big enlargements from 35mm film

[Jersey Vic]

I've made 20x24's from TriX (d76 1:1 and Diafine) negs using a very stable, alligned LPL diffusion head enlarger and I was very happy with them.
That being said, I view them as intended from several feet away.

 

[gerryyaum]

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.

unless of course that was the photographers intention(softness) or if the subject matter is so dominant that tech issues take second to the power of the subject matter.

 

[gerryyaum]

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.

sounds fascinating would love to see the print and the process of making it. I agree with the old fig thingy also, there is no limit on the print size, it is up to each photographers choice of what he wants the taste and feel of images to have.

 

[Anscojohn]

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.

******
A. Adams once wrote he thought a totally acceptable 8x10 enlargement could be made from a 35 mm negative shot on a film like Panatomic X, developed in a soft-working developer like D23.

 

[Poohblah]

thanks for the feedback guys.

i am totally willing to make prints larger than 8x10 from a 35mm negative - the only reason i was examining the sharpness of my prints was to try and find a good fine-grain b/w film that stands up to enlargement well. 400 speed film (or faster) seems to be able to take more enlargement because i expect the grain to be there. however, 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.

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.)

 

[Erik Ehrling]

Sharpness is way too overated. The looks of Tri-x at 11x14 from a 35mm neg is actually one of the reasons why I shoot film.

Regards,
Erik Ehrling (Sweden)

 

[Marco B]

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 don't think it has to be the enlarger lens, as posted by me here and some others, 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.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I think it is about pleasing looking grain. IMO FP4+ in smoothie developers looks awful once the grain is visible, but wonderful at very small sizes. Delta 100 on the other hand retains crisp grain in Xtol and a 19 inch print on my wall from 35mm shows very small, right, sharp grain. Its remarkble really. However, in the main I am moving towards more acutance and sharper looking grain for precisely this reason. As an image becomes less 'sharp' as the enlargement grows, retaining sharp grain, even if the image gets more crude, retains a sense of precision and 'rightness' unless the scene is one where grain is objectionable. This is why I am using FX-39 where I can, Xtol when I dont want much grain etc. I have done a recent experiment on mixing the two to get crisp but not excessive grain off faster films and it worked....This was all on 120. In 35mm, using slow films, FX-39 gives a remarkable sense of sharpness and crisp grain up to large sizes. To me, solvent developers produce grain that just does not look pleasant when enlarged a lot, esp it the image suits a crisp look. For tonally smooth scenes enlarged to a lesser extent they make more sense IMO

 

[ic-racer]

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.

Yes, at about 40x you theoretical maximum resolution (based on diffraction for an f4 lens) is still above the resolving power of the paper.

 

[Phil]

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.

 

[mrtoml]

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.

 

[ic-racer]

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.

Ten excellent points!! There should be an APUG FAQ and these 10 items should be on there.

 

[frotog]

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

 

[Poohblah]

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?

thank you all for the wonderful information, i'll put it to good use! i had always assumed that larger negs were necessary to get decent looking enlargements

 

[frotog]

i assume you mean the enlarger lens?

Indeed.

 

[panastasia]

I have a photo of Mt. Katahdin in Main, shot with older (grainy) 35mm Tri-x, and only ever printed it in 11x14 size, nothing smaller gave me the feeling of the place - a view looking back at the "knife edge" (ridge) from "chimney peak" with the allagash wilderness in the background. The photo is grainy but has much detail that can only be seen by close up viewing, such as people climbing the rocks. Since I moved up to MF and compared with 35mm for equal detail I limit all enlargements from 35mm negs to 5x7 - to match the detail I get with MF. But, I'll always print the Katahdin photo no smaller than 11x14.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I've seen 30x40" from 35mm that looked great. It took a lot of work, but the point is that there is no limit. Print as large as you want to. Grain isn't necessarily a bad thing, sometimes it's a really good thing.
I'd even go so far as to say that if your photograph holds enough emotional or imaginative content, grain doesn't matter at all.
I usually don't print larger than 11x14, but I'm getting ready to remodel my darkroom to be able to print 16x20. I will print 35mm to that size too.
One thing you may want to look into is lith printing. The grain of the print itself is what makes up the image, and it can add grain to a 4x5 neg and somewhat mask that of 35mm - which is great for a cohesive look between formats.
- Thomas

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I've seen 30x40" from 35mm that looked great. It took a lot of work, but the point is that there is no limit. Print as large as you want to. Grain isn't necessarily a bad thing, sometimes it's a really good thing.
I'd even go so far as to say that if your photograph holds enough emotional or imaginative content, grain doesn't matter at all.
I usually don't print larger than 11x14, but I'm getting ready to remodel my darkroom to be able to print 16x20. I will print 35mm to that size too.
One thing you may want to look into is lith printing. The grain of the print itself is what makes up the image, and it can add grain to a 4x5 neg and somewhat mask that of 35mm - which is great for a cohesive look between formats.
- Thomas

 

[Naples]

... 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!

 

[ic-racer]

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!

What does the negative look like? I suspect that is from the film.

 

[frotog]

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?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

It will be interesting to see what will big enlargements from the new Kodak Ektar 100 look like:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...ktar/ektarIndex.jhtml?id=0.2.26.14.5.14&lc=en

 

[Marco B]

The photograph was printed with a diffusion source (aka "cold light"). Am I correct?

My 11x17" prints (I don't know about Naples), were printed with a Durst M 670 BW enlarger head having a condensor and glassless negative carrier. Again, high contrast regions look extremely sharp across the whole print (I used a tripod and a 2 sec mirror lock-up function on my camera to avoid camera shake), while low contrast regions look a bit soft.

Camera lenses used were an 28-70 F2.8 Sigma EX lens and Minolta 50 F1.7 lens, the quality of which I have no complains about.

 

[Naples]

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.

What does the negative look like? I suspect that is from the film.

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?

 

[ic-racer]

What should I look for?

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.