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.

 

[lenny]

This has been discussed over and over here. I'll be brief (and a little blunt, sorry).

Generally speaking, if you want large prints you are doing everything to make your chances of high quality unobtainable.

I would say if you want to go to 20 inches, you ought to use a drum scanner. You can get drum scans very cheap over there, from Tim Parkin. Pay a little more for more megabyes, as much as you can afford. If you are going for a smaller print, you can use a dedicated film scanner. A 20 mb file is a useless file for printing (the ones I use are over a Gig), good only for snapshot size and for posting on the web.

The film you are using is not good for scanning. You should be using something in the 100 ISO range, like Ilford Delta or TMax. Move down from the Portra 400 to the 160, or use Ektacolor for your negs.

Next, buy a larger camera, or rather, a camera that uses larger film. And a tripod.

Lenny

 

[pschwart]

Good advice from Lenny. In addition:

Paper: Tone, texture, and surface are critical, but completely subjective.

Size: Again, completely subjective. A larger print is not automatically more effective -- some images
work better in smaller sizes. A beautifully matted and framed small print can have a lot of
impact. If you are printing 400 speed 35mm film, a smaller image is going to yield higher quality.
You don't need a 44" Epson to make a small print

Postproduction: This will depend on your vision and Photoshop skills.

 

[OzJohn]

Lewismalpas:
Welcome to DPUG. I saw your question when you posted it first on APUG and I thought that the advice you got there was, a bit surprisingly, more considered than that you have so far received here. I particularly agree with the suggestion that you print the negs you already have and presumably can't reshoot with a different camera or film - a point Lenny seems to have missed - on silver halide paper. It does take a good enlarger, lens and technique though. If you don't have the gear or skills there are labs that do. In my experience this will, if done correctly using the right equipment, yield better large prints from B&W 35mm negs than just about any digital process, irrrespective of how much money you spend on scanning. It is a rare example of an analog process that I prefer to the digital equivalent. Do consider too Philip Schwartz's suggestion to go for a smaller print and enhance it with great framing - a technique much loved by interior designers. OzJohn

 

[lenny]

OzJohn,
I miss things all the time. I've discovered that all my life I've come to these realizations and crystal clear understanding way after the party has gone... I don't know how i've made it this far.

This may or may not be useful to Lewis, but I have always looked at print consistency as a model for professionalism. I don't like the way that Brett Weston prints photographs, but he does it the same every time (or within the scope of his own personal genre) and you can't deny that its deliberate. Within that scope, you can judge whether he succeeded or not, on any given print.

When a group of photographs is printed in the same style it is easy for those lay people (like gallery owners, etc.) to see where you attempted to go. Developing one's own style is a matter of using similar materials - usually - and mastering them.

I guess I don't consider using darkroom paper any more because I like the more matte surfaces. A lustre-surface print in there form the darkroom would stick out like a sore thumb. That said, I have just built a new sink, I have an exposing unit and I will be making some platinum again soon enough. They ought to stand nicely next to the inkjet on Kozo...

 

[tkamiya]

I've printed images shot with Tmax400 and Tri-X (400) 35mm format all the way to 16x20. Framed behind glass, they look "pretty good" from close distance. That is, provided, you don't put your nose up to the glass. Only photo enthusiasts will do that....

For close range viewing, that's my personal limit on size.

As to paper, if you intend to frame it, difference in paper surface is not that great. Regular paper tends to "bleed" and affect sharpness. So if this is just a "regular" paper, not coated for inkjet, I tend to suggest glossy.

I typically scan with my lowly Minolta IV or EPSON 5000. Good enough for my use. But I won't probably go as high as Imacon or drum, but using Nikon scanner may help a bit. From my digital images, I've done up to 16x24 using 10mpix images. The limitation of image quality wasn't the resolution but lens sharpness, still.

 

[Alan Klein]

Lenny: How's Velvia 50 with your drum scanner? Other positive film types?

 

[lenny]

Lenny: How's Velvia 50 with your drum scanner? Other positive film types?

It's fabulous. I just got a PM (not prime minister but preventative maintenance) on the scanner and its in tip-top shape. Everything is working perfectly.

All the film types work well.... there are some that I like better than others. It's generally those with tighter grain. However, everything comes out as good as its going to get... The thing samples one pixel at a time, so as long as I have the aperture set right the grain will come in at the right size. Everything is sharp... lots of color...

 

[John51]

I had a look at the prices for printing from 35mm at Peak-Imaging.

Their selective imaging charge (cropping) is £2.75 and a 5x7.5 print is £1.75. Not too much money to find out how your neg would hold up to being enlarged to 20x16. Just let them know what area of the neg to enlarge. Their price for 24x16 is £14.78 so maybe dive in and hope for the best. You'd save yourself the £2.75 selective imaging charge by cutting it down to 20x16 yourself.