typica print size from 35mm neg

Gerald C Koch · Nov 23, 2010

Whenever a question like this comes up the monster Grain becomes the elephant in the room. What many people do not realize is that grain can give the illusion of sharpness when there really is none.

There are many factors involved in making a saltisfactory print and negative size is only one of them. What is often ignored is the print making portion of the process. Without a good stable enlarger and a really high quality enlarging lens it is impossible to make a good print even from the best negative.

bblhed · Nov 23, 2010

Isn't motion picture film 35mm film?

MattKing · Nov 23, 2010

bblhed said:
Isn't motion picture film 35mm film?

Yes, but the image size is actually smaller than in still cameras. The long dimension of each frame is across the film - about 22mm for "Academy" format. The depth of each frame is 16mm.

Much of the sharpness and detail we see in a movie theatre presentation comes from the combination of the information storage capacity of the medium combined with our brain's ability to track and combine multiple, sequential images.

Oh, and in response to the OP's question, I've been quite happy with 11x14 prints from some 35mm negatives.

I expect as well that I and others who do our own printing are much more bothered by the limitations of the smaller 35mm negative than many of those who have never struggled with a negative that is too grainy.

chimneyfinder · Nov 23, 2010

Having read this far, you will realise that there is no such thing as a typical image size, or even typical photographic discussions. If grain bothers you at 16x12, try a staining developer, or a technical film (I still have some Kodak Technical Pan, which pretty much has resolution - developed in Technidol - that most lenses won't reach), now by Rollei. In short enlargement is a matter of preference and logistics.

dfoo · Nov 23, 2010

For me 11x14 looks good for most of my negatives. I'd try bigger but I don't have the easel or the trays to develop 16x20

darkroom_rookie · Nov 24, 2010

dfoo said:
I'd try bigger but I don't have the easel or the trays to develop 16x20

Neither did I, so I made them myself. Now I have three 25x31" trays, and they're nestable, which is important in a 8x7ft darkroom...

Ken N · Nov 24, 2010

A proper answer to this question requires two pieces of information: Image Category and End Use.

I regularily put 35mm images on paper up to 24x36". But not of landscapes. Portraits, wedding event stuff, etc., can stand extreme enlarging, but a highly detailed landscape or "object" photograph will require much less expansion. For highly detailed scenes, where I'm trying to maintain maximum detail, I'll take a 35mm neg up to 8x12" image size on an 11x14 paper. For color film, scanned, the sky is the limit because I have lots of other tools at my disposal to address grain, sharpness, etc.

Pavel+ · Nov 27, 2010

I find that for my tastes 8x10 always looks good with a good negative but 11x14 looks good only with some negatives, while others seem to take a nose-dive in quality enough to compromise the image.

So 11x14 is my max, but I can't count on being satisfied by the technical quality ... and oh ... I love grain.

Johnkpap · Nov 27, 2010

I have found the following 3 factors decide how big you can go with 35mm:-

1. Quality of the neg and film type :- Slow films with correct exposure and development can be enlarged the most.

2. The enlarger:- a small cheap'n Nasty enlarger will not cut it above 8x10 due to
its design and poor light output. :-I routinely enlarge good negs on my 4x5 Durst L1200 to 20x24 with no problem.

3. Enlarging lens :- A cheap lens is fine up to 8x10, any bigger then you need a "Good One" a APO is nice but not neccesary, a Rodagon 50mm 2.8 or a El-Nikkor 50mm 2.8 are examples will be fine. Trying to enlarge with a bad lens is a waist of paper Chem and your time, a nice 50mm can be bought used for less than $150.00

Regards

Johnkpap

Adrian Twiss · Nov 28, 2010

I go no bigger than 8 x 12. Even then with a hand held shot using a zoom lens I can see a drop in quality (must be getting shaky with age). Even when using a tripod and good quality prime lenses I don't go any bigger.

Ronald Moravec · Nov 28, 2010

High speed film to 8x10. T Max 100 will go to 16x20.

Naturally neither will match a 4x5 neg at the same size, but you can`t carry a 4x5 around either.

If you make a 4x6 from 35, you will get an idea what 16x24 looks like from large format. It is that dramatic.

Another way to look at is, 4x5 TriX which is technically a bad combination, looks better at 8x10 than any 35mm you can use.

It comes down to your tolerence for quality.

Sirius Glass · Nov 28, 2010

First printing is 4"x6". Sirius copies are 12"x18" from Costco.

Steve

thuggins · Jan 28, 2011

This is the kind of question you wish you had a nickel for every time it came up. And it's meaningless every time, even though people will trot out numbers for the "maximum size" of an enlargement. What's the camera? What's the lens? What's the film? What's the lighting? What's the subject matter? Who printed it? What equipment did the printer use? Etc?

I've seen very nice 3'x5' prints made from 35mm film. Even up close, the blades of grass and outlines of leaves were clearly defined. I've seen 4'x6' prints that looked decent when viewed from a reasonable distance. I've seen 4"x6" prints that looked like crap.

If you really want to know how big you can enlarge a 35mm neg, you can go to this thing called a movie. For $8, you can sit in a sticky chair and see 35mm film projected on a screen 50'x30', or bigger.

Richard Jepsen · Feb 1, 2011

The question is what is the typical size, not how big can you go. 5x7 is a flexible print size from small format. You can fit the print in a 8x10 ready-made frame with a window mat cut for 5x7 or 4x6. I use a 4x6 mat to post-darkroom crop a 5x7 in print. 5x7 in a 12 x 15 in frame looks nice as a small wall hanging. I have limited wall space. My prints are 99% for table top presentation. However, 35mm aspect ratio projects nicely to a 9x12 or 8x12 wall presentation. The MF negative shape of a 645 format fits 6x8 or 7.75 x 9.75. Being simple allows me to purchase 11x14 paper and cut down to (4) 5x7 or sheets or print larger images on 11x14 with wide white borders. To give a print more room I mat 3/4 inch off the image and use a 14 x 18 in frame. This makes the 8x10 image look larger for a wall display. At the end of the day, holding - in the hand - a folio/album of B&W prints lacking glass to interfere with the visual experience is very satisfying. 5x7 works well in that format.

jpberger · Feb 1, 2011

As an aside to all this, let's not forget that some pictures want to be small.

Lately I've been making my print size smaller and my mat size bigger. May be a bit faddish, but it's really effective at getting people to spend some time with a smaller image.

Tim Gray · Feb 1, 2011

dfoo said:
For me 11x14 looks good for most of my negatives. I'd try bigger but I don't have the easel or the trays to develop 16x20

Ditto. Though I normally print 4x6s and 8x10s. But all of the 11x14s I've done I think look great. Of course MF or LF would look sharper and different, but not necessarily better. In many cases, using MF or LF would have meant not getting the shot.

Marcus S · Feb 1, 2011

I watched James Nachtwey and his darkroom technician make huge prints for a photo exhibition, from Tri-x, 35mm negatives on YouTube.

Myself, I have made prints from Reala and Ektar up to 20x30.

treaklee · Feb 2, 2011

35mm is a strictly amateur format. The only legitimate professional use of 35mm was for newspapers and sports, and they've already gone digital.

35mm film, processing and equipment are available everywhere, and for images not reproduced bigger than 8x10" on paper it's a fantastic format.

KenRockwell.com

Bob Carnie · Feb 2, 2011

Tell that to Eugene Smith, HCB and Salgado, hell Magnum shooters need to know this breaking news.

treaklee said:
35mm is a strictly amateur format. The only legitimate professional use of 35mm was for newspapers and sports, and they've already gone digital.

35mm film, processing and equipment are available everywhere, and for images not reproduced bigger than 8x10" on paper it's a fantastic format.

KenRockwell.com

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 2, 2011

Enlarger quality is important to fully realizing the potential of 35mm. If you go bigger than 16x20, you probably want an APO lens or grain will start to look strange.
Technique is everything. Enlarger alignment is very important. Holding the film flat is exceedingly important (and more difficult than you might think without a glass carrier)...

35mm amateur format? Only really skilled photographers/craftsmen/printers know how to make BIG prints from 35mm that look good.

My preferred print size from 35mm, from my current enlarger, is 9x12". Bigger than that and the fact that my Omega drifts out of focus during the exposure starts to make itself reminded. After I get the Leitz Focomat up and running, I'll start making 14x18".

- Thomas

stradibarrius · Feb 2, 2011

How can anyone say that 35mm is an amateur format???? What about Ralph Gibson...the great NG photographers, Annie Liebovitz, Galen Rowell, Bryan Peterson???? They may have converted to Digital now but what about the years of professional results they produced from 35mm??? Ralph Gibson still shoots his Leica.

Does that mean that no professional has ever shot with 35mm gear??? there were no professional results with 35mm until digital? If professional results could be achieved in the past with 35mm then it can still be achieved today.

My question was answered a long time ago and for me 35mm fits fine with my MF cameras. I doubt I will ever need to print larger than 11x14 anyway.

treaklee · Feb 2, 2011

Go here, http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/format.htm
Scroll down till you get to 35mm

I am going to build a darkroom, also start building up my equipment , I have bought a second hand Enlarger ( Jobo c7700 pro) needs a lens though, I am sure this should be OK?, I have never done any sort of developing before, I am going to use 35mm , searching through the Internet gathering info is when I'm came across Ken Rockwell web site, I am a total novice with regards film developing, but new Mr Rockwell was wrong with what he said on his website 35mm for amateurs, I have been trying to work out what was behind this.

richard ide · Feb 2, 2011

The author of that article obviously wrote it while he was on an unsupervised excursion from the institution. ;<)

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 2, 2011

treaklee said:
Go here, http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/format.htm
Scroll down till you get to 35mm

I really don't care what Ken Rockwell says. I know what my own eyes have seen, and that empirical evidence of knowing that big prints from 35mm is entirely possible and doable beats the opinion of a man I have never met.

Confining oneself to the opinions of others is a poor way of finding out what's possible. Try using some critical thinking and some imagination and see how far that gets you.

Bob Carnie · Feb 2, 2011

treaklee
Are you just showing this thread to us for a laugh? or are you buying into the Ken Rockwell juice.
On this matter he dosen't know his ass from a hole in the ground .

treaklee said:
Go here, http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/format.htm
Scroll down till you get to 35mm

typica print size from 35mm neg

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency