The other factor in all this is the proper or optimum viewing distance for the size of print. If you blow up a 35 mm frame to 16x20 and look at from say, a normal reading distance, it will look soft and show lots of grain, regardless of the camera, lens, film, exposure, developer or whatever else.
That's not to say those factors aren't important, they are, and a soft or poorly exposed negative will never look "good", big or small.
I recently made 45" x 65" b/w rc prints from 35mm negatives and I think the results look fantastic no matter what the viewing distance may be. The film was delta 3200 stand developed in highly dilute rodinal. For the enlargements I used a perfectly aligned durst 138, a glass carrier, and a 50mm rodagon g. The negs are quite thin but proved a perfect match for my roll of ilford digital rc (not a multigrade paper). Exposure times were in the neighborhood of 4' with a 500 watt bulb. This is so much more fun than starting with a 4x5 copy neg! The photographs are startlingly sharp even at this size enlargement. The notion of a limit for enlargement for a 35mm neg strikes me as an arbitrary restraint that moldy old figs proscribed in the photo how-to manuals of decades past.
i was just wondering what you guys typically consider the limit of enlarging 35mm film. i've noticed softness on my prints starting at 8"x10", but that's what i get for examining my prints with a loupe.
I recently made 45" x 65" b/w rc prints from 35mm negatives and I think the results look fantastic no matter what the viewing distance may be. The film was delta 3200 stand developed in highly dilute rodinal. For the enlargements I used a perfectly aligned durst 138, a glass carrier, and a 50mm rodagon g. The negs are quite thin but proved a perfect match for my roll of ilford digital rc (not a multigrade paper). Exposure times were in the neighborhood of 4' with a 500 watt bulb. This is so much more fun than starting with a 4x5 copy neg! The photographs are startlingly sharp even at this size enlargement. The notion of a limit for enlargement for a 35mm neg strikes me as an arbitrary restraint that moldy old figs proscribed in the photo how-to manuals of decades past.
i think the enlargement lens may be more of a factor than the film or camera's lens since the prints from my fine-grain negs are soft before i see grain (true? or am i a dunce?). in fact, the 8x10s i have made so far are great from a standard viewing distance.
I recently made 45" x 65" b/w rc prints from 35mm negatives and I think the results look fantastic no matter what the viewing distance may be. The film was delta 3200 stand developed in highly dilute rodinal. For the enlargements I used a perfectly aligned durst 138, a glass carrier, and a 50mm rodagon g. The negs are quite thin but proved a perfect match for my roll of ilford digital rc (not a multigrade paper). Exposure times were in the neighborhood of 4' with a 500 watt bulb. This is so much more fun than starting with a 4x5 copy neg! The photographs are startlingly sharp even at this size enlargement. The notion of a limit for enlargement for a 35mm neg strikes me as an arbitrary restraint that moldy old figs proscribed in the photo how-to manuals of decades past.
This may be of interest. Camera Lens News from Spring 1998 published by Carl Zeiss:
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN04e/$File/CLN4.pdf
See page 2 - 10 Steps to Success in High Performance Photography
I scavenged a 40mm 5.6 S-Biogon from an aperture card camera that was being trashed. They come up on ebay once in a while. Not you average enlarger lens for sure - 70x would be about a 100" x 66" print from a 35mm negative.
oh i am sure!but that wasn't really my original point, i was just so impressed with the sharpness i got on small enlargements with 50 speed film that i wanted to replicate it with larger prints and i was wondering where you guys usually find the limit to be before you run out of resolution. i would love to make enlargements that big, if only i had the resources (large tubs, large easels, etc.)
Run out of resolution? If you can see it with a small print then you're not going to "run out" on a larger print. Resolution is recognizable detail. As noted before different lenses are optimized for different times enlargement with standard lenses falling into the 8x-15x category; that's an 8x10 to 11x14 from a 35mm. Anything larger will greatly benefit from a lens specifically designed for bigger enlargements. At this point in the game film developer and taking lens will have considerable affect in the photographic quality of the print.
Soon I will post some examples of 50x enlargement murals made from delta 3200
i assume you mean the enlarger lens?
... you may see softness especially in the low contrast regions of the prints even before you actually start to see grain. My recent 11x17 prints (actual image size) from TMax 100 35mm film are nearly grainless, yet they do look a bit soft in the low contrast regions, while appearing very sharp in the higher contrast portions of the print.
I have noticed this too in my prints from 35mm TMax 100 and 400.
What causes this?
Is it unavoidable?
For instance, I have a beautiful photo of my children sitting on the beach ... handheld 35mm TMax 100 ... optically printed by A & I ... tack sharp in the high contrast areas (clothing) but a bit soft in the low contrast areas (white faces).
Thanks!
The photograph was printed with a diffusion source (aka "cold light"). Am I correct?I have noticed this too in my prints from 35mm TMax 100 and 400.
What causes this?
Is it unavoidable?
For instance, I have a beautiful photo of my children sitting on the beach ... handheld 35mm TMax 100 ... optically printed by A & I ... tack sharp in the high contrast areas (clothing) but a bit soft in the low contrast areas (white faces).
Thanks!
The photograph was printed with a diffusion source (aka "cold light"). Am I correct?
I sent it to A&I in California to be optically printed. Other than that, your question is over my head.The photograph was printed with a diffusion source (aka "cold light"). Am I correct?
I'm at work and don't have it in front of me, but I can check when I get home. What should I look for?What does the negative look like? I suspect that is from the film.
Basically the same phenomenon. That is sharpness in the high contrast areas and the impression of less sharpness in those low contrast areas. I think I have experienced what you speak of and it was just the way the film behaved and was not related to projection printing.What should I look for?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?