Largest high definition 35mm print?

[filmamigo]

I have made a few fantastic 11x14 prints (from E6 colour) that I am very pleased with. Ektar also seems to have comparable enlargement capability.

When I embrace the grain, with the right shot, 16x20 is possible with black & white. But that's not the same thing as a "straight" photograph. It's more about the light and the texture.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I haven't printed any 35mm Ektar yet. Shot some. But by comparison, using this color film and exceptional lenses, I have gotten very pleasingly crisp
20x24 prints from a 6x9 rollfilm back on 4x5 cameras. That quality of result was not realistic with chrome films or conventional color neg films. Wouldn't want to push my luck beyond that, or try the same stunt with black and white film. That size has previously always been the domain of large format sheet film as far as I'm concerned. But due to this new paradigm, I figure I'll at least try 11x14 prints from 35mm Ektar and see what happens. But my take on this is that, as far as detail is concerned, Ektar is even sharper than Kodachrome.

 

[ciniframe]

Back in the early 70's the sales rep from Minox, in order to 'demonstrate' how high resolution the Minox lens was would photograph a standard 8.5 X 11 printed page with a IIIs and then return later that day with a 8X10 print and you could read the document with no problem. But of course that was line copy film at ASA 6 developed to the highest contrast, black or white, no grays at all. Looked impressive though.

 

[tomfrh]

I sometimes wonder what people mean by grain when they say they have 16 inch 35mm prints which show no grain no matter how close you look.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Mere detail means nothing in this context. There were once contests seeing how many entire texts of the Bible could be put on a microdot using some type of microfilm. I forget the count before WWII, but quite a few of them. We're mainly concerned with additional qualities. 35mm is my alter-ego.
If I want big immaculately detailed prints, I grab the 8x10. When I want to shapshoot then print small and poetic, I grab a Nikon and a relatively fast
film like TMY or even Delta 3200. Or, sometimes I'll use a slow film like Pan F with the lens wide open. There are no rules to this. I loved the now
extinct color film, Agfachrome 1000 with its conspicuous grain and soft hues. There is a certain size where this kind of thing looks appropriate, but
not if you overdo it. Less is more.

 

[wiltw]

Consider that the detail resolution for a really, really good 135 format lens provides about 120 line-pairs per millimeter to the film when a fine grained film is used.
Consider that the human eye needs to see 5 line-pairs per millimeter on the final print in order to judge that print as 'sharp' and not 'blurry and lacking detail'.

So... 120 / 5 = 24x, and 24x * (24 x 36) = 576mm x 864mm or 22.6" x 34" print, viewed from about 40" away. You can have fewer apparent line-pairs per millimeter in the print, it just will not be perceived as a high detail sharp image.

A different issue from perception as 'sharp' print is the relative size of grain in the image and when it is objectionable.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Perceived sharpness is a combination of many factors, especially with color vision, and simply CANNOT be quantified with a simplistic formulas, or
be said to be identical between different individuals. That kind of thing might be OK for simple A versus B head-on lens tests, but otherwise.... The only worse thing is when people start talking DPI. Leave that talk to the newsprint crowd.

 

[GRHazelton]

I have made on occasion 11 x 14 prints from 35mm, but in general 8 x 10 or 8 x 12 is the limit. The 11 x 14 prints relied on a tripod, Plus X film, and frankly a bit of luck.

 

[Jim Jones]

While the celebrated Colorama photos in New York's Grand Central Station were usually taken by large format cameras, I believe a few were captured on 35mm film. Enlarged to 18x60 feet, they appeared to be high definition only when viewed at a distance.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I have printed reasonably large Ilfochrome Classic prints from Velvia 50 that preserve the imaging quality of 35mm in gallery viewing conditions. The exact size escapes me at the moment while I'm away from the studio (I will edit* this post to give the dims when I return), but the top size was recommended by my printer at the time and it was rare to go higher than his recommendation in 35mm, and cost was also a consideration. As a general reference, images from e.g. B&W negatives could be printed significantly larger than from transparencies, even in the Ilfochrome process.

* EDIT: Largest printed size from RVP 50/135 is 24x20" (61x51cm, Ilfochrome Classic, dibonded).

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
I'm interested in the largest image people are happy printing for domestic viewing.
...
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.

From 35mm, I haven't gone larger than 8x10 for photos on the wall to be viewed maybe from 2' to 8'. In albums, I have some that are 11x14.

From medium format, I've got prints on the wall at 16x20 and, even "nose against the glass", they are extremely sharp. Some are from Kodak Tech Pan, some are a Kodak color negative film, probably ISO 200 or less. The only reason I haven't gone larger with medium format is just so that I can have more photos on the walls.

 

[ic-racer]

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.

Before I answered I wanted to see if you had better experience than myself. When I setup my current darkroom in 2000 I was doing 16x20s of 35mm and looking to go up to 20x24. At that time I also started Large Format. After comparing those LF prints side-by side with the 35mm prints I now only print 35mm to about 6x9"! Otherwise they all fail alongside my 8x10 negative enlargements to 16x20 (which is only a 2x enlargement).

 

[ciniframe]

I also shoot half frame and didn't want to drag out the enlarger to make a print or two. So I built a small box enlarger that has a fixed magnification of 6.25X making a 4.5X6 inch print on 5X7 paper. I find that 6X is a sweet spot for any small neg. I also shoot Minolta 16 at 10X14mm and in the last year Minox at 8X11mm so I'm used to struggling hard for mediocre results.

 

[wiltw]

Consider that the detail resolution for a really, really good 135 format lens provides about 120 line-pairs per millimeter to the film when a fine grained film is used.
Consider that the human eye needs to see 5 line-pairs per millimeter on the final print in order to judge that print as 'sharp' and not 'blurry and lacking detail'.

So... 120 / 5 = 24x, and 24x * (24 x 36) = 576mm x 864mm or 22.6" x 34" print, viewed from about 40" away. You can have fewer apparent line-pairs per millimeter in the print, it just will not be perceived as a high detail sharp image.

A different issue from perception as 'sharp' print is the relative size of grain in the image and when it is objectionable.

And then there is the reality of lenses typically used by folks having only about 60 line-pairs per millimeter, not the exceptional 120 ll/mm, and this means the largest print in a real case could be only HALF as large, or 11 x 17" !

 

[Gerald C Koch]

All discussion of grain, resolution, whatever is meaningless unless one also takes into consideration the viewing distance to the print. In all seriousness no one is going to be looking at a large print from 2 inches way. Print size is determined from the anticipated viewing distance.

 

[tomfrh]

In all seriousness no one is going to be looking at a large print from 2 inches way

I always do!

 

[kobaltus]

I always do!

Do you also lick the prints...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

On my 16x20 medium format cityscapes, where details of buildings can be seen miles away (*), I will first admire all the details while standing several inches away. 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.

On other types of photos I don't do this; with 8x10's from 35mm I don't do this. I usually look at those photos from a reasonable distance.

(*) in the 1990's, I photographed east Portland from the Portland west hills and also photographed Vancouver. There was amazing detail in buildings and other structures miles away. This was with a Hasselblad, on a tripod, pre-released, etc.

 

[blockend]

There's an aesthetic and a technical response. At a recent Martin Parr exhibition that contained large prints from digital and film cameras, most people settled for a viewing distance where they could comfortably take in the whole shot while being close enough to be involved with the image. This varied between about 3ft to 6ft. A few people needed to go right up to the shot (too close to see it all), and I noticed some of those were carrying cameras! I suspect it's only photographers who really concern themselves with corner sharpness, grain and the like, and the general public just look at the picture.

 

[markbarendt]

I always do!

What are you looking for there?

 

[dynachrome]

The sharpest 35mm b&w film I remember using was Kodak 5069 High Contrast Copy. It was phased out in favor of Technical Pan. Technical Pan had various uses but was not as sharp as 5069 and has an odd spectral sensitivity. I also used Agfa Copex Pan film which was sold under the H&W Control name, along with its low contrast developer. For continuous tone use Technical Pan could be developed in Technidol as well as a variety of other packaged or home made low contrast formulas. To conserve my stock or Technical Pan I also used Kodak Imagelink HQ (perforated). The Imagelink is about as sharp and fine grained as Technical Pan but without the odd spectral sensitivity. Using a copy type film for continuous tone work will give a very sharp and find grained image if you have a sharp enough lens and if all other conditions are favorable. The problem is that all other conditions are not always favorable. This kind of film is not really suitable for very high contrast scenes and its slow speed makes it unsuitable for low light work unless a tripod can be used. Very nice work can be done with Ilford Pan F, Fuji ACROS, Ilford Delta Pro 100 or Kodak TMX but the results will be less sharp and more grainy. With medium format equipment selling for so little now, it's just easier to make larger prints that way. If I put Ektar 100 or Ilford Pan F into a Bronice GS-1 or Mamiya RB67 I can make a very large print before grain becomes apparent. Making an enormous print from a 35mm negative or slide just to prove a particular lens is sharp is like fishing for large sharks with 8 pound test line to prove your skill with the rod and reel. You could do it but why would you want to?

 

[tomfrh]

What are you looking for there?

The underlying structure of the image.

 

[thuggins]

Do you really want to see, with your own eyes, how much you can enlarge 35mm film? Go to a movie theater, sit your butt down in one of the seats and look at that really, really big screen in front of you. One half of a 35mm (still) frame gets enlarged to the size of that really, really big screen.

 

[cliveh]

8 1/2" X 6 1/2" full frame.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

JHC on a biscuit! Not this same ridiculous thread. If there should be one blessing of some future imaging technology that is actually better than, and can replace film, it will be to put an end to this asinine question.

Do you really want to see, with your own eyes, how much you can enlarge 35mm film? Go to a movie theater, sit your butt down in one of the seats and look at that really, really big screen in front of you. One half of a 35mm (still) frame gets enlarged to the size of that really, really big screen.

The brain stitches those 30fps into a much higher resolution composite with far less grain. View a single still from any 135 format film movie... it's not the same at all.