• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

large prints from 400 ISO films

Marcus S

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
157
Location
British Colu
Format
Medium Format
Hello Apug group.

I have noticed a considerable enthusiasm over film such as HP5, Tri-x, Neopan 400 or Rollei Classic 400 etc. in this group.
I myself use mainly medium format, but I am wondering to what maximum size do you enlarge any of these films when using a 35 mm negative? For photo exhibitions or home decor?
 
How long is a piece of string...depends on the subject material on the film and what look you like? i think the only limit to how large you can print it is paper size available LOL
 
Print size is a choice driven and limited by viewing distance - not medium/grain.
 
 
35mm negs I dont normally like going over 16 inches on a long side. Rarely do I print a delta 400, tri-x, or the like, negative larger than 11x14 because my work doesnt need to be printed that large to be effective, not because of grain issues.

Come to think of it, even my square negs arent larger than 15x15 for most of them. To me a 15x15" print is pretty large, now to some of you guys printing mamma-jamma 40x50'-ers from your 8x10s with the enlarger pushing up the cieling tiles, or on the far end of the room, you may not think so, but thats just my opinion. :-D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've enlarged pan-f developed in Rodinal 1+25 and got decent prints at 16x20. But at least for tmax 400 speed i think 11x14 is really, really pushing it. Tonality falls apart and printing becomes a real chore.
 
For Tmax 400 I usually print to 9x12 size or 6x8 from 35mm. I really like the tonality and sharpness; I completely disregard grain.
I have no problem believing those negatives could be enlarged to 16x20, or probably something like 14x18 (I like the 1" border), and this is proven by the fact that I often crop my 35mm negatives, heavily if I have to.

I have recently learned that if you want to go beyond 16x20 from 35mm negatives, you probably need to upgrade your enlarging lens to something really super duper, like an APO Nikkor.
 
While I'd love to be able to print huge prints every once in a while just for the challenge, it's just not a workable proposition in my current environment. The biggest I go is 11x14, which I still view as a big print. I don't have a problem with grain, so they look fine to me.
 
clayne said:
Print size is a choice driven and limited by viewing distance - not medium/grain.
Click to expand...

Agreed, completely.

I make 12x16's (30x40, in decent units) of Neopan 400-135 all the time, and they look great from 1 metre. Closer up they're even better, but then I love grain, especially the Neopan400-Rodinal version of it.

But eventually all depends on what you as the photographer/printer want. There is no such thing as an optimal or maximum enlargement, only what you like and dislike.
 
sandermarijn said:
But eventually all depends on what you as the photographer/printer want. There is no such thing as an optimal or maximum enlargement, only what you like and dislike.
Click to expand...

As long as you print within the limitations of your lens. A dear friend of mine described a scenario of making 20x24" prints from Tmax 3200, and how he had to change from a standard Nikkor to an APO Rodagon N to avoid effects in the grain where it goes sharp / unsharp in a doughnut pattern, because you're exceeding the limitations of the lens design. There is a limit of magnification for each lens.
I have never printed 20x24 from 35mm, so I haven't experienced this for myself. Some day I hope to find this out for myself.

As long as you take that into account, size is most definitely a choice of our personal tastes.
 
A little while ago, I watched a television program of an award winning American photojournalist who works in the hotspots of the world. His work was shown in a gallery, large prints and nicely matted. The photographs were all quite large and shot with Tri-X and a couple of Nikons.
Unfortunately I do not recall his name but his work was excellent.
 

I think what you are getting at here is that diffraction is related to the 'relative' aperture which gets smaller as magnification gets bigger. A lens better corrected for large magnnification would not need to be stopped down as much to bring in the corners and therefore would have less diffraction effects. The 'doughnut' pattern is the Airy disk diffraction pattern.

So this brings up two points specific to high magnification enlargements:
1) High magnification uses the maximum image circle of the enlarging lens design, and the edges will be stressed for evenness of illumination and field flatness (ie "my enlarging lens always worked fine for 4x5in prints...")
2) High magnification causes more diffraction for the same F-Stop number on the barrel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you can print a film to some small size, you can print it to any larger size. You just have to move the easel farther away.

When you make the print bigger you stand farther away so it all evens out. If you look at a 5x7 with a loupe you will see grain. If you stand 1 foot from a 16x20 you will see grain. So what. You can't see the picture from that close anyway, in either case.

Personally I think medium format looks better even at 5x7, but there is no 35mm negative I enjoy at one size that I will not print at a larger size if the room size and viewing conditions support it.
 

You can print them as big as they make paper!

My 35mm prints range from contacts to 20x24s. I have a few I would like to print larger as well.

If you don't want to see grain, forget big prints! That is a given.
 
If it is your goal to print large from 400 ISO 35mm film, you should at least consider Ilford XP2 Super, Ilford's C41 chromogenic Black & White film.

The appearance of the chromogenic films is different than traditional black and white films, so you need to determine if the difference appeals to you. The appearance of grain is quite distinctive, and quite fine.

Many prefer to use this film at a lower EI - this tends to reduce the appearance of grain even further.
 
one thing that i think is is a weird problem with photography
is that people print large, but people stand right against the image and say
" this is terrible i see the grain" but if they were looking at at large painting
they wouldn't say " this is terrible i can see the brush strokes" ...

print as large as you want just stand not with your nose to the print and you will be OK.
35mm printed to 16x20 is a piece of cake ...
 

You're still hammering on the grain aspect though. People who view photographs don't look at grain - they stand back and look at the print. Once again, grain isn't the issue here.
 
I think Marcus is referring to S. Salgado who had a exhibit last year at the Peter Fetterman Gallery in Santa Monica. Huge prints and I do think he used Tri-X.

Personally I've printed Tri-X full frame on 16x20 paper. So the actual image is a bit smaller but it still held together nicely.
 
clayne said:
You're still hammering on the grain aspect though. People who view photographs don't look at grain - they stand back and look at the print. Once again, grain isn't the issue here.
Click to expand...

clayne:

No hammering here.

I assume you would agree that grain is one of the qualities of film that affects how the photographic print appears. With larger enlargements, the affect is more pronounced.

I was suggesting XP2 Super because it is different, and much of that difference relates to the different appearance of "grain" (actually dye clouds that appear like grain).

The OP might just like the difference, and may have not thought about the chromogenic options.

This 35mm negative prints quite nicely to 11x14:
 

Attachments

  • 20100428_26c.png
    921.4 KB · Views: 179
Last edited by a moderator:
Ian was so kind to sent me the name of the photojournalist whose name I could not recall in my post.
I was referring to James Nachtwey. On Youtube, the clip 'Lab of J. Nachtwey' shows, how one of his very large prints is made. Horizontal enlarger, large print rolled through troughs etc.

Thank you for your email Ian!
 
MartinCrabtree said:
I like it. What film if you don't mind my asking?
Click to expand...

Thanks Martin - it is Ilford XP2 Super in 35mm.

FWIW, shot in an Olympus OM body using a 35mm f/2.0 Zuiko lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register