typica print size from 35mm neg

23mjm · Feb 2, 2011

8X10 is my "normal" print size and I make 8X10 all day from 135film, I have also made 11X14's and at viewing distance they look pretty good. But as with most things in life you really should test for yourself, your opinion is all that really counts.

wiltw · Feb 2, 2011

All the talk about grain, no discussion of the inherent detail captured in the negative from the lens. It must not be forgotten that what was termed an 'excellent' lens for the 135 format camera (according to Modern Photography and Popular Photography in their well respected lens test reports) of 30 years ago, delivered about 80 lines/mm of resolution on film. If you then blow that negative up by about 16x (about the size of 16x20" print) you are left with 5 lines/mm on print...which is generally acknowledged as what the brain expects to see in order to judge a photo as 'sharp'. Any larger than 16x20" print from 135 format, and it is necessary for the viewing distance to increase proportionately in order for the angular limit of human vision (IIRC 0.5 second of arc) to still perceive the 5 lines threshold for judgement as 'sharp'. This is what allows us to look at a billboard from a distance and see the photo as 'sharp' when we would be horrified at the poor resolution in the same photo from 3' away.

PVia · Feb 2, 2011

I saw about a dozen Salgado prints at Photo LA a few weeks ago. 16x20 or larger, as I recall, and easily some of the best prints in the entire show, regarding tonality, clarity...absolutely beautiful.

That being said, I believe that an image will tell you where it needs to be size-wise. Some are little jewels at 4x6, others need to be a bit larger and then there are some that can take the full monty.

I'm not looking for technical mumbojumbo, sharpness, grain, etc...it's the emotional impact that counts.

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 2, 2011

PVia said:
I saw about a dozen Salgado prints at Photo LA a few weeks ago. 16x20 or larger, as I recall, and easily some of the best prints in the entire show, regarding tonality, clarity...absolutely beautiful.

That being said, I believe that an image will tell you where it needs to be size-wise. Some are little jewels at 4x6, others need to be a bit larger and then there are some that can take the full monty.

I'm not looking for technical mumbojumbo, sharpness, grain, etc...it's the emotional impact that counts.

I absolutely agree. When I say that large prints, 16x20, 20x24, 30x40, murals are possible with 35mm, I am not just talking about grain and resolution. (Those things are the least of my considerations, but they do carry some importance).
Like you I focus on image content and its emotional impact, and how well the printing conveys it.
And like the Salgado prints you mention, I have seen many large 35mm prints that moved me. Sid Kaplan's prints of Henri Cartier-Bresson's portfolios come to mind, for example, but there are many more of course.

Dinesh · Feb 2, 2011

I have seen Guillaume Zuili's 35mm lith images blown up to massive propotions and they still looked as evocative as they did when printed at 11x14.

In fact, unless I am mistaken, the prints were taller than the printer himself!

treaklee · Feb 2, 2011

OK Thomas,
I just thought it may of been of interest, that being related to all things in the photographic world, that's all.
I don't want to be spoon fed, but it does help when you can put something forward, it being negative or positive to gain opinions from them who may know more than you do yourself.

Bob Carnie · Feb 2, 2011

The show at George Eastman House years ago were two sizes, 24x36 , and 22 x15, these were amazing prints, in fact it looked like two printers did the work as the larger prints were much better. Felt like all the time in printing was spent on the big boys, and the printers ran out of time and made flatter easier prints.

PVia said:
I saw about a dozen Salgado prints at Photo LA a few weeks ago. 16x20 or larger, as I recall, and easily some of the best prints in the entire show, regarding tonality, clarity...absolutely beautiful.

That being said, I believe that an image will tell you where it needs to be size-wise. Some are little jewels at 4x6, others need to be a bit larger and then there are some that can take the full monty.

I'm not looking for technical mumbojumbo, sharpness, grain, etc...it's the emotional impact that counts.

PVia · Feb 2, 2011

Next time you're out in LA, visit the Peter Fetterman Gallery in Santa Monica. Dozens of beautiful Salgado prints and a huge 50x60 (?) of a bedouin in the desert on the wall...

photoncatcher · Feb 2, 2011

In the past couple of years, I've really gotten into slightly smaller prints. specialy from my 35mm negs. I'm really loving the look of 5x7 prints on an 8x10 sheet, and I have one of my easels set up just for that. It's not that I won't go bigger, and most of my negs shot on Plus-x have that wonderful fine grain, but the smaller prints, seems to me to be more intimate. It has also been a selling point for certain clients, who have bought 2, or 3 prints to do a groupng on their wall, as opposed to one 8x10, or 11x14.

Bob Carnie · Feb 2, 2011

I wouln't get yourself worked up too much about what Mr Rockwell or I for that matter say about photography.
Get your Enlarger set up, make some prints and have fun, it really is all good and you should know that this site has tons of info and any question you may ask is not stupid, you can ask anything and someone will point you in the right direction, you will make every printing and processing mistake possible in your journey.. I still print after almost 40 years and really get pumped to make prints in an old fashioned darkroom

treaklee said:
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.

Dave in Kansas · Feb 2, 2011

I certainly do not agree with Mr. Rockwell's opinion of 35mm. I've made some 11x14 prints that in my opinion are rather nice. Generally speaking, 8x10 is about as large as I usually go with 35mm. I'm currently limited by 11x14 trays and paper so that is as large as I can print from any format right now.

Dave

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 2, 2011

It may be. If they do indeed know more than we do ourselves.

Consider, however, that our records in forums such as these, are permanently stored and searchable by us, our kids, students, and future generations. With correct information this can be an incredible resource, but with information that doesn't comply with reality, it rather becomes an impediment instead.

Forgive my perhaps too abrupt frankness before, but if somebody does research on the internet ten years from now, and finds this thread somehow, I want them to know that it is in fact possible to make very large prints from a small negative, and that if proper care is applied in the whole process, from exposure to print finishing, they can look quite stunning and be spellbinding too.

- Thomas

treaklee said:
OK Thomas,
I just thought it may of been of interest, that being related to all things in the photographic world, that's all.
I don't want to be spoon fed, but it does help when you can put something forward, it being negative or positive to gain opinions from them who may know more than you do yourself.

treaklee · Feb 2, 2011

OK Bob, Thanks!

I thought I was going to get Bashed, I was asking the wrong questions or maybe going about it the wrong way.

My questions are all genuine , I am starting from scratch with regards film developing.
I want to do black and white photos of size 8x10 and larger as when I get more experienced, so when someone says 8x10 is the limit for 35mm and you need a larger format for anything bigger , it sort of goofed my plans up a little because you start questioning who's right and who's wrong.

I know it sounds like I am trying to run before I can walk, but I just like to plan ahead, I always do that

Bob Carnie · Feb 2, 2011

Maybe one day we will see your work in MOMA and you can tell us all how to do things right.
Start printing, questions and answers will follow.
By all means continue with 35, many great artists before you did it that way.

As you get more experience and your tastes require different types of negs you will know.

I doubt Mr Rockwell has ever made a Fiber Print, I could be wrong but I do not think so .

treaklee said:
OK Bob, Thanks!

I thought I was going to get Bashed, I was asking the wrong questions or maybe going about it the wrong way.

My questions are all genuine , I am starting from scratch with regards film developing.
I want to do black and white photos of size 8x10 and larger as when I get more experienced, so when someone says 8x10 is the limit for 35mm and you need a larger format for anything bigger , it sort of goofed my plans up a little because you start questioning who's right and who's wrong.

I know it sounds like I am trying to run before I can walk, but I just like to plan ahead, I always do that

darkroom_rookie · Feb 2, 2011

Just a few thoughts...
If you don't have a clear idea of the aesthetic effect the grain can have on the viewer - be it even yourself and only yourself - try to enlarge b&w 35mm negatives processed by someone else, a random lab, or perhaps ones you know you screwed up. It might be an eye-opener. A 20x30" print, approximately 21x enlargement, can be absolutely fantastic and unique to behold just for the grain.

Hikari · Feb 2, 2011

There is no correlation between format and print size. Print whatever you like at any size you like. A 24" prints from 35mm is very possible.

treaklee · Feb 2, 2011

Thomas Bertilsson said:
It may be. If they do indeed know more than we do ourselves.

Consider, however, that our records in forums such as these, are permanently stored and searchable by us, our kids, students, and future generations. With correct information this can be an incredible resource, but with information that doesn't comply with reality, it rather becomes an impediment instead.

Forgive my perhaps too abrupt frankness before, but if somebody does research on the Internet ten years from now, and finds this thread somehow, I want them to know that it is in fact possible to make very large prints from a small negative, and that if proper care is applied in the whole process, from exposure to print finishing, they can look quite stunning and be spellbinding too.

- Thomas

OK Thomas

I do understand what your saying, thank you for your replies to my posts, it all helps me out, with the theory, when I get the Dark room setup I'll most probably need some help with the practical
It has all been interesting with the feedback what has stemmed from my first post

MattKing · Feb 2, 2011

treaklee said:
OK Thomas

I do understand what your saying, thank you for your replies to my posts, it all helps me out, with the theory, when I get the Dark room setup I'll most probably need some help with the practical
It has all been interesting with the feedback what has stemmed from my first post

By the way - welcome to APUG.

You may want to introduce yourself by starting a thread in the "Introduce yourself to the APUG Community" Forum, which can be found here:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

lxdude · Feb 2, 2011

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

Once you get through your phase of believing whatever KR says, you will look back at it and roll your eyes. KR is a self-styled "expert", who is an expert at nothing except garnering page views. Sometimes I agree with something he says, but it's coincidental, and I also am no expert. KR is not generally regarded with much respect; he is often self-contradictory, his comparisons of limited value when subjected to scrutiny, and his pictures haven't exactly inspired legions of new photographers. To me, he's kind of a clown who has figured out how to leech off the enthusiasm of people new to photography by styling himself a "guru". Someone like Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape, whose work I like, puts forth opinions others disagree with vehemently, and he has made statements on technical stuff that were flat-out wrong. So be careful of just accepting what any "expert' or "guru" says.
You will soon learn that in photography, there is no gospel truth, and quoting what someone says as if it were absolutely true just shows how much you need to learn. The people who are "experts" often disagree. The people who have become accomplished and respected often disagree, and some have even spoken disrespectfully of other accomplished and respected photographers.
Let experience, open-mindedness and careful thought be your guide in forming your opinions.

removed account4 · Feb 2, 2011

treaklee

the one thing about rules is there are there to be broken.
there is no rule to what size one can enlarge a negative.

warden · Feb 2, 2011

I just set up my first dark room, and I was pondering the same question about 35mm printing as that's my format. My conclusion was to buy an enlarger that could handle MF, just in case I was dissatisfied with the results from 35mm. But everything else (trays, easel, chem storage) was purchased with the plan of 8X10 max size. So far I'm really happy with the 8X10 size, especially with a slower film like PlusX for sharpness, or something speedy like Tri-X @1600 to show off the grain.

I am planning a MF purchase, but I'm not sure if I'll be going higher than 8X10 with it, at least in the short term. I only have so many walls, and the open spots are better filled with smallish prints.

The Ken Rockwell thing - any press is good press, I guess.

typica print size from 35mm neg

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency