big enlargements from 35mm film

[Naples]

OK. The negative does appear to show sharpness in the high contrast areas and softness in the low contrast areas (faces). So you're saying this is likely due to the film itself and not to the development or printing? Of course, it occurred to me that, the photo coming from a hand held 35mm and being of kids, the softness could be from facial movement, too?

 

[Samuel Hotton]

Hello Pooh,
Your thread is big enlargments from 35mm. Well I've made 20"x24" from 1000 asa Kodak 2475 High speed recording film souped in D-76 exposed through a Nikkorex camera. Grainy but beautiful. Considering the subject matter and the extremely low light I'm well pleased. I could not have gotten the shot with any other film at that time in the 1970s. Possibly EK2484, but I doubt it.
My biggest, sharpest, grain free enlargments with a 35mm were printed to11" x 14" with Plus-x pan souped in D-76 stock solution, exposed with a Canon FT-QL with a 50mm f1.8 lens. Sometimes I'd use Microdol-x 1:3 but I did not like the loss in speed. Plus-x pan and D-76 with Tungsten "hot lights" gave nicer results than electronic flash.
I've tried Panatomic With microdol developer and was not sold on it.
I've tried H&W Control VTE with its dedicated developer, not amazed.
I've tried tech Pan with Technodol, interesting but not jazzed.
I've used Ilford Pan f with Perceptol, similar to Panatomic and microdol.
YES, I've used Zeiss and Leitz glass with the above films and YES I've used 20 pound tripods and a cable release with testing the above films.
Coming from the era of using 8x10 cameras and a 4x5 Graphic daily with flash bulbs, I think the run of the mill, average 35mm negative runs out of steam at a print size of 5"x7" and really looks its best no bigger than 4"x6". HOWEVER, a 35mm negative with a proper exposure, a good lens, carefully developed, printed with a good aligned enlarger with a lens equal in quality to the camera lens can be made to breath taking beauty at any size. It's just harder to do with 35mm than with a larger negative.
All the best,
Sam H.

 

[keithwms]

If you drum scan your 35mm neg (thus avoiding lens degradation and flatness issues in the enlarging phase) then you can push to 11x14 with b&w for sure, and a good bit further with slides. Bear in mind that there are people like Galen Rowell who made a pretty good living on colour slides pushed to the max. His gear was nothing heroic- typically Nikon F5 or F100 and Nikkor lenses. The main point was that he shot colour slide almost exclusively. The limits of what 35mm b&w can do are considerably more modest, IMHO.

 

[Claire Senft]

If one uses glassless carriers at the lens' optimum apeture then having an appearance of softness around the corners and edges is to be expected.
These areas are where the usage of a glass carriers shows up most dramatically. To keep down the requirements of keeping surfaces dust free, one can use a glass top and open frame bottom and have 4 surfaces to keep clean as opposed to six for glass on the top and bottom. The bottom frame though has to be quite flat. With a good arrangement the difference between this carrier and two pieces of glass can be very minimal to completely invisible.

If you have an open frame carrier that can be disassembled...the top removed from the bottom... then a piece of AN glass on top that is taped down will be very helpful in getting sharp edges and corners. On source of AN glass would be to buy glass slide mounts that have AN glass on one side. For 35mm perhaps buying superslides or 6x6 or 6x7 mounts and removing the top glass from the mount and taping the negative down will work very nicely. This glass is very thin and is easy to break...use care that you do not cut yourself.

Consider this: The camera lens and the enlarging lens are already fighting to have good edge and corner definition compared to the center.. The use of glassless cariers and having the corners and edges laying in a different plane than the center just excerbates the problem.

THE RESULTS OF USING GLASS CARRIERS IS VERY VISIBLE...IT IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. The difference is very much more than any difference between condenser and diffusion light source.

To load the carrier a light box and loupe are very handy. Put the negative on the lower part of the carrier. Examine with a loupe and do whatever is necesssary to get rid of any dust, dirt or crud. When that has been accomplished then put the top glass down unto the negative.
and check again. Do what is necessary to get a clean three part assembly.

With a good optic such as an 50mm Apo Rodagon at 4.5 to 5.6 35mm can produce lovely and sharp results from a negative that already has those qualities.

 

[Poohblah]

If you drum scan your 35mm neg (thus avoiding lens degradation and flatness issues in the enlarging phase) then you can push to 11x14 with b&w for sure, and a good bit further with slides. Bear in mind that there are people like Galen Rowell who made a pretty good living on colour slides pushed to the max. His gear was nothing heroic- typically Nikon F5 or F100 and Nikkor lenses. The main point was that he shot colour slide almost exclusively. The limits of what 35mm b&w can do are considerably more modest, IMHO.

ya, i was reading about him the other day and his typical pack included an F100 (or equivalent in earlier days), 20mm lens, and 70-180 zoom. of course, when you do as much high-altitude, high-stress, high-risk adventure as he did, you're going to want to carry as modest of a load as possible.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

ya, i was reading about him the other day and his typical pack included an F100 (or equivalent in earlier days), 20mm lens, and 70-180 zoom. of course, when you do as much high-altitude, high-stress, high-risk adventure as he does, you're going to want to carry as modest of a load as possible.

There was something very beautiful and odd about Rowell's images. The colour saturation appeared unnatured (was it Velvia), much less set aside from the utterly spectacular locations he shot in. I think the use of a 20mm lens would give the odd perspective that springs to mind (I too, favour a 2.8 20mm lens for low light landscape work). Dunno about "high risk adventure" in reference to Rowell; he was a celebrated outdoors person who knew exactly what he was doing. He had a drive that even today defies wonder. Ironically, it was a plane crash that claimed he and his wife. His best book I think was "Mount Light", but I can find no copy of it anywhere.

I print from 35mm Velvia (at EI40 or EI32) through the Ciba process to 30x45cm (then frame). I don't often use B&W film (my EOS 5 is loaded with Ilford Delta at the moment for a pending shoot); I think I could go much higher than 30x45cm with Delta.

 

[Poohblah]

Dunno about "high risk adventure" in reference to Rowell

didn't he claim first ascents of several peaks around the world? he was very much of a mountaineer, IIRC.

 

[nze]

For sure a 20X24 print from a 35mm is quite different of the same thing from a 4X5.
But at a certain point the grain start to be part of a image and bring an effect to the print.
I find more interesting to work with developer which keep the grain crispy.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

didn't he claim first ascents of several peaks around the world? he was very much of a mountaineer, IIRC.

Most people who remember Rowell think of him first and foremost as a pre-eminent photographer of the world's wild places. Mountaineering was a means to that end, allowing him to get images of mountainscapes most people today can only dream of. It's too far back for me to remember which peaks he scaled, but Mont Blanc would be one of them? He would have had to 'travel light' in terms of equipment for the mountaineering component.

 

[keithwms]

His best book I think was "Mount Light", but I can find no copy of it anywhere.

Try Mountain Light you can get it at places like Amazon....

He climbed just about everything but I don't know of any first ascents. If you go to his gallery in Bishop you will see what the limits of 35mm slide are; in some cases they've pushed them a wee bit too far, but on the other hand you just won't care because the scenery is so spectacular. I mean, nobody with a brain who's done any climbing stands before a Rowell print and says, geez he shoulda shot that on 4x5. Obviously he was the master of the GND and for some people that look is a bit too much. Anyway, in my guesstimation, he might well have settled into astia 100F if he were still around.

I do recall a story about him trying some MF gear, but the Nikons appealed to him because he could shoot one handed. Hard to say how much of that is myth/legend, but suffice it to say he was no one-hit wonder, he knew very well how to eke every bit of effect out of every 35mm slide.

 

[keithwms]

Okay I guess this just about says it all about GR...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FvA1WatLL._SS500_.jpg

3 points of contact with the rock, one hand for the camera....

 

[Poohblah]

Okay I guess this just about says it all about GR...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FvA1WatLL._SS500_.jpg

3 points of contact with the rock, one hand for the camera....

holy crap.

it's a shame that he's not with us anymore.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

There is a relationship between grain and apparent sharpness. Barry Thornton in his book Edge of Darkness did tests that showed that a little grain was necessary for the viewer to perceive prints as sharp. He compared enlargements using various films. The fine grain enlargements suffered with respect to sharpness compared with medium speed films at the same magnification.

This came up for me a while ago when I started using a 6x7 camera. I found that the fine grain developer I used gave underwhelming results to me with certain films like Acros, but I got nice results I liked with delta 3200 at the same enlargement. The thread is here if you are interested:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

My conclusion was that I needed to use a different developer (not as fine a grained one on the slower films). I also suspect that this is a highly personal perspective and different viewers like to see different things when they look at a big print.

Precisely. This is why I use FX-39 with fine grained films (such as delta 100) although 35mm delta 100 is great with Xtol 1+1 also (though the acutance is reduced, grain is fine but tight on a 20x16). In 120 it is a a different story and I find Xtol way too smooth for many films printed to 'normal sizes'. I am even experimenting with adding FX-39 to Xtol for my 400 speed films to ensure there is a little grain to latch onto for 20x16s. TriX in Xtol 1+1 is effectively grainless at 20x16 otherwise and can appear rather soft.

FX-39 gives the appearance of far greater sharpness on Delta 100 35mm at smaller sizes. A 9.5 x 12 has considerable bite even when grain is not visible from viewing distances. Gives the images far better three dimensionality. On 120 it becomes essential, although the preferences might change if printed to 40" as grain would become visible from Xtol and it might be enough to satisfy my eye's need for something crisp!

 

[2F/2F]

The limit is when you say to yourself, "Gee, that looks terrible!", but that's about it, IMO.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Okay I guess this just about says it all about GR...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FvA1WatLL._SS500_.jpg

3 points of contact with the rock, one hand for the camera....

Mother of God!
How utterly mind-numbing is that for a cover shot!?
And to think that I had the market cornered with imaginative waterfall shots!? I'll have to invest in some climbing kit..!

 

[Cropline]

With Kodak 160VC in 35mm,I had my lab print a 16x20 portrait.At about 18 inches,grain was minimal.This was done w/the former-not currently improved-Portra film.From a grain standpoint,I was
impressed.The image sharpness was acceptable from the 28-135 Canon IS lens.This film deserve a high
quality lens to reach its full potential.

 

[Claire Senft]

I have used a lot of Ektar 25, I also used a lot of Konica Impresa 50. Both films were outstanding. I thought the Konica Impresa 50 to be nicer.
I have shot up several 150 foot rolls of Tech Pan. I am on my 4th 100 foot roll of Imagelink HQ in 35mm...which I much prefer to Tech Pan.

I believe the most important link in the image forming chain is the solidity of your tripod. Your tripod technique is even more important than having the very finest lens in my opinion.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...]I believe the most important link in the image forming chain is the solidity of your tripod. Your tripod technique is even more important than having the very finest lens in my opinion.

Yup. Without a 'steady friend' you're sure to chuck a wobbly!
I've had various cameras in 29 years but I still have my battered Manfrotto 190CLB (bought in 1995), recently fitted with spiked feet to give a better purchase on granite rock faces on wet river rocks. The versatility of the tripod head needs a mention: I fitted a Manfrotto trigger grip, which is now in its 7th year of use and a boon for left or right vertical shooting and speed.

 

[Roger Pellegrini]

16 x 20 is my standard

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.

All my exhibition prints are 16x20. One thing that helps in making bigger enlargements is an enlarger that is permanently mounted. I have my Omega DII mounted directly to my countertop with wall braces made by Harry Taylor at Classic Enlargers. It is as solid as a rock and this helps to reduce the inevitable motion that comes with cranking it up to maximum enlargement size.

Roger Pellegrini

 

[nickandre]

consumer 400 asa color film looks like crap at 8x10 when enlarged optically.

 

[jolefler]

consumer 400 asa color film looks like crap at 8x10 when enlarged optically.

I don't/didn't use a lot of C41 film, but my 8x10 Ektachome/Cibachome prints still don't look that way....even where the Ektachrome was bumped up to 1600.

 

[rossawilson1]

I know I'm late to this but..

For what it's worth I just enlarged a Superia 200 neg to 16x12 and I can hardly notice the grain, there is a loss of sharpness but step back a couple of feet and you can't tell the difference.

Most people who look at prints look at them.. they don't examine them. Now to try a pro film and glass carrier!

 

[funkpilz]

I've blown up Ilford XP2 to 20x30cm, which is roughly 8x10", and it looked pretty good. But I wouldn't go any further than that with 35mm film. Of course, this is because I mostly shoot 400 ISO film.

 

[rossawilson1]

I've also had a 645 neg enlarged to 30x40" and it looks fantastic.. given the neg is x2.7 larger the max 35mm should be around x2.7 smaller so around 16x20, that was Velvia 50.

A lot of magnum photogs use 400 iso film as do I and their exhibitions in London regularly have 16x12's up which are obviously stunning. I print my best 400 B&W negs printed to 14x10, as long as the image's strength is not in it's detail the prints look great and that's with no tripod.

 

[Anon Ymous]

... as long as the image's strength is not in it's detail the prints look great ...

Exactly! It's the content that counts and people seem to miss that fine detail. Far too many of us are preoccupied with resolution, sharpness, grain and whatever. I recently visited an exhibition and I saw some beautiful photographs with golf ball size grain. Whether It looks good or not depends on the subject.

One last thing, when comparing formats, I think it's more fair to base your comparison on the largest dimension of the neg/pos. For me, 6x6 and 6x4,5 are equal. 6x4,5 is just a cropped 6x6 and quality is exactly the same. So, if you want to "quantify" the quality gain between 135 and 645, you'll get 1,55 times better quality. 56/36=1,55