Greatest size enlargement ==> Optical methods only. No scanning

Greg Davis said:

Keith, what I am saying is that these aesthetic limits are self-imposed and always subject to change. Not just from individual to individual, but also within the individual as time progresses. But I argue that people do impose these limits on themselves, and probably not consciously. It's just a matter of personal taste.

In other words, there is nothing preventing them from making larger prints except themselves.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, yep, I agree with you. Well stated.

And that's what the creative process is all about, right? Ultimately we all discover over time that the rules in our heads are not so firm... and there is a lot more creative freedom than we ever really use.

I went through a silly (but probably typical) process when I was thinking about print size. First I made giant prints from 35mm. Then somebody (or, rather, an online collection of somebodies) convinced me that I needed medium format to go so large. So I did that... rinse and repeat... pretty soon found myself with LF gear and really big negatives. And then, lo and behold, I found that it was way more enjoyable to contact print rather than enlarge those LF negs. So... obvious irony... I print larger than I "should" with 35mm and MF, and smaller than I should with LF.... :rolleyes: In fact, my current thinking with regard to LF is that the whole point of doing it is to be able to compose and print at ~1:1.

Of course everybody's mileage varies.... and like you said, my own opinion will definitely change for sure, over time.

I have thought a lot about large prints lately. I have done some large stuff from my hasselblad (1x1 meter) and from digital, but somewhere along the way I realized that it's not only the size of the print but also the viewing distance. Large prints look a lot better from a distance IMHO, I once had two large (around 75x75 cms) prints above a bench in a hallway in my old apartment, it never looked quite right because you were always passing by it on a close distance. Right size in the right place me thinks. And of course the print should match the atmosphere of the room, as a large print easily takes over a room.

Or at least that's what I feel.

It's a matter of individual taste. Since an overwhelming dominance of photography by miniature format arrived a few decades ago, people have gotten used to the look of enlargements which have been blown up too much. If you like that sort of thing, fine; but if you want ME to buy your print from a 35mm original, it won't be over 8x10 or at most 11x14. But then, I don't like huge prints even from large format negatives. I really don't understand the current fashion of wall-sized prints by Gursky and others.

keithwms said:

There is no limit- practical nor aesthetic nor fundamental.

Okay, for colour you are limited by the size of the paper, be it RA4 or ilfo or whatever, but there are ways around that. With b&w there isn't even a paper limit, since you can go and paint liquid emulsion on just about any wall... or bed sheet

As I mentioned in a recent blog, I do think there are more fundamental reasons to think about the scale of a print, and these reasons are much more important than the tecnical issue of how big you can go.

Click to expand...

I believe if you don't use conventional glass optics, you can make a 1:1 print of 107.5’ long by 37.5’ using one sheet of "paper"

Legacy project and the worlds largest pinhole

I wouldn't recommend it as practical in a basement darkroom

The largest I have made have been 20x24 color from both 4x5 and 6x7 negatives. 20x24 is the largest print drum I have. I have a 30" roll of Forte Polywarmtone which I would use for a 30x40 print if I could figure out a good way to process it. I am thinking of rolling it in wallpaper trays, but I imagine I will end up with creases on the FB paper.

My last darkroom was 1200sq feet and the largest print I ever made in it from an 8X10 neg, using an old Solar, was 30X40 in. My present darkroom is 12ft X16ft, tiny by comparison and limited by 8ft ceilings. With a Beseler 23, in horizontal configuration, I routinely make 40X54in prints by projection to a home made hanging easel that slides on 2X6in wooden rails screwed to the ceiling joists and locked in place by door bolts at the top and aligned at one side on the bottom of the easel by a door bolt which slides into pre drilled holes in a 1/16 X 2in steel plate 96in long. The most important consideration for sharpness is perfect optical alignment of the enlarging train and easel surface, which takes about 20min with help from an assistant. From my other enlarger, Beseler 45VXL, I can make 22X28in prints on the baseboard with the head racked to the ceiling. As for processing these large prints, that is another story that I'll be happy to share, in another post, if of any interest to those with small darkrooms.
Denise Libby

I think the only possible way to answer this question is to say what the largest enlargement is for a given size before it starts to lose clarity. That is, I have done 8x10's of my medium format pictures that are very crisp and clear, and going a bit beyond this (say to 10x14) I start to see the print becoming less sharp. So I think the place where a 6x6 negative print becomes evidently less sharp close up is somewhere between 8x10 and 10x14.

Beyond that, as everyone else said, there is no theoretical limit to the size of any enlargement. If you could paint the surface of the cliffs of Dover with photoreactive chemicals and could point a bright enough enlarger at it for a long enough time, you'd get an image.

Larry don't sweat it , as long as the trays are wide enough and deep rolling murals is a piece of cake.

L Gebhardt said:

The largest I have made have been 20x24 color from both 4x5 and 6x7 negatives. 20x24 is the largest print drum I have. I have a 30" roll of Forte Polywarmtone which I would use for a 30x40 print if I could figure out a good way to process it. I am thinking of rolling it in wallpaper trays, but I imagine I will end up with creases on the FB paper.

Click to expand...

To date the largest colour RA4 print I have made in one single sheet is 72 inches x 20feet. In panels much,much larger than this.
Original film was 8x10 interneg film.
Largest Cibachrome in one single sheet was 50inches by 10 ft , original would be 8x10 6121 duplicating film

Currently my darkroom is set up to be able to do 48 x96inch fibre prints as the largest size... I have not done one yet as to make this possible the budget must be there.
I would think that the original for the large fibre would be 4x5 or 8x10 trix or HP5.

I am printing 30 x40 every week Fibre prints. from 35mm - 8x10 film.

Fred De Van said:

Size of the original image was usually unimportant. The bus original was 4x5. The jungle was 6x6. Most of the 10ft. prints were 35mm.

Beyond a certain level of enlargement, it becomes essential to make a intermediate negative for a bunch of reasons. Reciprocity, brightness, contrast, lenses, and the impossibility of manipulating a big or multi part print which is dependent on matching the parts. All this is much simpler if the corrections are done before the creation of the working (usually) 8x10 negative. The color prints were always originated on transparency film, and printed on "Type C" materials. An internegative was essential. Kodak and others made specific color and monochrome films for this application.

Click to expand...

A lot depends on the installation. In some cases, a big print becomes part of the environment. If the material is chosen well and the installation is done intelligently (both are substantial ifs), grain and sharpness issues do not matter as much as the overall impression and the feeling of being part of that environment. Of course, big display pieces are often made to be viewed from a distance, and grain and sharpness issues are inversely proportional to viewing distance. Many advertising display pieces are never viewed critically. They are meant to catch the eye and convey a message, not to be studied as images.

For my own work, 16X20 is my practical darkroom limit, and I prefer 11X14 for most prints. For 35mm I seldom go above 8X10. That limit is mostly set by the kind of pictures I take, which often require a sense of sharpness.

largest optical print size I can do is currently 50inches by 4 meters. I wish I had 72" processors but sadly there are none in Australia anymore.....oh well one day maybe. Didnt kodak once make crazy mega massive optical prints for some world expo?

I have never printed very large, but I have cropped pictures a lot, enlarging small portions of 35mm negatives to 11x14 or 12x16.

The reason I did this was a photographer friend of mine, who no longer shoots film unfortunately. But when he did, he shot a portrait of a woman in a studio. A single point light and a reflector was the only lighting. Lens was a 90mm Summicron on a Leica M6. Film: Agfa APX 25 stand developed for three hours in 1:300 Rodinal.
An 8x10 print (or about 6x8 on the paper) of the whole negative was flawless with perfect contrast and detail. It was impossible to see grain. Very sharp.
Then he raised the enlarger head all the way to the high ceiling, and using an APO lens projected on a piece of 8x10 paper on the floor. From a full print where the model's face was only a relatively small part of the entire picture, we now had an enlargement that showed the top of her cheek, her eye, and her eye brow. I found myself studying the tonal gradations on her eye lashes.

Technique is everything, and you need good lenses and a good process to do something like that. He was a master printer, having printed for himself and others for 30 years.

Unfortunately the picture itself was rather boring to look at. And I have seen murals of similar enlargement factor with far grainier results that were far more interesting to look at.

So, ultimately, the limitation is in our minds. I remember horizontal enlargers and taking parts of 8x10 internegs and projecting parts of them to mural paper, and then piecing the whole picture together to be something like 10x15 feet. In color and RA4 process.