Negative size -Has google gone stupid

Focus No. 9 · Aug 20, 2010

I'm searching Google for negative size in relationship to print size and i get all kinds of hits on scanning. Anyway... I never did find what i was after for. But I did find that my 5.5 x 5.5cm negative is referred to 6x6 so my argoflex e is a 6x6 mf camera.

I understand that a negative loses resolution when enlarging the neg for a print. But the debate as to the limit is almost as heated as film vs digital. So what would be a good guide?

or should I use this and leave it at that?
35mm >8x10
6x6 > 11x20
thanks for reading.

srs5694 · Aug 20, 2010

It's subjective. Enlarge it as big as you like. If you enlarge to a particular size and don't like the results, then you know your personal limit. If somebody else says that size is fine, then you and Mr./Ms. Somebody disagree. End of discussion. Likewise if you like a size that somebody else says is beyond the limit.

Sirius Glass · Aug 20, 2010

Hasselblad 6x6 is actually 56 mm x 56 mm. Does that help?

Steve

Vaughn · Aug 20, 2010

Print the size that looks good for you, and you be the judge of what "good" is. So much depends on the film & developer, camera, subject and viewing distance (and probably a few more factors.

I printed my 6x6 negatives to 15"x15" (on 16x20 paper) -- Panatomic-X film developed in Microdol-X, shot on a Rollei TLR. I got what I wanted.

6x6 printed 10x10 on 11x14 paper is sweet...color or B&W.

I love the square image -- a matter of taste and experience.

Vaughn

Focus No. 9 · Aug 20, 2010

Sirius Glass said:
Hasselblad 6x6 is actually 56 mm x 56 mm. Does that help?

Steve

Huh..? What? You saying your equipment bigger than mine? That I don't have a 6x6 but a 5.5 x 5.5 ? 2mm...ooooh. : )

Sirius Glass · Aug 20, 2010

Focus No. 9 said:
Sirius Glass said:

Hasselblad 6x6 is actually 56 mm x 56 mm. Does that help?

Steve

Click to expand...

Huh..? What? You saying your equipment bigger than mine? That I don't have a 6x6 but a 5.5 x 5.5 ? 2mm...ooooh. : )

I'm jus' sayin' the sizes. [I wasn't saying mine is bigger than yours! ]

Steve

PS: My SWC, named Wide Willie, is wider than yours! :w00t:

Focus No. 9 · Aug 20, 2010

Huh, Steve, you know I'm joking right? And actually, no I don't know if it helps? I really don't know where your comming from. Now take your hand and stick it out arm's length for DOF and then squeeze your thumb and your index finger toward each other to about f22 and then you get the idea of how much camera experience I have. Does that help? >i'm joking again<. Please don't put me on ignore. : )

Thanks everyone... I will do what I want. Thanks for the postive feedback.

Sirius Glass · Aug 20, 2010

All sirius-ness aside, I was pointing out that 6x6 is not really a 6x6 image, just like a 4x5 is not really 4"x5".

Steve

guitstik · Aug 20, 2010

Print to the grain is what I learned coming up. I usually shoot 100 B&W 120 film that gives me more latitude for larger print sizes.

MattKing · Aug 20, 2010

A good 35mm negative can easily be enlarged to fill 11x14 with borders.

I have seen a disc camera negative successfully enlarged to poster size (5 feet on the long dimension, IIRC)

And then of course there was the Kodak Colorama - an 18' x 60' (yes - feet, not inches) rear projection transparency that in 1986 for the first time originated from a 35mm negative:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/features/coloramas/colorama.html

Look under "Technical Highlights".

Viewing distance is quite important .

Focus No. 9 · Aug 20, 2010

Sirius Glass said:
All sirius-ness aside, I was pointing out that 6x6 is not really a 6x6 image, just like a 4x5 is not really 4"x5".

Steve

so if i follow your logic my 24mm x 36mm is after all a 8 x 10? Great.

BTW I just finished scanning my Willie photograph ... not sure if allowed here as it's an 8x10.

Focus No. 9 · Aug 20, 2010

guitstik said:
Print to the grain is what I learned coming up. I usually shoot 100 B&W 120 film that gives me more latitude for larger print sizes.

Thanks quitstik I'll keep that in mind. That is what I shot in the Argoflex. The next round will be taken in the Ciro-flex. It's so ____ hot here to get out, but I gotta if I want to enter the state fair.

Focus No. 9 · Aug 20, 2010

MattKing said:
A good 35mm negative can easily be enlarged to fill 11x14 with borders.

I have seen a disc camera negative successfully enlarged to poster size (5 feet on the long dimension, IIRC)

And then of course there was the Kodak Colorama - an 18' x 60' (yes - feet, not inches) rear projection transparency that in 1986 for the first time originated from a 35mm negative:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/features/coloramas/colorama.html

Look under "Technical Highlights".

Viewing distance is quite important .

Thanks Matt I visited the link and enjoyed. My problem is white specs... so a 2 1/4 print would only work. As far as "Viewing distance is quite important"... it sure is. I had to get real close to Ansel's prints to see what all the hubbub was about. I'm thinking I should rename my recent street shot with the argo " Speed Hump Sign".

Sirius Glass · Aug 20, 2010

I have printed 35mm C-41 prints at 24" x 36" and they look stunning.

I have printed 120 black & white from a circa1935 camera with a Zeiss lens on prints at 30" x 30" and they look stunning, too.

I am sure that your Argoflex will produce negative that can make large prints with the right enlarger optics.

Steve

Top-Cat · Aug 21, 2010

Here's something I think about when I consider maximum print size:

Any format has a certain necessary viewing distance to get it all in - and then you just might want to take a few more steps back for it to be comfortable. It's kind of a strange practice to walk around looking at pictures from a distance of two inches. And even though some people do that (as it also was fairly common in the days of salon painting), you can just as well use a magnifying glass for a smaller print if all you care about is grain.

If it's a decent enough negative size and grain, which in my opinion is 400 on medium format, and 100 ISO on 35mm. I wouldn't worry about such things as maximum print size. Painters also often chose to "limit their resolution" in modern art - like the impressionists did compared to the classical style of 50 years earlier for effect, and if you really want a huge banner like print you can walk two inches up to and still see the details - maybe large format's a good idea - but remember that's for effect, and not necessarily a technical criteria.

John Koehrer · Aug 21, 2010

You took a picture of your willie? Please don't post it here.
Print size is subjective and there is no limit other than space. If you can't tell what the subject is because the grain is so large, it's art.

ic-racer · Aug 21, 2010

Focus No. 9 said:
the limit

There are limits in optical projection printing very large magnification ratios that are related to diffraction. These limits can be minimized by internegatives. I don't know of any debate over those well established optical principles.

Negative size -Has google gone stupid

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency