Largest high definition 35mm print?

[blockend]

Ok, I appreciate everyone has their own idea of "high definition", and viewing distance plays its part, but I'm interested in the largest image people are happy printing for domestic viewing. I own a pair of sharp, 20 x 16" C-type colour hand made 35mm prints by a well known US photographer, and they are acceptable from any distance except nose against the glass.

I recently flat bed sc*nned some 400 ASA colour neg film at 3200 dpi, and they're acceptably sharp on my 18" monitor. These are hand held shots, within the focal plane limitations of a flat bed, a drum scan at higher resolution would be sharper. Given a suitably slow, sharp colour negative film and the highest quality lenses, what d'you reckon is the biggest print possible before things fall apart? Let's say a 3 feet viewing distance.

 

[Ian Grant]

To me 10x8 is the largest I'd print even slow B&W negatives, colour maybe 12x10. However remember I'm predominantly an LF worker and that's made me quite critical when it comes to 35mm because in the past I've had 35mm images alongside those from 6x9 and 5x4 exhibited alongside each other.

Ian

 

[baachitraka]

I print 16x21cm on 20x25cm paper, but I want to print just 10x15cm on 13x18cm to have an intimate look on those prints.

 

[Andre Noble]

11x14 B&W Negative
16x20 Color Negative

High definition, but not grainless

 

[kobaltus]

My 30 x 40cm ( 12x16in) prints, done from ex agfa APX 100 film looks very sharp, viewing from any normal distance.

I am sure, that much bigger sharp prints could be done with slower films.

 

[Jesper]

The largest size also depends on the subject. If the image relies on sharpness it cannot be enlarged too much but if this is not the case you can print bigger. Once I did a 90x60cm print of a friends two horses running and it worked OK (Leica 50/2 and 50 asa film). Had it been a cityscape it wouldn't have worked.

 

[bdial]

I don't think there is an across the board answer, except that it depends on the negative. I have recent one that I've printed 16x20 and it holds up well, but I also have plenty where printing them 8x10 is pushing it.

 

[removed account4]

it depends

 

[tomfrh]

in my opinion 3 feet is too far to be evaluating "high resolution". I'd say more like 18 inches - which is similar to standard reading distance for a book or computer screen.

At that distance an enlargement of 10x is starting to fall apart for high res purposes, which equates to the oft mentioned 11x14 figure.

that being said, it all depends and everyone has a different opinion on it.

 

[blockend]

The largest size also depends on the subject. If the image relies on sharpness it cannot be enlarged too much but if this is not the case you can print bigger. Once I did a 90x60cm print of a friends two horses running and it worked OK (Leica 50/2 and 50 asa film). Had it been a cityscape it wouldn't have worked.

That's an interesting point, and I agree. Subjects with multiple textures, stone, foliage, people, can stand more enlargement than, for example, beach scenes with open areas of sand and sky. In such scenes the eye is drawn to grain, corner sharpness, development artefacts, etc. Many years ago I abandoned 35mm for medium format because I wasn't getting the look I wanted with more texture-less subject matter. Now I'm shooting "busier" images I find 35mm acceptable to about 15 x 10" and I'm looking to see what the maximum acceptable size might be.

I have seen half frame and sub miniature shots printed bigger than 10 x 8, but they rely on scrupulous technique, sharp lenses and visible grain to hold the image together. Ektar 100 should be a good film to see where the limits are.

 

[ic-racer]

What is the biggest print you make?

 

[removed account4]

i only contct print 35mm film. bigger than that its all over.

 

[blockend]

What is the biggest print you make?

It has varied over time. Originally I enlarged to 10 x 8" and thought that was about the maximum size before the image became less satisfying to look at. I then went up to about 20 x 16 for exhibition prints (mainly black and white) and felt they lost something. I'm now looking to print 35mm colour negatives and based mainly on scans, I think 15 x 12" is probably the optimum size for grain, colour saturation and physical presence.

 

[Hatchetman]

i only contct print 35mm film. bigger than that its all over.

 

[naeroscatu]

My 30 x 40cm ( 12x16in) prints, done from ex agfa APX 100 film looks very sharp, viewing from any normal distance.
I am sure, that much bigger sharp prints could be done with slower films.

Agree, I have 25 years old BW prints on my walls 30 x 40 cm from 35mm film (family portraits) that are not showing any grain, whatever the distance you look at them.

 

[ciniframe]

I agree with "it depends". I think this would be a 'cut and try' type operation. Progressively print larger and see how big you can go. That will be your answer.

 

[Alan Gales]

it depends

+1

I used to shoot Kodachrome and print Cibachrome 8x10 prints. Once in a while I would take a slide down to the top pro printer at the time and have an 11X14 made. I shot these slides with a Contax 139 camera with Zeiss lenses and used a tripod. I used an electromechanical cable release but no mirror lock up. My 139 didn't have that feature or I would have.

My findings were that for most of the time 8x10 was the limit for 35mm. Occasionally I could pull off an 11X14 if everything was perfect like my technique, no wind, etcetera. Of course the subject had a lot to do with it. Shooting color for color or shooting for detail are two different things. For one of my favorite 11X14's I used a diffusion filter. It's a pictorial shot of a wooden bridge over a pond.

I am picky and I admit it. I don't agree with the "normal viewing distance" opinion unless it's a billboard or something that you can't get close to. If I'm looking at a photograph then I put my nose up to it.

 

[markbarendt]

it depends

Yep

 

[DREW WILEY]

I consider about 4X enlargement to be about the limit for anything truly sharp. In other words, about 5x7 inches from a 35mm original. DPI tells you
nothing except the limits of the scanning and mechanical printing afterwards. I print optically so don't have to worry about those secondary issues. But this doesn't mean I never print 35mm larger. Sometimes I like conspicuous grain or other visible artifact quality. Going bigger works better with color shots than with black and white because the attention is generally drawn to the character of the hues themselves, and overall color relationships, rather than merely detail. Of course, you can take even a cell phone shot and make an image thirty feet wide with it if you want, provided your concept of an acceptable image is a freeway billboard viewed from two hundred yards away! Cibachrome, however, was a litmus
test because it was capable of retaining so much detail. I specialized in Cibachrome as long as it was on the market. Anything bigger than 11x14 and
I'd only print from large format chromes. Nowadays Fuji Supergloss provides a similar look.

 

[Alan9940]

I shoot primarily slow speed film in 35mm and print to about 5x7 when I want absolute high quality. If the subject demands and I find it feasible, I will go to about 8x12. Never printed anything larger than that, though, from 35mm. But, as others have said I'm primarily a medium or LF guy so that's my view of print quality.

 

[MattKing]

This looks good when it is about 9"x13":

I think that has a lot to do with the nature of the subject.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

If the print is more than 10" x 15" "HIGH DEFINITION" doesn't apply.
Bigger prints need bigger negatives Q.E.D.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The photographic process is capable of producing remarkable beauty and authenticity. So for me, the smallest a given situation will allow, but no larger than my darkroom constrains. And the data points usually cluster around 5x7 for non-heroic processes. Although the smaller Ilford postcard paper dimensions can be very nice.

Ken

 

[ciniframe]

I see mention of 8X10 several times but does anyone print full frame (or almost) at 6X9 inches on 8X10 paper? That would seem like a viable size up from 5X7 but with only a small increase in magnification.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's generally how I enlarge 35mm - onto 8x10 paper for the convenience. Same VC paper choices that I use for 8x10 contact printing - something I
keep on hand.