The Joy of Printing 35mm Negs

A bit of backstory -- I've recently been doing a lot more printing because of a basic printing class and ran out of 8x10 RC. This forced me to dig into my somewhat forgotten stash of 11x14 arista.edu matte fb paper.

Previously I was not at all fond of 35mm b/w for printing, but I think that was because I was enlarging and cropping to fill the entire sheet (otherwise I ended up with a tiny image on 8x10 paper). By accident I used a full-frame (filed out) 35mm neg carrier once and when I printed 35mm onto that 11x14 paper, it was like an epiphany. Suddenly, I liked 35mm. The format stopped looking so wonky and made more sense with the heavy black border and white space around it.

In other words, wet printing is no longer a chore but a joy. I might even say that I'm getting to be a fair hand at it -- I can pretty much get the print to match what I think the image should be.

So I'm feeling froggy and thought I might try to print big -- 16x20. I have some paper on order and our local darkroom has big trays. My questions are these:

• How big can one appreciably print a 35mm neg? I generally shoot either Tri-X in Sprint (which gives me grain, but a nice grain) or Neopan 400 in DDX (which is pretty grainless at 11x14).
• What film/soup combinations do you find particularly good for printing?
• Does warmtone paper need to be exposed differently?
• When you experienced guys make a first print and eyeball it, how do you mark it up for correction? By filter number? By stops? Seconds of exposure, etc?
• Would it benefit me to learn split-filter printing before going to big paper rather than after?
• The upright and drum print washers at the darkroom won't hold 16x20. Can I tray wash those instead? If so, should I add time to make up for the difference? I always use hypo-clear for 3-5 min on my fiber prints.

Thanks in advance!

-Clint

How big depends on the negative. However, the proper viewing distance is also a big factor. In theory if you view the 16x20 at a similar relative distance as an 8x10 or 11x14 the print should look similar. But if you print sniff it, it will look grainy and soft, how grainy and soft depends on the neg.

Film/soup combos are very subjective, I use mostly plus-x or Tmax 100 and D-76 or Xtol, but everyone has their own favorite

For me, in evaluating a print, it depends on what needs to be corrected the most. Sometimes that's contrast, sometimes density. Generally I try and control density with exposure time rather than changing the f/stop, however I think of exposure in terms of f/stops. That is, 1 stop difference = double or 1/2 the time.

Spit filter printing has no particular advantage or disadvantage for large prints, IMHO. It's quite useful for some negs, but I don't use it for all. Mileage varies on this.

You can tray wash, hypo-clear will probably help, whether or not you need to add time depends on how efficient the tray wash is as compared to the other washers. If you're doing one print at a time, the time may not need to be much different. But testing would be in order.

warmtone papers tend to be slow in speed so they will need more exposure.

depending upon many things, including your vision, you can enlarge as much as you like, however, the bigger the image the more precise your technique needs to be (IMHO).

zenrhino said:

[*]Would it benefit me to learn split-filter printing before going to big paper rather than after?

Click to expand...

Yes. That would give you more choice in technique. But also pre-flashing is essential to learn for printing because that way you could use almost any kind of paper without worrying too much about the paper's local contrast.

In the past I determined which negatives I would print to 16x20 just by examining the negative. However, last printing session I made some 16x20s from some negatives I had already enlarged to 8x10. Having the 8x10 as a guide print seemed to speed things up and cause less 16x10 paper waste.

Focusing to get the whole negative in focus can be tricky with the filed out carrier, especially if you don't have the grain magnifier that will show the corners. I have been focusing the enlarger like a view camera. Moving the enlarger head is the same as focusing by the back standard. So you can use the scale on the enlarger column. I find the "near"(center) and "far"(corner) focal points and split the difference. Then I stop down to get it in the best focus. You can just watch the grain focuser at the center or edge or use the modulation transfer function equation to get the aperture:

N = 20 / (1+M) x Sqrt(focus difference in mm)

N = aperture
20 = constant
M = magnification

With a filed out carrier I wind up needing f11 or f16 which are OK if the print is viewed from a distance. For critical work I use a lens corrected for high magnification and a glass carrier which allows me to use f8. As they say of course, "your results may vary..."

[*]How big can one appreciably print a 35mm neg? I generally shoot either Tri-X in Sprint (which gives me grain, but a nice grain) or Neopan 400 in DDX (which is pretty grainless at 11x14).

From fast film 16X20, from a slower film like Tmax 100 or Plus X 20X24 I have seen even larger from EFKE 25, Pan F, or Agfa 25.

[*]What film/soup combinations do you find particularly good for printing?

For slow EFKE 25 in Rodinal mid Tmax 100 in Edwal 12, Plus X in FG7, High Speed Forma Action Pan in Edwal 12, ultra high speed Tmax 3200 at 1600 in DDX or Clayton F76, pushed to 3200 in Edwal 12.

[*]Does warmtone paper need to be exposed differently?

Most warmtone papers are somewhat slower, develop in a warmtone developer.

[*]When you experienced guys make a first print and eyeball it, how do you mark it up for correction? By filter number? By stops? Seconds of exposure, etc?

I keep notes on the back of all my working prints.

[*]Would it benefit me to learn split-filter printing before going to big paper rather than after?

I dont print with split filters so I dont have an opinion.

[*]The upright and drum print washers at the darkroom won't hold 16x20. Can I tray wash those instead? If so, should I add time to make up for the difference? I always use hypo-clear for 3-5 min on my fiber prints.

I wash my 16X20s in a childes plastic wading pool on my patio.

ic-racer said:

You can just watch the grain focuser at the center or edge or use the modulation transfer function equation to get the aperture:

N = 20 / (1+M) x Sqrt(focus difference in mm)

N = aperture
20 = constant
M = magnification
"

Click to expand...

You can go ahead and explain that further if you like. I'm sorta tired of doing test strips every time I change sizes.

"You can go ahead and explain that further if you like. I'm sorta tired of doing test strips every time I change sizes."

I have never understood why there are complicated formulae for this. I simply use the area of the print as a guide. A 20 second exposure to get a good 4x5 print needs 80 seconds for an 8x10 print because the area is 4X as large. Or reduce the f stops by two, which amounts to the same thing.
Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems to work for me.

That formula isn't about exposure it's about focussing. OTOH it seems a lot of effort for 35mm. I never thought 35mm was the most challenging format to focus with an enlarger.

Bobby Ironsights said:

You can go ahead and explain that further if you like. I'm sorta tired of doing test strips every time I change sizes.

Click to expand...

That equation is for 'depth of field' of the negative you are enlarging, not exposure. I will try to explain it.

When enlarging, you can imagine the paper as the film of a view camera doing a 'macro' shot. The processed negative that you are enlarging is the 'subject' for the camera. Or just imagine your enlarger bellows going from the paper to the lens stage. Now you have a big view camera, and all the technical details of view camera use will apply.

There is a very common trick to focusing the view camera that involves identifying the distance on the focusing rail between the 'near' and 'far' objects you want to be sharp in your scene. You then 'split the distance' on the focusing rail and use an equation or chart to get the aperture that will get it all in focus. It can get complicated because there is a 'defocus' equation, a 'diffraction' equation, a 'combined defocus and diffraction' equation and a 'modular transfer function' equation.

The nice thing about enlarging, rather than using a view camera, is that all the effects predicted by the equations can be seen through the grain magnifier (thus, I presume, the lack of popularity using the equations when enlarging).

The concepts of focusing for depth of field are explained here, but it is not easy reading unless you like math!
( http://www.largeformatphotography.info/articles/DoFinDepth.pdf )

johnnywalker said:

"You can go ahead and explain that further if you like. I'm sorta tired of doing test strips every time I change sizes."

I have never understood why there are complicated formulae for this. I simply use the area of the print as a guide. A 20 second exposure to get a good 4x5 print needs 80 seconds for an 8x10 print because the area is 4X as large. Or reduce the f stops by two, which amounts to the same thing.
Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems to work for me.

Click to expand...

The correct equation for that never made sense to me for a long time. The clue is that when you are doing a 10x enlargement a f8 your effective aperture is N = (1+M) * f , where N is the 'effective aperture,' M is the magnification and f is the marked number on your enlarging lens.

So when you change magnification, you can have an equation to account for the light spreading out (as you indicated) you can also account for the change in your 'effective aperture.' Again it goes back to 'bellows factors' and macro photography. Of course, as you have told us, the inverse square law along can get one reasonably close. But for a doubling of size, the inverse square equation, alone, is about one stop off.