60x70 cm enlargements 35mm negative

Jessestr · Oct 30, 2016

I'm busy planning a new project followed by a 8x10 book but might do another exhibition if possible with big prints.

I'm a 35mm shooter. I like 120 but never felt the same love as 135. I'm doing portraits with studio light. Probably ISO 50 - 125 film.

Maybe Adox Silvermax 100. Really like this film.

Is it possible to get 60x70cm (24x27.5 inch) enlargements out of it? Probably going to use RC paper for this.

tedr1 · Oct 30, 2016

Magnification is approximately 24x, this requires a tall enlarger and for the best results also a very good quality enlarging lens that is intended for this large magnification, an average quality lens will give results that have poor contrast and blur.

Ron789 · Oct 30, 2016

Of course you can!
Two things to keep in mind:
1. Practical issues: an enlarger / lens combination that will fit in your darkroom and enables this magnification; you may consider using a 40mm lens, like the Leitz Focotar from the Focomat V35. And trays or drums large enough to handle this size paper.
2. Image quality: taking a close look at the prints there will be grain and unsharpness. If that is what you like then fine. If the images will typically be seen from a larger distance, it's irrelevant.

BMbikerider · Oct 30, 2016

If a print is looked at from a particular natural distance, grain will not be visible, nor any apparent lack of sharpness. That may sound stupid, but why print to a 24x enlargement then stand a foot away to examine it: a more natural viewing distance will be around 6 feet.(2 meters) As Ron789 above said grain and unsharpness are then largely irrelevant.

A Leitz V35 enlarger will serve your purpose, but even with that tall column the enlarger head will have to be reversed and projected onto the floor. Possibly easier,would be one of the better enlargers still available new or used, which has the facilty to project the image horozontally onto a wall.I don't know if the auto focus on the V35 would work at the distance you are planning

The lens needs to be really top quality as well. If I were in the postion needing to do what you are planning, I would use my LPL7700 and my Rodenstock Rodagon F2.8/50 APO lens. I don't know of a better combination.

The table the enlarger needs to sit on would have to be to be rock solid. There is no bigger risk to lack of definition (sharpness) than enlarger vibration. That is assuming the image was originally taken with a camera on a similarly rock solid tripod. (Plus an accurately focussed prime lens.)

RC or fibre paper, it would be your choice, but my preference to give apparent extra 'punch' and sharpness, I would go for either glossy RC or glossy (unglazed) fibre based. Bear in mind that there will be a reduction in contrast so glossy paper will help in that field too.

Good luck.

pdeeh · Oct 30, 2016

why print to a 24x enlargement then stand a foot away to examine it

yet people do. I've stood and watched people come into a gallery with one of Monet''s waterlily paintings (one of the really huge ones), stand two feet away from the surface for about 15 seconds and then leave.

I wonder what they feel they've seen?

ic-racer · Oct 30, 2016

In my experience, using enlarging lenses beyond their indicated maximum magnification leads to lack of illumination and sharpness and the corners of the field. In at least one case I encountered this was due to excessive field curvature. Even when using a high magnification lens with its augmented field of coverage, centering the negative on the axis of the lens is important to obtain accurate rendition of all 4 corners of the negative.

M Carter · Oct 30, 2016

ic-racer said:
In my experience, using enlarging lenses beyond their indicated maximum magnification leads to lack of illumination and sharpness and the corners of the field. In at least one case I encountered this was due to excessive field curvature. Even when using a high magnification lens with its augmented field of coverage, centering the negative on the axis of the lens is important to obtain accurate rendition of all 4 corners of the negative.

Just curious - in that case, say doing a very large print from a 4x5 negative beyond the recommended size of the enlarging lens - would lifting or lowering the corners of the paper bring the corners into the proper alignment? Not really planning anything along these lines, but wondering if field curvature is an issue, can you compensate on the baseboard - theoretically at least?

Jessestr · Oct 30, 2016

Thanks for the answers. I'll try to get the best lens as possible. Enlarger is Durst Laborator 1200..

Just checked. With a 50mm I'm able to get 70x80cm on my baseboard.
50x60cm seems about the size I want.

Lachlan Young · Oct 30, 2016

The L1200 will be fine - 20x is the upper limit of specified performance on most top quality 50mm enlarging lenses - if you want to spend a lot of money & time, you might want to try & track down a Rodagon-G which is optimised for 25x upwards.

It's the simple things you'll have to keep an eye out for - effective depth of field on the taking lens will narrow drastically & you'll be going beyond the realistic abilities of most normal films to keep resolving useful detail, even if the lens can resolve close to the diffraction limit - if you can live with this, it'll be straightforward enough.

removed account4 · Oct 30, 2016

jessestr, have fun !

flavio81 · Oct 31, 2016

I have seen not only 60x70cm enlargements but also 70x100cm made from 135.

My opinion is that as long as the negative is pin sharp (and the enlargement is, as well), it will be just fine with ISO 100 film

Of course using 120 film would be far better, but 135 is also doable. Although, to be honest, from 135 better results could be made by using those electronic thingies that convert the image into numbers.

PS: If you need a second opinon, ask the Minox (8x11mm) film shooters how well does the negative enlarge to about 7x10" (19x26cm), which is a 24x magnification factor.

wiltw · Oct 31, 2016

M Carter said:
Just curious - in that case, say doing a very large print from a 4x5 negative beyond the recommended size of the enlarging lens - would lifting or lowering the corners of the paper bring the corners into the proper alignment? Not really planning anything along these lines, but wondering if field curvature is an issue, can you compensate on the baseboard - theoretically at least?

In the case of 4x5" neg, one is enlarging by 1/4 the factor of enlarging 135. To make a 24" print from a 24mm negative requires 25X enlargement factor of the film image, and most enlarger lenses are optimized for smaller degrees of magnification. In the case of the typical 50mm lens, they might perform well at 8X, but less well at 11-16X. In the case of an APO-Rodagon 50mm, the design point specifically stated by Rodenstock is "optimized for 10X enlargement;...recommended application is in the range between 2X and 20X"

destroya · Oct 31, 2016

I have made 1 20x24 on my V35 from rollei retro 80s. It was pushing the limits of both the enlarger lens, the original leitz 40mm lens that came with the V35, and the film. having a close to perfect negative helped a lot, so be careful on the capture end. from a few feet away it looked good, but close up gave grain, but again, its film and a very large print, so what do you expect. I could have gone larger but a 6x7 neg would have been better.

yeh you can do it, but dont expect it to be perfect. also, it took me many sheets to get it right, so make sure to have extra sheets of paper

pentaxuser · Oct 31, 2016

Jessestr said:
. I'm doing portraits with studio light. Probably ISO 50 - 125 film.

Maybe Adox Silvermax 100. Really like this film.
/QUOTE]

As these will be portraits with studio light and the enlargements are "on the limit" as they say is this a classic case for CMS 20 and its special developer? Based purely on an article I saw by the CMS 20 producer and the accompanying comparison photos of CMS 20 and an "ordinary" 4x5 neg the results of the CMS 20 in its own developer looked pretty spectacular

pentaxuser

georg16nik · Oct 31, 2016

Go for it!
135 is great for murals!!!
Silvermax grain is sharp sand - I really like it - reminds me the old APX 100.

DREW WILEY · Oct 31, 2016

Depends what look you want. If you want crisp grittiness, and have that kind of grain in the film to begin with, there might be an advantage to investing in something like a Rodagon G. If the look is going to be mushy anyway, any decent enlarging lens should do. I mention this because there
is no way you'll have a sharply detailed print from 35mm this big. But interesting grain "character" is a distinct possibility.

georg16nik · Oct 31, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
... I mention this because there
is no way you'll have a sharply detailed print from 35mm this big...

You personally printed this big from Adox CMS 20 or Copex Rapid in 35mm... or you are just talking theoretically?
I am asking, because I have done that, many times, using Magnifax 4 with the condensor for 6x9 and the good old zebra Rodagon 50/5,6.

DREW WILEY · Oct 31, 2016

How about Tech Pan? Many of us have done things like this. I have a friend who does it all the time, and does it as well as anybody, with excellent equipment. A blank sky looks like it has BB holes in it, cause every little tiny flaw in the film itself is magnified to the size of a blimp. So no, I'm not talking theoretical at all. 8X is an extreme magnification for 35mm, or for any film or format.

georg16nik · Oct 31, 2016

How about not?
So, you are talking theoretically!
Tech Pan and CMS 20 got little in common - different sensitivity, spectral response, granularity.

A bit outside this thread, as the OP hinted on Silvermax, which is great film in it's own and prints gorgeously at large magnifications.

M Carter · Nov 1, 2016

wiltw said:
In the case of 4x5" neg, one is enlarging by 1/4 the factor of enlarging 135. To make a 24" print from a 24mm negative requires 25X enlargement factor of the film image, and most enlarger lenses are optimized for smaller degrees of magnification. In the case of the typical 50mm lens, they might perform well at 8X, but less well at 11-16X. In the case of an APO-Rodagon 50mm, the design point specifically stated by Rodenstock is "optimized for 10X enlargement;...recommended application is in the range between 2X and 20X"

Thanks for the info... but were you replying to a different question? I'm curious about making up for filed curvature issues at the baseboard level.

(Just curious - in that case, say doing a very large print from a 4x5 negative beyond the recommended size of the enlarging lens - would lifting or lowering the corners of the paper bring the corners into the proper alignment? Not really planning anything along these lines, but wondering if field curvature is an issue, can you compensate on the baseboard - theoretically at least?)

wiltw · Nov 1, 2016

M Carter said:
Thanks for the info... but were you replying to a different question? I'm curious about making up for filed curvature issues at the baseboard level.

(Just curious - in that case, say doing a very large print from a 4x5 negative beyond the recommended size of the enlarging lens - would lifting or lowering the corners of the paper bring the corners into the proper alignment? Not really planning anything along these lines, but wondering if field curvature is an issue, can you compensate on the baseboard - theoretically at least?)

I was responding to the initial comment you made, about "Just curious - in that case, say doing a very large print from a 4x5 negative beyond the recommended size of the enlarging lens", as a 24" print is merely about 6X enlargment of a 4x5...not 'large' from the standpoint of degree of magnification.

bence8810 · Nov 2, 2016

I printed a 135 negative in 110x80cm size. That 110 is the width of the roll paper i have. It's matt RC paper (Fuji).
I used a condenser enlarger with its head tilted horizontally and wall mounted the paper. I used an El Nikkor 50 f2.8 lens.

The film was pushed one stop and there's definitely grain but I like it.

See the print on the wall - the size here obviously isn't showing as there is nothing on the photo to compare it with and I am not at home so no chance of taking another shot. It's hanging in my darkroom.

Here you can somehow feel the size of it and see the grain. Good luck and have fun

flavio81 · Nov 2, 2016

bence8810 said:
I printed a 135 negative in 110x80cm size. That 110 is the width of the roll paper i have. It's matt RC paper (Fuji).
I used a condenser enlarger with its head tilted horizontally and wall mounted the paper. I used an El Nikkor 50 f2.8 lens.

The film was pushed one stop and there's definitely grain but I like it.

See the print on the wall - the size here obviously isn't showing as there is nothing on the photo to compare it with and I am not at home so no chance of taking another shot. It's hanging in my darkroom.

Here you can somehow feel the size of it and see the grain. Good luck and have fun

Looks good! Which film was used?

baachitraka · Nov 2, 2016

That looks really good. Again, may I ask what film was used to take that shot?

Grain is like one of the print from Sebastiao Salgado's exhibition here in Bremen.

bence8810 · Nov 2, 2016

Its very humbling that my "grain" is being compared to Sebastiao Salgado's

It's Eastman 5222 - otherwise known as Kodak Double-X. I buy it in 400ft spools and respool them myself. I shoot it at 400 (and lately 1600) and develop in Rodinal.

@400 - 1:50 11 minutes
@1600 - 1:25 13 minutes

First 30 sec constant agitation and thereafter 3 inversion every minute.

Ben

Edit: it wasn't clear. Film is 250ISO and I shot that photo at 400. Recently shoot at 1600 and I lose highlights quickly on sunny shots which I don't mind. Also get gray-blacks if I underexpose which I do mind. I try to overexpose always and burn longer in the darkroom. At 400 it works quite reliably though.

60x70 cm enlargements 35mm negative

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency