Here's a topic for 35mm shooters

SuzanneR · Mar 12, 2005

Try Delta 3200. I've been shooting a lot inside too, in low light. (Hate flash!), and I've been getting some interesting images with this film. Yes it's grainy, (love grain!), but it might be something to experiment with during what seems like an endless winter. For us in snowy New England, at least!

Good luck!

Woolliscroft · Mar 12, 2005

I regularly make 35mm prints on paper up to 16 x 20, although I print at or near full frame, so they are actually 13-14 x 20. People tend to look at larger prints from further away, so the apparent quality evens out to some degree. That said, I use 6 x 7 if I want real quality. Assuming you have good negs to start with, a good condenser enlarger and lens also helps as does developing the prints for longer than the full minute recommended and at a proper temperature.

David.

garryl · Mar 12, 2005

What has changed in 69 years? I just got a collection of American Photography magazine from 1938-39. I also got 1 issue of Minicam from 1940. In them are people showing off 20-40x enlargements from 35mm. They seem awful happy to me with their DuPont Valour Black prints from their Agfa Finopan negatives. Have standards changed that much or has technical excellence replaced esthics? Or are we expecting to much LF qualities from our "miniatures"?
I myself have printed excellent( subjective opinion) 16x20 prints from PanF negatives that were - very low grained, sharp, and full of gradation. I can't see the problem.
--------------------
Stephen- out of focus areas, camera movement, and incorrect exposure are all contributer to grain. So to quote another poster- "it's supposed to be there".

gchpaco · Mar 12, 2005

Hmm... I think Rodenstock's 6 element 50mm is a 2.8 and has been for a while. Your lens may simply not be up to 8x and 10x enlargements, and the subject motion is simply exacerbating that. You should see if you can beg/borrow a more expensive lens and see if that does better in 8x10s.

Alex Hawley · Mar 12, 2005

Hi Stephen,
A Canon F-1 and its FD lenses are as good as one can hope for without obsessive and massive spending. No reason why one cannot get good 8x10s or 11x14s with that equipment and Good Ol' Tri-X. As others have said though, expectations are subjective and you may be at the point where you feel you need better. Having crossed this bridge myself a couple years ago, my recommendation is to go directly to large format. I found the investment is quite less than one would suspect. I wouldn't get rid of the F-1 though. Its too good a camera to part with unless one just has to have the money it would bring. And the only downside to LF is that you can't hang the camera around your neck and peel off that quick shot. Both of these attachments were shot on 35mm Tri-x, spur of the moment, and enlarged easily to 11x14. The 8x10 camera was still in the truck, no possibility of getting it set up for these.

Flotsam · Mar 12, 2005

Alex Hawley said:
Having crossed this bridge myself a couple years ago, my recommendation is to go directly to large format.

That'll solve your problem. You'll never have to worry about spontaneous, from-the-hip, photography in low light circumstances without a heavy tripod and 20 minute setup again.

Alex Hawley · Mar 13, 2005

Now Neal, there is a thing called the Speed Graphic ---

Nicole · Mar 13, 2005

I shoot 35mm and MF - subjects are mostly people. I don't like to use the word portrait as it gives the impression of a set, studio shoot where the subject is 'pinned' in place. My people are moving targets at the best of times in uncontrollable outdoorsy conditions.

So when I'm shooting with 35mm, I use good fast lenses with clean glass and TriX and find that if my focus is spot on and my exposures are correct I can get good prints right up to 16x20. Also I use manual focus as much as I can, depending on the subject.

Kind regards,
Nicole

garryl · Mar 13, 2005

Alex Hawley said:
Now Neal, there is a thing called the Speed Graphic ---

"The old WeeGee trick". Would you believe Bush Pressman?

WarEaglemtn · Mar 13, 2005

"I shot 35mm exclusively (for economic reasons alone) with a Canon "new" F-1."

If you check around you will find that a used 4x5 outfit will cost less, or even a new Calumet Cadet 4x5 outfit with lens & holders still costs less than what your 35mm outfit did.

You can even get an 8x10 for less if you shop used & carefully.

Then, you will shoot fewer images of higher quality and the end result is that you still spend less & have a much higher ratio of good photos when you are done.

garryl · Mar 13, 2005

WarEaglemtn said:
If you check around you will find that a used 4x5 outfit will cost less, or even a new Calumet Cadet 4x5 outfit with lens & holders still costs less than what your 35mm outfit did.

Yes, you might even be able to get a "BJ" for a reasonale price.... Burke & James that is!

gchpaco · Mar 13, 2005

I must take exception here. No 4x5, not even a Speed Graphic, is a direct substitute for a 35mm camera. If you are using a 35mm for landscapes, largely tripod photography where you take your time, then yes, you could move up and gain a lot of attractive qualities. But the shooting is very different. If you are doing available light people photography, to pick one example, it's very hard to do that in 4x5.

Which is not to say that moving to a larger format is not good--I'm a 6x6 guy myself and like shooting 4x5 occasionally. But this thread is about failings in printing 8x10s from 35mm, which should be very doable.

roteague · Mar 13, 2005

The problem isn't in the format, I used to make 11x14" Cibachromes from Ektachrome transpariences from my old Nikon F3 without any problems. I haven't done any 35mm lately though.

Christopher Colley · Mar 21, 2005

unfortunetly I didnt write his name down but there was a photographer (I believe on staff?) whos photograph was in the print study room at the art institute of chicago, it was a 24"x36" print 'lith printed' in 4 colors (if I recall correctly) it was grainy shot somewhere in wisconsin at night, beautiful!

The man who shot the photo came out after being called when someone asked a question about the size of photos, as his was one of the largest prints on display in the room he was a pretty good one to ask. Pretty much came to the conclusion 'because we can'. I agree, the image looked great even at that size. I asked him specifically if it was shot on 35mm and he said yes.

That being said, I used to print 8x10 the majority of the time with my 35mm but have recently moved to 5x7 because its cheaper for more prints, and it keeps a bit more of the sharpness I like, while fitting the papers format much more pleasingly.

fparnold · Mar 21, 2005

I believe you answered your own question, which is that you'll have to stay fast enough to keep camera shake to a minimum, and not try to slip under the ASA (i.e. don't think that you can compensate for underexposing by a half stop or so). Check your enlarging lens for fungus, dust, or separation, and then maybe try something like Tri-X/HP-5/Delta-400 in Microphen, for a little extra effective speed.

I have 8x12s from 400 negs or slides, and the deciding factor on whether it looks good at that size is camera shake, followed by sufficient depth of field for the subject; except when I've used Delta-3200, it's never the film. You may just want to look into improving your shooting stance by using doorframes or walls for support, pulling in your elbows, or shifting how you balance your camara.

Here's a topic for 35mm shooters

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency