35mm.. largest print size?

[DREW WILEY]

Well I've certainly tested all the film and enlargement options. My love affair with 35mm really involves films like Delta 3200 and TMY400 and
little 5x7 prints. I like my chihuahua to get along well with my rottweiler.

 

[Bill Burk]

A fast moving thread for a busy week...

My standard size is 11x14 printed full frame with dirty borders and about a half-inch of white paper all around.

When I want to make high quality prints that can stand up well next to each other, then I want to use slow film for 35mm, medium speed film for 120 and 400 speed film for 4x5. That's typically with camera on tripod, careful composition and focusing, attention to detail. If I shoot landscapes on 400 speed 35mm film "by mistake" I worry about the print size (8x10 looks great though).

I've done enough experimenting outside these parameters to know that I enjoy it all.

I get what Drew's saying about retouching. You can't realistically retouch a 35mm negative. But then again, normally, my 35mm and 120 negatives are spotless. Plus it is easy to camouflage spotting on a grainier print. The 4x5 negatives are easy to retouch. And yes, since I don't have a clean room, they typically need retouching.

Another story:

I just printed three frames from a roll of 35mm APX-25 - I am very happy with the results. My Quaking Aspen shot is BETTER than any Quaking Aspen shot I have ever shot on any format including 4x5. The fact I felt like printing so many frames from a single roll of film speaks a lot of my heightened emotional state at the time I took the pictures. They were shot at a time when I didn't give much thought to larger formats except for the occasional experiment to see how I felt about bigger cameras. It was a lightweight trip, where my pack for over a week weighed 35 pounds.

You might call me out as making things up when I draft descriptions for these photographs invoking mystical and teary-eyed feelings for this family of clone-trees and how I was amazed to spend the afternoon in their presence. But the pictures will speak for themselves. You'll see when I post them to the galleries after I get a chance to reconfigure the darkroom for copy work...

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

If you think about it, theaters project 35mm movie prints on to huge screens. Yes it can be grainy, but it can work.

 

[MattKing]

If you think about it, theaters project 35mm movie prints on to huge screens. Yes it can be grainy, but it can work.

And "half-frame" (18mm x 24mm) prints at that!

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Reall?

And "half-frame" (18mm x 24mm) prints at that!

I gladly stand corrected.

 

[clayne]

Why guys? Why are we doing this age old thread over again? We just finished one up less than 6 months ago too.

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

... yeah, I was being mean. I do have a good friend who loves working with micro-grained b&w films in 35mm and blowing them up to 20x24.
The biggest problem is not getting acceptable grain and "OK" detail, but the fact that one inevitably has to contend with a lot of visible blemishes in untextured areas. Grain can look OK, blimps and snails in the sky, no-no. And I am referring to coating issues and not dust spots -tiny things which would be virtually invisible when made printed from larger sized film, but persistently annoying with that degree of magnification. The other inevitable problem is that when fine grain is your priority, you generally have to sacrifice something else, esp tonality. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Interesting. Blimps and snails in the sky. Perhaps you're not using a very well manufactured film? If you just don;t like the idea of being forced to look at a 35mm negative blown up large fine. Others don;t have this compulsion to decide what is acceptable for others. In answering the OP with an option that fit his parameters I was intending to be helpful, not to get advice on assistance in walking - or did you mean I should be caned for suggesting that a 20x24" print from a high resolution 35mm film was something I or someone else might find acceptable, or in fact even find pleasure in?

Troll?

This is the perennial problem with the internet, and photography forums on the internet in particular. People who know exactly what you or I must do despite not listening at all to the question that is asked, who, when called on it decide to simple pretend that the original question is at fault, or that their answer is so important that the original question is no longer valid. Now, how does one add somebody to their blocked list?

EDIT: Ah it's an Ignore List. Nice and simple.Just be sure to click YES.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I think that stories told by a photographer are told the way they are because it's how they like to work. I've seen enough photography exhibits where 12x20 contact prints are mixed with giant enlargements to know that the mix of pictures is not by print quality, but by context, content, significance, theme, history, beauty, or emotion.
The camera seems to me to be the very least important part of the chain.

I'm a firm believer in doing our utmost, as photographers and printers, to present our work in the very best way we can.
When the size of the negative changes, the print becomes different. No argument there. But what is good and what is not is strictly opinion. And therein lies my qualm with the topic. By getting involved in so much discussion over something that is, in the end, fairly insignificant to the importance of a photograph, and to accomplish virtually nothing, is amusing and disappointing at the same time, disappointing maybe because of the lack of ability to see things the way others do.

Just to keep on track, this is the OP:

"Hey guys,

I was wondering what is the biggest sized print (BandW) that you can get away with and still have it look nice and tight? I was guessing 11x14 with 100 ASA film

Todd"

I'm on about the same page as Todd, a 8x12" print from 35 is about as large as I'm personally happy with - and that means a negative exposed on a tripod, fine grain film, lens set at around :f5.6 - f:8, careful enlarging, and so on.
I'm not telling anyone what size print to make. I'm stating what I like and feel good about sticking on my walls.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Just to keep on track, this is the OP:

"Hey guys,

I was wondering what is the biggest sized print (BandW) that you can get away with and still have it look nice and tight? I was guessing 11x14 with 100 ASA film

Todd"

I'm on about the same page as Todd, a 8x12" print from 35 is about as large as I'm personally happy with - and that means a negative exposed on a tripod, fine grain film, lens set at around :f5.6 - f:8, careful enlarging, and so on.
I'm not telling anyone what size print to make. I'm stating what I like and feel good about sticking on my walls.

Touche.

I don't know what 'nice and tight' means, though. It doesn't leak air, perhaps?

If you want to make prints that are virtually grain free from 35mm film, (without putting your eye extremely close to the print surface), I would probably use 11x14 paper and print 9x12" effective area, using Acros or TMax 100 film, maybe Delta 100 or Pan-F+.
But a well processed Tri-X negative looks extremely good to me at 16x20 size, and the grain is just right for that size for me to appreciate.

However you twist and turn the discussion, even staying on topic, we end up with subjectivity.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Nice and tight is still subjective and depends on subject matter (highly detailed vs blank skies), contrast, and viewing conditions. It also depends on the film, obviously. Someone might find a 16x20 enlargement of a certain subject from 35mm TMax 100 developed to a low CI to be nice and tight. Someone else might hate it. Etc. Etc. Etc. Enough already.

"Subject matter" is also highly subjective... mine ususally has lots of detail. This is why, along with tonality for rendering texture, I use the big cameras.

Big enlargements, over 6x - 8x, lose the tonality and detail which I usually take pictures to express. I use the biggest negative possible when I plan a photograph.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Aaaah.... now I sure wouldn't have a clue how to get the most out of a 35mm piece of film would I? I merely own about a good selection of the finest enlarging optics ever made, and operate enlargers that are actually more precise than anything you can go out and buy. Having a yappy
little chihuaua in the house is no problem as long as he doesn't snap at a dog fifty times his size. I know how that kind of dogfight will turn out.
Even my friend who shoots uses the finest optics he can find for his 35mm 20x24 prints only does that when the smaller camera is dictated by
traveling with his family. On his own he chooses Zeiss lenses and a 6X6 system, and even those results look weak compared to what I can
do with 6x9, which looks problematic compared to 4x5, which sucks compared to 8x10... I can make very nice prints with any format... but
the whole point is what kind of subject matter is best suited to the tools you have on hand. And when it comes to detail and microtonality
and sheer range ...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

"And when it comes to detail and microtonality
and sheer range ... " I grab a 30cm Dagor and a Deardorff V8.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

"Subject matter" is also highly subjective... mine ususally has lots of detail. This is why, along with tonality for rendering texture, I use the big cameras.

Big enlargements, over 6x - 8x, lose the tonality and detail which I usually take pictures to express. I use the biggest negative possible when I plan a photograph.

Conversely, I neither like nor dislike enlargements and contact prints, based on whether there's grain or not, or what the level of detail or resolution is. I'm never amazed by a picture just because I can see lots of detail. That is something I might appreciate from a technical level, like with aerial photography for example, but to me it adds zero value to a print. Nothing.

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?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thomas - please note that quite a few redux exhibitions of vintage photographers might not even remotely reflect the esthetic preferences of the actual photographer when recast in modern big prints. A lot of this fad makes me want to vomit. Who do these dingdongs think they are anyway? It's like stealing. Now there are a few cases where only the original negs are discovered and somebody has to figure out how to
translate these on a modern medium. Megaprints would hardly seem authentic. Maybe the photographer is still alive and OK with it. The profileration of wide inkjet prints simplifies the temptation to do this. But ostentatious so-so quality - big just to be big - is well.... I sure as
hell wouldn't want anyone doing that with my work. Only airheads go around using statements like, "only the image counts; it doesn't matter
what it looks like". That's like saying there's no difference between a Mozart symphony performed by the New York philharmonic and the
kid with a tuba down the street practicing for the junior high marching band. The tuba is big and loud. That's all ... and obnoxious. The
key is to master your instrument and know what it's good for and what it's not. Limitation is a valuable lesson.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas - please note that quite a few redux exhibitions of vintage photographers might not even remotely reflect the esthetic preferences of the actual photographer when recast in modern big prints. A lot of this fad makes me want to vomit. Who do these dingdongs think they are anyway? It's like stealing. Now there are a few cases where only the original negs are discovered and somebody has to figure out how to
translate these on a modern medium. Megaprints would hardly seem authentic. Maybe the photographer is still alive and OK with it. The profileration of wide inkjet prints simplifies the temptation to do this. But ostentatious so-so quality - big just to be big - is well.... I sure as
hell wouldn't want anyone doing that with my work. Only airheads go around using statements like, "only the image counts; it doesn't matter
what it looks like". That's like saying there's no difference between a Mozart symphony performed by the New York philharmonic and the
kid with a tuba down the street practicing for the junior high marching band. The tuba is big and loud. That's all ... and obnoxious. The
key is to master your instrument and know what it's good for and what it's not. Limitation is a valuable lesson.

It matters greatly what the image looks like. Tonality is something that I think is very important to the image. Where and how to add and remove tonality in a print is, in my opinion, the greatest skill to master as a printer, because it emphasizes the meaning of the print to a very large degree. It sets the mood, supports gesture and composition, a bleak mood can be set, happy and bright is possible, or a very heavy and contemplative one - it is extremely important to how the viewer reacts emotionally to the print.

Just because I say that resolution, grain, and sharpness doesn't do anything for me in a print, doesn't mean I don't care what the print looks like. I care GREATLY what the print looks like, but find that resolution, grain, sharpness, etc, is something that neither adds or subtracts from the image. It adds, as I said, absolutely nothing to the picture. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Unimportant. In my humble opinion, of course.
I do understand that others disagree with me, but there must be room for both of us somehow. Neither of us is right, and neither of us is wrong. We're just different.

I'm also not saying that prints must be big. I say that they can be.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Like I said, Thomas... It all depends on what instrument you're playing and how well you've mastered it. When I shoot and print with reference to a Nikon, I might deliberately avoid a lot of micro-information; but when shooting and printing 8x10 the ability to convey a lot of detail is one of its strong points. Now that detail has to harmonize with all the other aspects of the composition. Detail just for detail is mere technical redundancy, just as size is silly just for size. But when it becomes an integral part of the composition, and what will draw people into that print year after year discovering new nuances and interesting things above and beyond the general subject, well, then its warranted and highly rewarding. When big prints do have rewarding detail, believe me, people will move right up to it every time. That certainly doesn't mean that every large scale print HAS to communicate in that particular mode, but it has served as an effective strategy
for some us for quite awhile, and does qualitatively distinguish this kind of work from the mere "big for big" fad.

 

[Dinesh]

Aaaah.... now I sure wouldn't have a clue how to get the most out of a 35mm piece of film would I? I merely own about a good selection of the finest enlarging optics ever made, and operate enlargers that are actually more precise than anything you can go out and buy. Having a yappy
little chihuaua in the house is no problem as long as he doesn't snap at a dog fifty times his size. I know how that kind of dogfight will turn out.
Even my friend who shoots uses the finest optics he can find for his 35mm 20x24 prints only does that when the smaller camera is dictated by
traveling with his family. On his own he chooses Zeiss lenses and a 6X6 system, and even those results look weak compared to what I can
do with 6x9, which looks problematic compared to 4x5, which sucks compared to 8x10... I can make very nice prints with any format... but
the whole point is what kind of subject matter is best suited to the tools you have on hand. And when it comes to detail and microtonality
and sheer range ...

Why do the majority of your posts sound like a undocumented C.V.

It appears that you always know someone (never named) or have done something (never proven) that supports your argument.

If I was a cynical person, I might be inclined to think that you may be exhibiting a bit of discretionary latitude in your evidence.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Like I said, Thomas... It all depends on what instrument you're playing and how well you've mastered it. When I shoot and print with reference to a Nikon, I might deliberately avoid a lot of micro-information; but when shooting and printing 8x10 the ability to convey a lot of detail is one of its strong points. Now that detail has to harmonize with all the other aspects of the composition. Detail just for detail is mere technical redundancy, just as size is silly just for size. But when it becomes an integral part of the composition, and what will draw people into that print year after year discovering new nuances and interesting things above and beyond the general subject, well, then its warranted and highly rewarding. When big prints do have rewarding detail, believe me, people will move right up to it every time. That certainly doesn't mean that every large scale print HAS to communicate in that particular mode, but it has served as an effective strategy
for some us for quite awhile, and does qualitatively distinguish this kind of work from the mere "big for big" fad.

Big because of whatever trend happens to be in place does not interest me, and that 'fad' was brought to the conversation by you, not me. I just claim that prints from the small negatives can be large and largely satisfying to some of us who have a different interpretation of what makes a good print than you do.

I repeat myself, for the nth time: I do not care about detail, resolution, and a lack of grain. I don't. I really really really don't. It is not important to me. Don't care. I'm sure some people do, but I'm telling you that there are those of us who don't, and do not subscribe to your version of what you wish to achieve as the ultimate quality. Is that so difficult to simply acknowledge? It's pretty simple, really. Four words: I. Do. Not. Care.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Does the 30cm Dagor result in better detail and tonality than say a current Schneider? Is that Deardorff aligned with some sort of micrometer every time you set it up?

In my opinion, yes. And I have recent Schneiders to compare it with. It certainly gives detail and tonality that pleases me more than the Schneiders. Otherwise I'd be using the Schneiders, wouldn't I?
What would aligning the camera with a micrometer do?

 

[DREW WILEY]

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

 

[DREW WILEY]

You got between my re-post, EVH, but I for one do use a micrometer, namely a special depth micrometer, for double-checking film plane etc. whenever calibrating a new view camera. It might not make a lot of difference with long lenses and modest enlargements, but a simple little
bubble in the dried varnish of a wooden camera might easily be enough to make a visible difference when using a roll-film back and the fussier
nature of something like that, for example.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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

And magically you are the arbiter of what's mediocre and what isn't? Give me a break.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

You got between my re-post, EVH, but I for one do use a micrometer, namely a special depth micrometer, for double-checking film plane etc. whenever calibrating a new view camera. It might not make a lot of difference with long lenses and modest enlargements, but a simple little
bubble in the dried varnish of a wooden camera might easily be enough to make a visible difference when using a roll-film back and the fussier
nature of something like that, for example.

So do I, a Starret. I checked every filmholder, both cameras, all three backs, and the rollfilm holder as I acquired them. Strangely, or maybe not, the best holders of all I had for 8x10 turned out to be a set of 8 Folmer-Graflex wood holders. I'm sure this has more to do with they way they were cared for than anything else.

My response was mainly directed at the snarky post I quoted.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The weak point in view cameras is generally film plane. That's why I use precision adhesive filmholders in my 8x10 for color film, which is something I might enlarge well over 20X24, but not likely black and white film. Then, as much as I hate roll film in the darkroom, a roll film back on a 4x5 can sometimes be convenient for travel, and focus with one of these is way fussier than with 4x5 sheet film. But properly done, the availability of swings and tilts allows one to use optimum f-stops for depth of field, and will often produce a more crisp image than even the most expensive lenses for ordinary MF cameras - an important fact which the LPMM and pixel geeks and their calculators just can't quite seem to comprehend. ... but I use conventional MF cameras too, along with 35mm. Each has its own benefits, and is inherently fun too.