Gasp... Great Enlargement from 35mm!

[Snapshot]

Hi All,

With some helpful advice from some highly qualified inidividuals from APUG, I managed to make my first significant colour enlargement today. As I shoot 35mm, I wasn't expecting fantastic results but I managed a x15 enlargement of a photograph of my pet parrot. The results were impressive and I was surprised at the detail I managed to squeeze out of the film. The picture's grain was not very noticeable, the colour rendition very good and the sharpness excellent.

All in all, I thought it was very good considering my skill level and certainly better than anything I managed using digital solutions. Thanks everyone that provided their input and advice. Now, I can only imagine how MF or LF prints would look.

 

[dmr]

I've had good luck making (or in the case of the wet prints, having them made) 11x14s. As long as the negative is clean and sharp, they can make a stunning print.

Last week I made a 13x19 inkjet print of a night scene for a friend's office wall and people can't believe that it came from a 35mm film negative, and 800 speed at that. One guy swears that it has to be digital because of the fine grain.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Isn't modern technology amazing? I'm always so glad to make good-looking 11x14 out of 35mm (in B&W, though), and I can blame it on modern emulsions, modern developers, and great, cheap enlarging lenses. It's about time people stop believing that more than a 4x enlargement is stretching it. It's just a different look, and also it's still sharp. I've had some people call me names for saying that I could make good 11x...

 

[Neal]

Dear Snapshot,

Don't worry, soon you'll be agonizing over problems only you can see! :>)

Congratulations.

Neal Wydra

 

[Sirius Glass]

I get 24"X36" from my 35mm negatives. That is only a 25.4:1 enlargement.

Steve

 

[Chan Tran]

Most labs don't make prints the way they used to any more so you have to do it yourself. Most of them now scan your film making it digital before the print is made.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Most labs don't make prints the way they used to any more so you have to do it yourself. Most of them now scan your film making it digital before the print is made.

It took some calling around, but I found photo finishers in the Los Angeles and Hollywood area that still do optical printing. That includes custom work.

For example:
GOLDENCOLOR ENGINEERING
9020 W Olympic Blvd
Beverly Hills, CA 90211

310 274 3842

I use them for my 24" X 36". They really enjoy working with knowledgeable film photographers.

Steve

 

[naturephoto1]

I do not print infrequently 35mm transparencies shot with my Leica R cameras digitially onto Fuji Crystal Archive Photo Paper via a Chromira Printer up to 20" X 30". They are really of outstanding quality, but they are not same level as my 4 X 5.

Rich

 

[Snapshot]

I can appreciate a 4" X 5" unit will produce stunning results and once I get the hang of analog printing I plan to purchase a LF camera. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the 35mm enlargements, especially considering my digital attempts never produced results as good. I guess that is not a surprise for most people on APUG.

 

[Jorge Orte Tudela]

I haven't done so big enlargerments, but my 10x enlargements from 35 mm (36x24 cm) scanned in a high end drum scanner (Fujifilm Celsis 6250) makes the guys at the lab to say "wow". Since then they stopped trying to convince me to go digital.

Time to try scanning medium format in that beast...

 

[bob100684]

I almost feel like its better to scan+print for these large sizes than to have them optically done. My scans on my coolscanV printed at 20x30 definitly outdo the fuji sendout optical enlargements. Better edge sharpness ect. Is it cheating to scan my film for these large prints?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Negative can be done optically; slides need to have high resolution scans made and printed digitally because Kodak stopped making R paper.

Steve

 

[bob100684]

Negative can be done optically; slides need to have high resolution scans made and printed digitally because Kodak stopped making R paper.

Steve

FYI ilford still makes ilfochrome.....

 

[benjiboy]

IMHO the biggest leaps forward in photography have not been in the hardware, but in the film and chemistry technology .

 

[nworth]

Congratulations. Sometimes you get lucky. While 16X20 enlargements from 35mm are common, quality 16X20 enlargements from 35mm are rare indeed. Now that you have worked out how to balance the color for an enlatgements, more good prints will be much easier.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

Most labs don't make prints the way they used to any more so you have to do it yourself. Most of them now scan your film making it digital before the print is made.

Well, this probably isn't a problem on big prints (8x10 and up) except for the ridiculous price labs start charging when they get to sizes this big. The problem is that, at 250-300 dpi, your smaller prints, 4x5, 4x6, 5x7 don't have any detail if you're looking at them under a magnifier during the proofing phase. If you're shooting prints with MF, and getting digital prints made onto RA-4 at smaller sizes, say wallets to 5x7s, you're basically throwing away all the advantages of the medium format negative.