Largest high definition 35mm print?

thuggins said:

Do you really want to see, with your own eyes, how much you can enlarge 35mm film?

Click to expand...

No, and that wasn't the question. I was asking peoples' opinions on how big a 35mm print could be for viewing in domestic situations before the image was compromised. Those disadvantages can be intrusive grain, desaturation of colours, lack of sharpness, etc. If you're used to large format values, any 35mm print over 3 x 2" might look "wrong", but I'm working on the assumption that regular 35mm print makers have reached an optimal balance of technical quality and physical presence. I think around 12 x 9" is a working compromise over a variety of film types, lenses, subjects and lighting, but I was soliciting other views in the spirit of an internet forum.

Clearly there is no theoretical limit, and I have sat at the back of 2000 seat auditoriums in the days of slide presentations and viewed 36 x 24mm originals from 150ft away.

blockend said:

No, and that wasn't the question. I was asking peoples' opinions on how big a 35mm print could be for viewing in domestic situations before the image was compromised. Those disadvantages can be intrusive grain, desaturation of colours, lack of sharpness, etc. If you're used to large format values, any 35mm print over 3 x 2" might look "wrong", but I'm working on the assumption that regular 35mm print makers have reached an optimal balance of technical quality and physical presence. I think around 12 x 9" is a working compromise over a variety of film types, lenses, subjects and lighting, but I was soliciting other views in the spirit of an internet forum.

Clearly there is no theoretical limit, and I have sat at the back of 2000 seat auditoriums in the days of slide presentations and viewed 36 x 24mm originals from 150ft away.

Click to expand...

My wife and I attended a funeral a few months ago. The wife of the deceased had her wedding album on display for all to examine. My wife marveled at the quality of those old black and white photos. I explained to her that they were medium format film.

If you are serious about printing larger than 8x10 often then I highly recommend that you try medium format.

The largest I have enlarged two C-4135mm negative to 24"x36". It mostly depends on the enlarger optics somewhat on the subject, grain, and lighting. I would not print most of my negatives that large.

Alan Gales said:

If you are serious about printing larger than 8x10 often then I highly recommend that you try medium format.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of the merits and disadvantages of roll and sheet film, and have been using medium and large format cameras for almost four decades. The question was never how big can someone print, but how big are people happy printing a 35mm negative.

Sirius Glass said:

The largest I have enlarged two C-4135mm negative to 24"x36". It mostly depends on the enlarger optics somewhat on the subject, grain, and lighting. I would not print most of my negatives that large.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. For instance a high speed, high contrast negative (think Moriyama) can accommodate much more enlargement than one that relies on subtle tonality and lack of grain for its effect.

I mostly print an actual image size of 12x8 inches. This has several pros for me. Firstly, 12x8 retains the 3:2 aspect ratio of a 35mm neg. secondly I print to 12x16 paper with a 2 inch inch white border which looks really nice and well balanced with a 12x8 image centred in it. Thirdly I can use 12x16 frames which are a standard size so cheaply available. Fourthly, printing 12x8 is an 8X enlargement which is very close to standard 50mm enlarging lens optimum performance magnification. They are usually designed for optimal performance at 8X to 10X magnification. So all in all it works very well if you get everyting right through the whole process.

But as you know, it really depends on where it is going to be hung on a wall. More precisely, how big the space on the wall to be filled is and how it will look in that wall space.

As to the maths. It can be very misleading. The real limit is the real world resolution you can obtain in the negative. Typically the max for normal film and dev would be 100 lp/mm but that would only be for small high contrast regions of the subject. Much of the subject would produce lower contrast so in reality you may only be getting 40 or 50 lp/mm in the neg if that and lower in shadow areas. Taking the example of 40 lp/mm then assuming you target 5 lp/mm in the print then that sets a self imposed limit of 8X enlargement before the sharpness/detail in the print starts to break down due to over enlargement when inspected close up. But again, as you know, that depends on viewing distance. But 8X enlargement fits very well with real world likelyhood of what is achieved in the negative.
Only if you set out at taking stage with right camera, right lens, right film, right dev, right technique and right intentions etc, are you likely to get much better quality. But it can be done and look good from sensible viewing distance.

A big caveat to all this is that on film resolution only relates to subject plane of sharpest focus. Outside of that the resolution you may be looking for will fall off very rapidly and the vast majority of subjects will exhibit this fall off, so its a moot point whether its really as important as people like to think it is. i.e. it really comes down to percieved sharpness which which has little to do with film and print resolving power as measured in lp/mm and is actually more about edge contrast. And a nice bokeh, which can enhance an image massively, has nothing to do with resolution/sharpness, it's more about lack of resolution/sharpness in one area which emphasizes it on another area even if that other area isn't very sharp or detailed. It's all about relative focus and contrast and not resolving power.

blockend said:

I'm aware of the merits and disadvantages of roll and sheet film, and have been using medium and large format cameras for almost four decades. The question was never how big can someone print, but how big are people happy printing a 35mm negative.

Click to expand...

Man...no kidding. Did not take long for this thread to go south.
You would think, on a photo forum, that "guys" would be interested in talking about how big they could print a nice looking 35. You know...just from their Own Experience...not a text book answer...just a discussion for fun on a "hobby" forum.

anonymoose said:

I mostly print an actual image size of 12x8 inches. This has several pros for me. Firstly, 12x8 retains the 3:2 aspect ratio of a 35mm neg. secondly I print to 12x16 paper with a 2 inch inch white border which looks really nice and well balanced. Thirdly I can use 12x16 frames which are a standard size so cheaply available. Fourthly, printing 12x8 is an 8X enlargement which is very close to standard 50mm enlarging lens optimum performance magnification. They are usually designed for optimal performance at 8X to 10X magnification. So all in all it works very well if you get everyting right through the whole process.

But as you know, it really depends on where it is going to be hung on a wall. More precisely, how big the space on the wall to be filled is and how it will look in that wall space.

As to the maths. It can be very misleading. The real limit is the real world resolution you can obtain in the negative. Typically the max for normal film and dev would be 100 lp/mm but that would only be for small high contrast regions of the subject. Much of the subject would produce lower contrast so in reality you may only be getting 40 or 50 lp/mm in the neg if that and lower in shadow areas. Taking the example of 40 lp/mm then assuming you target 5 lp/mm in the print then that sets a self imposed limit of 8X enlargement before the sharpness/detail in the print starts to break down due to over enlargement when inspected close up. But again, as you know, that depends on viewing distance. But 8X enlargement fits very well with real world likelyhood of what is achieved in the negative.
Only if you set out at taking stage with right camera, right lens, right film, right dev, right technique and right intentions etc, are you likely to get much better quality. But it can be done and look good from sensible viewing distance.

A big caveat to all this is that on film resolution only relates to subject plane of sharpest focus. Outside of that the resolution you may be looking for will fall off very rapidly and the vast majority of subjects will exhibit this fall off, so its a moot point whether its really as important as people like to think it is. i.e. it really comes down to percieved sharpness which which has little to do with film and print resolving power as measured in lp/mm.

Click to expand...

Excellent answer, just what I was hoping for. Thank you!

blockend said:

No, and that wasn't the question. I was asking peoples' opinions on how big a 35mm print could be for viewing in domestic situations before the image was compromised. Those disadvantages can be intrusive grain, desaturation of colours, lack of sharpness, etc. If you're used to large format values, any 35mm print over 3 x 2" might look "wrong", but I'm working on the assumption that regular 35mm print makers have reached an optimal balance of technical quality and physical presence. I think around 12 x 9" is a working compromise over a variety of film types, lenses, subjects and lighting, but I was soliciting other views in the spirit of an internet forum.

Clearly there is no theoretical limit, and I have sat at the back of 2000 seat auditoriums in the days of slide presentations and viewed 36 x 24mm originals from 150ft away.

Click to expand...

hi blockend:

will you be printing the images yourself? will they be color or black and white?
if you aren't printing them yourself will the lab be using an enlarger or laser ?

i've printed some large and some small off of 35mm film, large and small.
b/w enlarged by me, so the quality of the image depended on my skill with the enlarger
and interpretation of the film. 11x14 is really the main size i enlarged to but larger also looked good
nomatter how close you were, but to be honest, at a distance 11x14 is kind of small for across room viewing. color, i have never printed but labs have always done a good job with enlargements whether they were made from pigment big [ thanks elevator ! , thanks kerry ! , thanks imagekind !] or with a laser small, or large they always looked good, good enough to sell, good enough to have people write me and say how good they looked on their wall.

while large is nice, i am more fond of little images, it doesn't matter to me how small or large the negative might be miniature images have a draw to them that big ones lack. the photographer has a few things to juggle. the image-composition/design is magnified as it gets smaller in size and because the person viewing is so close the personal experience is magnified too. while i was sort of being goofy when i said 35mm contact prints -- i have some 35mm prints that aren't much bigger than that and they are just beautiful to look at.

but how big can you go really depends on what you hope for, what the image looks like big ( some don't "look good" big ) and depends on the skill of the person making the photograph. im blessed to have a great lab down the street. she's masterful at making large and small images, and doing her best. some labs are just so-so.

YMMV

Back when I was in New York, I spoke often with James Nachtwey's printer and got to see some of his prints
that were quite large, if memory serves me, in the 20x30 range...I was blown away at the quality...mind you,
he was a master printer and the subject matter was so striking to begin with.

There is a school of photography called Pictorialism. Fine detail is deliberately obscured so that the entire subject is emphasized. This is done by the camera lens being defocused a bit or by using a simple or poorly corrected lens. This prevents the viewer from obsessing about meaningless detail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism

When one looks at a nude one really does not want to see every blemish. That small scar on the chin due to a childhood accident. When I am looking at a photo of a group of buildings I am not really interested in that there is a fly on the third window on the right. So the photographer has a very expensive camera and lens I as the viewer am not impressed.

People new to photography make the mistake of concentrating on the technical aspects and totally ignore aesthetics of the craft. Ansel Adams once observed that he would rather see a bad print of a good subject than a good print of a bad subject.

blockend said:

I'm aware of the merits and disadvantages of roll and sheet film, and have been using medium and large format cameras for almost four decades. The question was never how big can someone print, but how big are people happy printing a 35mm negative.

Click to expand...

Ok. I understand now. I misunderstood your question. I thought you were trying to figure this out for yourself. You are just curious about others and trying to bring up an interesting conversation.

There is a very practical answer. The print size is determined by the viewing distance. So the OP must determine where the prints are to be displayed. Determining print size by resolution is really the backwards way of doing things.

Gerald C Koch said:

When one looks at a nude one really does not want to see every blemish. That small scar on the chin due to a childhood accident. When I am looking at a photo of a group of buildings I am not really interested in that there is a fly on the third window on the right. So the photographer has a very expensive camera and lens I as the viewer am not impressed.

Click to expand...

Which is why so many of us would derive great enjoyment of the photography as depicted on the fold out page of Playboy each month. She had no apparent blemishs, her skin typically lacked pores, and the only feature consistently seen from month to month was the staple in her navel -- the symbol of the ideal feminine form. Sadly my wife lacks the staple, so I do not hold her in supreme ideal.

wiltw said:

Which is why so many of us would derive great enjoyment of the photography as depicted on the fold out page of Playboy each month. She had no apparent blemishs, her skin typically lacked pores, and the only feature consistently seen from month to month was the staple in her navel -- the symbol of the ideal feminine form. Sadly my wife lacks the staple, so I do not hold her in supreme ideal.

Click to expand...

I remember years ago a young lady winning Playboy Playmate of the year. On television they showed her life at home with her parents. Her father was a police officer and her mother a housewife. She looked and acted like a typical girl of her age and nothing like the beautiful centerfold seductress Playboy portrayed her as.

Perhaps one reason I like my Minox and Polaroid photos is that I don't obsess over insignificant details. Pictorialism is appealing to me, as well as impressionist art.

Theo Sulphate said:

... Once I've satisfied myself that the print "is as sharp as it should be", I view it at a distance most of the time.
...

Click to expand...

Still, I have to admit being ticked off when a lab produces a very soft print that a 1-hour kiosk could've done better 20 years ago.

But as to the original question, my 35mm shots are usually enlarged to 8x10 at the most and viewed on the wall from about 6 feet.

Gerald C Koch said:

There is a very practical answer. The print size is determined by the viewing distance. So the OP must determine where the prints are to be displayed. Determining print size by resolution is really the backwards way of doing things.

Click to expand...

In the original post I said three feet viewing distance. That should indicate we're talking about a domestic wall or a conventional photo gallery situation. People might get closer to examine details, but they "live" with a photograph at that kind of distance. If you've followed the thread the allusions to viewing distance are frequent.

Gerald C Koch said:

There is a school of photography called Pictorialism. Fine detail is deliberately obscured so that the entire subject is emphasized. This is done by the camera lens being defocused a bit or by using a simple or poorly corrected lens. This prevents the viewer from obsessing about meaningless detail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism

When one looks at a nude one really does not want to see every blemish. That small scar on the chin due to a childhood accident. When I am looking at a photo of a group of buildings I am not really interested in that there is a fly on the third window on the right. So the photographer has a very expensive camera and lens I as the viewer am not impressed.

People new to photography make the mistake of concentrating on the technical aspects and totally ignore aesthetics of the craft. Ansel Adams once observed that he would rather see a bad print of a good subject than a good print of a bad subject.

Click to expand...

Are you sure your post is a response to this thread? I mean, I enjoy a good riff as much as the next man, but I'm struggling to see anything connected to 35mm print size conventions.

I don't see what's so bad about wanting a sharp photo and wondering how far a 35mm neg can take you.

tomfrh said:

I don't see what's so bad about wanting a sharp photo and wondering how far a 35mm neg can take you.

Click to expand...

Nothing is bad about it but people need to understand the difference between high resolution and sharpness. High resolution is a product of high level micro contrast and requires a good lens and prceise focus whereas perceived sharpness is a product of edge contrast and doesn't require a good lens and precise focus. So a print with high edge contrast can look very sharp even if it has low micro contrast and therefore low resolution.
Increasing print contrast kills micro contrast and resolution but makes it look sharper becasue it increases the more dominant edge contrast !!!
It comes down to what each of us consider is right and what is considered desireable in the making of a fine print. Resolution or contrast or a happy medium between the two of them.

CropDusterMan said:

Back when I was in New York, I spoke often with James Nachtwey's printer and got to see some of his prints
that were quite large, if memory serves me, in the 20x30 range...I was blown away at the quality...mind you,
he was a master printer and the subject matter was so striking to begin with.

Click to expand...

CDM, I was going to suggest those very prints as the best I have ever seen from 35mm. They were incredible! I always wanted to know what that lens is in the War Photographer video. Any chance you took a gander? He was hella far from that wall so I always thought it might be the APO Nikkor.....

The answer I always want to give in these threads is if you can't do it yourself, it doesn't mean it can't be done. So many people hold fast on their dogmatic idea that 35mm can't be printed that large, or you need 4x5 to print such and such size. Horsepuckey. It isn't that it can't be done, it is that they can't do it and don't understand how anyone else could.

I don't print large because it costs a fortune, but I would. I normally print 35mm to 6.5x9.5 on 7x10 paper. I chop the paper down from 8x10 and use the inch for test strips. The 1/4" border makes it look like a large 4x6.

One thing to mention is that images have a sort of dead zone. They look good up to a certain size, then they don't look good larger than that until you get to a size where they look good again. It varies with image/film/developer.

Patrick Robert James said:

The answer I always want to give in these threads is if you can't do it yourself, it doesn't mean it can't be done. So many people hold fast on their dogmatic idea that 35mm can't be printed that large, or you need 4x5 to print such and such size. Horsepuckey. It isn't that it can't be done, it is that they can't do it and don't understand how anyone else could.

I don't print large because it costs a fortune, but I would. I normally print 35mm to 6.5x9.5 on 7x10 paper. I chop the paper down from 8x10 and use the inch for test strips. The 1/4" border makes it look like a large 4x6.

One thing to mention is that images have a sort of dead zone. They look good up to a certain size, then they don't look good larger than that until you get to a size where they look good again. It varies with image/film/developer.

Click to expand...

It's a complex question which is not easily answered - which is why I asked it! There are so many factors to take into account, many of which I suspect photographers don't even acknowledge when they reach for a piece of photographic paper. These are partly technical obstacles, partly to do with an individual's skill set, and partly convention.

I too have seen large, brilliant, luminous exhibition prints from 35mm negatives, and I think state of the art equipment and materials is only half the battle. I recently saw work sheets from Josef Koudelka's printer, and he identified something like thirty separate zones to be manipulated under the enlarger, as well as the usual tricks of the trade a master printer will develop during his career. Precisely controlling overall tonality of an image is at least as important as the visibility of grain in a large photograph, and something that requires an unusual level of patience and perseverance to achieve.

Patrick Robert James said:

CDM, I was going to suggest those very prints as the best I have ever seen from 35mm. They were incredible! I always wanted to know what that lens is in the War Photographer video. Any chance you took a gander? He was hella far from that wall so I always thought it might be the APO Nikkor.....

Click to expand...

Man, I wish I had! Jim used to take all of his film to Silverworks in NY and Marc McClish is the one you see in the film "War Photographer" doing the printing.

Marc was one of Richard Avedon's assistants, he actually became his studio manager and was there for a good while...and very talented with printing...Marc also printed with Chelsea Labs which is where you see the scene in the film. This guy can print, and is a super nice fellow. I know he used the top of the line equipment though when it came to lenses.

I still remember standing there with Marc looking at the prints at Chelsea Labs...it was one of those moments
in life that you'll never forget...it was the image in the film with the boy with the shaved head...it was likely right around the time they made the film.

Reading blockend's original post, I note that he mentions using a flatbed scanner to produce his images. He states he was running his scanner at 3200 ppi, which, if you know anything about flatbeds, is hopelessly optimistic. The very best flatbeds can maybe eke out 2400 ppi, but most good flatbeds, like my trusty old Epson 4990, which was Epson's best scanner prior to the introduction of the V7xx models, can't do much better than 2000 ppi. I have found this resolution to be too low if one hopes to achieve critically sharp 35mm images. Yes, it might be fine for a monitor, but not for prints.

Many of you have stated that you use good ol' optical methods like enlargers, which are obviously superior to flatbeds. I don't have a darkroom anymore, so that route is closed for me, but there are times I wish I still had my old Simmons Omega enlarger and lenses. These days, I will digitize my slides and negatives for output to a photo quality printer, and I prefer to shoot duplicates using my 24.3mp digital camera for this. I can get 6000 x 4000 pixels of actual resolution that way and I can wring out just about all the sharpness a 35mm slide or negative has to give at that level of resolution.

Now, I understand this is APUG and all, but I'll wager a lot of the folks here are like me and have hybrid darkrooms these days. I have a printer that does a good job with up to 8.5x11 prints, but I've confined almost all my printing to color so far. B&W is a whole different skill set. If I need anything larger than 8.5x11, I take the image files down to my local Costco and have them print out the enlargements on their large format Epson. This is plenty good enough for my purposes. I have images I've duped from Kodachrome and Velvia slides that can easily hold resolution up to 16 x 20 and larger. At 100% image size of a 6000 x 4000 duplicate, that's a 30" x 45" print. Plenty big enough for me. With those fine-grained emulsions, even at 100%, grain is barely evident from a foot away and not visible at all from three feet. And if I've used a good lens, image sharpness is still hanging in there, even at this extreme. Although I'll freely admit that such a large image is best viewed at a slight distance, say six feet or so. And it looks even better from a bit farther, say from ten feet away, which is roughly the same as holding an 8x10 print at arm's length. So, no surprise there, I suppose.