Large format print from 35mm

[lewismalpas]

Hi APUG,

Apologies if this isn't the correct place to post this thread, I wanted to ask for some advice as up until now I have never printed my 35mm negatives besides producing some wet prints at school.

I am looking to print & frame two of my favourite images taken on 35mm film (Ilford HP5+ & Portra 400) to hang within my flat, meaning the viewing distance will be relatively short. My Dad happens to be a printer and is a wealth of information when it comes to printing however I would like as much advice as possible from more experienced shooters who print from negatives or scans as this is not something they typically do.

The printer will be an Epson 9900, however I have a few questions regarding the entire process:

— Should I resend the negative off to be scanned on a drum scanner? My film is developed and scanned by pro labs in the UK, however I do not pay for super high quality scanning (Typically the images are 14-20mb at 3000px wide scanned on a Imacon).
— What type of paper is best for photographic prints? I have the choice of glossy and uncoated stocks but I presume these won't for photography. Specific paper stocks would be great as I can order these in if necessary.
— In terms of enlargement I've read a lot of varying advice regarding how large a 35mm negative can be printed, I know this is subjective but what is a good size for a 35mm negative being viewed within a smallish flat? I am thinking 14 x 11 or 20 x 16, preferably the latter?
— Is there any specific post production work I need to do on the images before printing? I typically colour grade and retouch out any dust and scratches.

I will try to post the two images up this evening when I have access to them.

Many thanks for all of your help and advice,
Lewis.

 

[paul_c5x4]

Most people here will recommend a fibre paper such as the Ilford papers - I have developed a liking for the Multigrade Warmtone, and find it gives excellent results... However, you mention "scanning" which leads me to believe you are planning on using inkjet printing. If this is the case, then most of the paper recommendations you receive will end up giving poor results.

Digital work flows is a subject that will quickly get a thread locked or even deleted - Your best bet is to ask the same question over on the sister site www.dpug.org.

Drum scanning will (I believe) give the best results - If you are planning on post processing, you might want to look at the services of Dead Link Removed. They can print a file via a LightJet printer directly on to genuine photographic paper up to 50" (1.27 metres) wide. Having seen a few of these big prints during a tour of the place last year, they look quite impressive.

 

[Rick A]

If you print in the dark room, then let the negative dictate the maximum size you will print. For me, I print as large as the negative looks good. If I can print to 11x14 depends on how sharp my image looks. How you shoot dictates the image quality. Careful focus plus using a tripod and cable release allows for a sharp(usually)image which could be printed to 16x20 and larger. Just because the proof looks good does not always mean you can get a huge enlargement, minute details (or lack of) start to appear as you stretch the image.
If you plan on printing digitally, then ask on DPUG, this is an analog only site. By the by, if your dad is an experienced printer, trust his judgement.

 

[bdial]

Most of the questions are OT here, but there is good information in the dpug sister site.

Paper choice can be a huge topic, what is "best" depends mostly on your taste. Epson has many very fine papers and there are many, many others that work well too. Like the discussions that happen here over developer choices, digital workers can go on and on forever about this or that paper.

You can perfectly well enlarge your 35 to 14 x 11 or 20 x 16, how well it works depends on how sharp the original is + the quality of the scan.

 

[lewismalpas]

Thanks for all of your help thus far, I'll post the same thread on DPUG as I guess this crosses over in terms of being shot on a film camera yet being scanned and printed digitally.

Lewis.

 

[pbromaghin]

Ask the mods to move the thread to the Hybrid Photo Group to be found under the darkroom section on the "forum" tab and it will be fine.

 

[removed account4]

hi Lewis..
my recommendation would be make the absolute best wet print you can make in the dark at whatever the largest size whatever skanmasheen will take. electrify the image and then go to dpug and ask about papers. or just enlarge it and enjoy the silver.

have fun with whatever it is you plan on doing.

good luck!
john

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have had 24" x 36" color negative prints made from 35mm by a professional optical only lab.

 

[gleaf]

Allow plenty of exposure time if your going big paper from 35mm. The extra time will not be linear by area increase.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Allow plenty of exposure time if your going big paper from 35mm. The extra time will not be linear by area increase.

Time increases with the square of the print area.

 

[MartinP]

Print optically in a darkroom.

If you think a digital print at an acceptable standard is something that is achievable in five minutes of computer work, please read and consider Dead Link Removed.

 

[MattKrull]

If you think a digital print at an acceptable standard is something that is achievable in five minutes of computer work, please read and consider Dead Link Removed.

Since the OP first mentioned sending the negative off for drum scanning, I don't think he's under the impression this will be a 5 minute joy ride.

As others have said, and is to be expected given the forum this is posted on, wet print it

What I will add is: don't try to wet print it to the full size you want to hang, but rather print it to a size or two smaller and then matte it up to whatever size you need. We are so used to wrapped canvas and edge to edge printing these days we've forgotten the power that good matting adds to an image. There's a reason many galleries still display 8x10 prints in 16x20 frames. The extra matting removes distractions and makes the image stand out on its own, not in concert with everythign else in your room.

 

[ME Super]

I will say that I have had decent quality prints up to 20x30 inches made from a 35mm negative, so what he seeks to do is certainly possible. And this was back in the late 80s/early 90s. I don't believe there were many labs doing things digitally at that point in time.

Go with what your experienced printer tells you.

 

[darkroom_rookie]

Master at work...

 

[nworth]

I notice a disconnect here. You are talking about a digital print, but most replies are about a gelatin silver print. I like gelatin silver prints better, and you would probably get better quality that way, but it doesn't seem to be what you have available.

The scans you have are fairly high quality. The negatives may or may not support something better. I would try what you have first. The Epson 9900 is capable of a decent black and white print if the print is made by an experienced and careful worker. Skill is very important.

Paper is a matter of individual choice. There are an awful lot of digital papers out there (as well as a quite a few silver gelatin papers). Start by insisting on a high quality paper - something much better than what you find in the mass market stationary stores. Ask the printer to see some examples of the stocks he uses and see if you find something suitable. If you don't like any of them, ask him for suggestions. I have a preference for Moab Entrada and, for more ordinary work, La Sal, but there are a lot of other quality papers. Even the widely available Epson papers have some nice choices.

 

[MartinP]

This is a digital question and it should be moved to a digital forum.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Master at work...

That's a really great video.

 

[FritsM]

I know this is a month+ old thread, but I've had excellent results from first making the best possible 8x10 print from a 35mm negative (keeping the grade soft-ish). Then scan that 8x10 print skillfully on a (pro) flatbed and print Photoshop corrected/optimized images from that in any size on a good inkjet/laserjet.

That said, I've had a literally pinhead-sized "head" drum scanned off an 8mm B&W movie film frame at 13000 dpi and produced stunningly good 5x7s from that on a good Epson printer (2000P). I did some PhotoShopping of course to make it look fantastic. In hindsight, the final image warranted a much larger charge.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Master at work...

This is Diamantino in Paris
A joy to work with. We did some Lith mural prints (from 35 negative) a few years back.
Fantastic printer and human being.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A 35mm print is not a large format print, no matter how big it is. It is still just a 35mm print no matter how big you make it. It might or might
not end up visually compelling in its own way, but it will never be a substitute for a bigger piece of film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A 35mm print is not a large format print, no matter how big it is. It is still just a 35mm print no matter how big you make it. It might or might
not end up visually compelling in its own way, but it will never be a substitute for a bigger piece of film.

Yes that is true. I have several 35mm negatives that were printed 24"x36" and look good, but if they were shot on 6x6 MF or 4"x5" the prints would have looked better.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

And...?

 

[removed account4]

G

you should know by now, since you have been shooting for a long time,
if your camera is bigger you would be a better photographer
and no matter what your photographs are about, or of, they will be better too.