring true parallelism of the standards, it doesn't take much to obliterate lines/mm.

Click to expand...

As Drew pointed out, the weak link is generally filmplane. If you're worried about the camera being square and parralel, don't - just get a good Sinar or Linhof monorail and be done with it. The final arbiter is the groundglass anyway - this is why GG and filmplane registry is so important.

DREW WILEY said:

My evidence is my prints!~ !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... and theirs! That's the only documentation that counts.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Are your prints currently displayed at a gallery?

I checked your website, but all I could find was this passage:

"For questions, comments and to acquire Drew's outstanding work, please call or send an e-mail to:"

DREW WILEY said:

Sounds like a creed of mediocrity to me.... but I haven't seen your work, so maybe that's an unfair assessment.

Click to expand...

I've only seen his work in the Gallery, but there is nothing mediocre about his work. His work always exhibits a dedication to the craft, strong compositions, and mastery of his chosen materials. One of my favorites, here, and always a treat to view.

No ... doubt that I'll be doing any public stuff for a couple more years, when I hope to have my own permanent setup anyway. Too much other
stuff to do in the meantime. I dropped out of that scene some time back and have simply coasted with my small circle of collectors. My last major gig was a publicly funded 2-man with a now dead bearded guy, obviously some time back. But I print way better than I did back then.
And my circle of friends does include people with multimillion-dollar equipment investments, so not little league by any means. I do my homework. Thanks for asking.

Thanks, Eddie... though your post interrupted my reply to the previous one... Yeah, I'm not implying that fine detail is requisite to a successful
image. But there are times when it's the correct spice.

I understand the desire to shoot bigger film, for the ultimate resolution, sharpness, tonality, etc. I use 4x5 (and larger) when that is of primary importance. But, those attributes aren't always the goal.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Grain, sharpness, resolution, detail - it ranks so far down the list that it isn't even a consideration when I shoot. I only worry about capturing what I want to capture, and that is all about moments, emotions, feeling of place, mood, gesture, composition, history, meaning, context, etc., knowing that there will be enough resolution and print quality for 99% of those who care to look at my prints, even from 35mm film enlarged 16X, 20X, or possibly more.

There are two things missing from the discussion, vital aspects of ‘the bigger the better’ that I feel is often missing:
1. Lots of people simply can not afford to photograph 8x10 and even less so the equipment needed to enlarge it. Furthermore, the space required for most 8x10 enlargers is daunting at best.
2. Not everybody wants to photograph with an 8x10 camera. I’m one of those people who absolutely detest working with sheet film because of how incredibly slooooooow the process is. It just doesn’t suit my style. I gladly sacrifice all of that detail in favor of the ability to capture fleeting moments (90% of what I photograph is not planned).

So, while some don’t like big enlargements from small negatives, there are plenty that do. How else could artists like Salgado, Cartier-Bresson, Gibson, Erwitt, etc get big prints up in museums and galleries?

Click to expand...

I will keep the first point pinned in my mind; Because sometimes one gets lured into technical mumbo-jumbo.

I have been wanting to go medium format for a long time. At the moment it would drain a lot of economic resources. Then I realised that much of the 35mm I've got hasn't been well printed, especially slides. I've got some nice Kodachromes that I'm going to send for printing up to 8x12".

Big prints have a big price tag and footprint. 12x16" is huge for my standards and as a thrifty student I can't afford to go that big. Circa 8x12" prints can be put into some portfolio box whereas big prints are more unwieldy, unless framed.
I once passed by a small gallery with many 12x16" prints, photojournalism Tri-X in 35mm. Looked damn fine.

and some of us shoot cameras as big as 11x14 and don't really care about invisible micro grain or any of that other crap that
most people who use view cameras suggest is "so important". its all a technical trap, a way for people to hoist their work
high above everyone else's because it was made with a certain camera or arcane technique.
i will say that more than 50% of the images ( color and b/w ) i have seen
made with 8x10 and bigger cameras are boring as hell, and the only thing that makes them stand out is the fact the camera operator spent
the time and money getting to the exotic location ( or finding someone else's tripod holes ), processing the film, and getting it printed.
expensive camera, optics and sheet film doesn't give automatic entry to the photography hall of fame ...

getting back to the OP ...

its all about taste. unfortunately photographers are the only people alive who don't know what viewing distance is and they base
everything on viewing an image "up close" ...
it isn't nose to the glass to see minute details or to inspect grain, it's a few feet away ( at least ) ...

if you want to print big, print as big as YOU want, i wouldn't take the word of random names on a discussion board as being the gospel.
do a few tests ... and enjoy yourself.
regarding how large ... i know at least one member of apug who posts here on a regular basis, and has images in the gallery ( and in real life at bricks/mortar galleries ) who enlarges pinhole 35mm asa 3200 film to 32x40, from what i have been told they are something to behold.


thomas, your work is anything but mediocre, and i would put your images head to head with a "name brand" ... heck it would have been better to see your work
at the mfa than the stuff i had to force myself to look at.

DREW WILEY said:

And my circle of friends does include people with multimillion-dollar equipment investments, so not little league by any means. I do my homework. Thanks for asking.

Click to expand...

Yep, another unverifiable statement.

Thanks for being so consistent.

DREW WILEY said:

And my circle of friends does include people with multimillion-dollar equipment investments, so not little league by any means.

Click to expand...

I watched a guy take 20 minutes to parallel park a Maserati, this afternoon, in downtown DC. Having the most expensive stuff doesn't mean you know what to do with it.

There's a point where a 5x7 printed from 35mm fim and a 5x7 from a 4x5 format will look similar next to each other. That point is about 1 meter away. That's where "viewing distance" comes into play as the most important factor in regards to "maximum" enlargement. But Drew has Hawk eyes so I can't argue against that.

Prest_400 said:

I have been wanting to go medium format for a long time. At the moment it would drain a lot of economic resources.

Click to expand...

Prest_400,

Shoot what you have with film you can get.

Listen to Thomas Bertilsson. Look at his photographs. You know he's right.

My quest to find better quality than fine grain 35mm, should not be taken as endorsement of an ultimate goal.

I simply enjoy the look that I get by taking photos that, when you look real close at the print, you can see they keep showing you more.

I've explored a bit with different looks that do not rely on detail at all, and I enjoyed every print.

I still like the sharp and detailed look.

But if I hadn't listened to Thomas, I might have limited my experiences.

Drew, I'm sure you and I would get along fine on a backpack trip together...

But there would probably come a point where I wanted to stay for the shot and you'd object...

You'd get back to town and your buddies would be asking you where you got the nice Pivetta's

I have small negatives,(18X24mm half frame) so I make small prints; 6X8 on 8X10 paper. I make these on my small enlarger, in a small bathroom in a small apartment. I also print 10X14mm from a Minolta16II. Those are printed on 5X7

Sometimes you are limited by space and equipment.

Up until he started shooting with a Nikon dslr, I had a client who ordered 40x60" fb prints from 35mm delta 3200 negs of nighttime scenes lit by a spotlight. The negs were souped in rodinal 1:100 and others in a two part compensating developer. Lots of 6x4.5 tri-x negs enlarged to this size too. I printed editions of several of these series over the years, over 100 prints in all that are now in collections both private and public all around the world. They look amazing and clearly the art-buying public thinks so too. The salient question here is not whether one can make a 40x60" print from a 35mm neg but rather why anyone would be so stupid as to trust a dorky troll when it comes to prescribing senseless limits to what can and cannot be done in photography.

Bill Burk said:

Prest_400,

Shoot what you have with film you can get.

Listen to Thomas Bertilsson. Look at his photographs. You know he's right.

My quest to find better quality than fine grain 35mm, should not be taken as endorsement of an ultimate goal.

I simply enjoy the look that I get by taking photos that, when you look real close at the print, you can see they keep showing you more.

I've explored a bit with different looks that do not rely on detail at all, and I enjoyed every print.

I still like the sharp and detailed look.

But if I hadn't listened to Thomas, I might have limited my experiences.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Sometimes these ideas chew through and don't help at all as they divert more important goals (shooting per se). Reading too much technical things is bad!
I just printed a bunch of snaps. One is of a street scene, quite blurred but very nice. Projecting some kodachromes I shot also made me want to get again.
I already plan to develop a bunch of rolls I've had frozen awaiting development, one even dating 2010! I think my problem is shooting little, and what I had kept undeveloped for a long time. Will keep shooting 135, which is a damn fine format.
I wouldn't say no to shoot 6x9 slides however!

Ahh, the youth; In their unending quest for the ultimate.

Hi Bill ... gave up on Pivettas decades ago. One more quality product that went to hell, along with Raichle. My mtn boots are custom made.
and have to be because my feet are so messed up. I sometimes travel in the alone, but some of my companions are med format film junkies,
and I HATE any kind of tech or gear talk on the trail, whether it be camera gear or outdoor gear. I'm out there to enjoy the quiet, the light, the absence of phones & computers, etc. I'm a contempative photogapher and it has damn little to do with the scenery per se, though that has its own recreational and relax benefits. And I draw the line on all these techie comments on the web - never in the field. What somebody chooses to photograph is their own business. But I do frequently get people in this area asking me questions on the trails here, and they are quite polite and still recognize a view camera for what it is, and often ask what it takes to get into that kind of work or set up
a real darkroom. Some of these people are Silicon Valley engineers who work with the digital options all the time and aren't happy with it.
So no ... I never pontificate about anyone else's style on the trails. NEVER. But in the objective sense, for the sake of sheer argument on
a forum like this, it is fun to bounce the ball around a bit.... and ruffling a few feathers always keeps things a little more interesting ... but
I'm not bluffing either. Like I said, I do my homework and don't BS.

Just an OT FYI:

I have a pair of new old stock Galibier Super Guides from the 1970s I'd sell if a buyer appeared. Size is, I think, 42 but I'd be happy to check. Box is rather rough but the boots still reek of tanning. (SGs were double tanned; both vegetable and mineral.) Pics if you's like.

Back to the regularly scheduled programming.

s-a

I once had a pair of Raichle leather double boots which were miserably heavy, but I could posthole thru deep snow all day long with them, and unlike modern plastic boots, could hike all day in them too. I put in over 10,000 miles of hard trail and mountaineering on them before they were finally stolen! That was back when the only camera I owned was a very early Honeywell Pentax 35mm. It would be fun to find an old pair of hob-nailed mtn boots for a conversation piece, to go along with my wooden ice axe, which I need a new shaft for, since half of the original one is still stuck up at the top of an icefield I took an unexpected thrill ride from. I did recently manage to pick up a couple of brand new unused US mfg backpacks from the 70's, at garage sales, one just like my original Kelty. Way better than what you can buy new today. But I plan to use these, provided I am still backpacking into my own 70's. ... I mean, it's probable I still be backpacking, but whether
I'm still packing a view camera doing it is another question. You come into life in diapers and go out in diapers, begin with 35mm and go out
with 35mm, I guess. Oh well, whatever camera I have in my hands is my favorite of the moment. But in the darkroom, that's a different
subject.

DREW WILEY said:

Hi Bill ... gave up on Pivettas decades ago. One more quality product that went to @#!*% , along with Raichle. My mtn boots are custom made.
and have to be because my feet are so messed up. I sometimes travel in the alone, but some of my companions are med format film junkies,
and I HATE any kind of tech or gear talk on the trail, whether it be camera gear or outdoor gear. I'm out there to enjoy the quiet, the light, the absence of phones & computers, etc. I'm a contempative photogapher and it has @#!*% little to do with the scenery per se, though that has its own recreational and relax benefits. And I draw the line on all these techie comments on the web - never in the field. What somebody chooses to photograph is their own business. But I do frequently get people in this area asking me questions on the trails here, and they are quite polite and still recognize a view camera for what it is, and often ask what it takes to get into that kind of work or set up
a real darkroom. Some of these people are Silicon Valley engineers who work with the digital options all the time and aren't happy with it.
So no ... I never pontificate about anyone else's style on the trails. NEVER. But in the objective sense, for the sake of sheer argument on
a forum like this, it is fun to bounce the ball around a bit.... and ruffling a few feathers always keeps things a little more interesting ... but
I'm not bluffing either. Like I said, I do my homework and don't BS.

Click to expand...

I found a pair of Raichles at a thrift shop a few months ago, nearly new. I'd guess they're from the mid-to-late 70s. Cost? Two dollars, with two good heavy wool sweaters.
When I brought them home they were too stiff to wear, but painting them with neat's foot oil brought them back to life. A lucky find, my ancient pair of Fabianos are no longer repairable.