Typical enlargement sizes for early 35mm negatives

[Ian Grant]

The edges were made with a special guillotine trimmer to make the 'deckle edges'. These were still being used to make contact sized prints 2-1/4" x 3-1/4" around the 1950's.

I threw a packet of Ilford postcard sized paper away with these edges just before Christmas, the packaging was damaged.

Ian

 

[Pioneer]

Did you buy the Elmar new I have a Summar and an Elmar, the Summar will be lower contrast, have a look online at the work of James Ravilious, a British photographer who shot with one, a different look to modern lenses.

Some years ago I'd done some work for a photographer, who wanted a lens with a vintage look, so I said well which of the photos on the wall were shot with a vintage lens, the choice was a shot with a Yashicamat 124, rather than a pre-WWII Goerz Am Opt Dagor. Why, because I'd used differential focus with the Yashica so shallow depth of field.

Don't expect a huge difference with the Elmar, shadow and highlight detail will differ slightly compared to a Summicron or other modern lens.

IAn

The Elmar came from my Grandfather. He sent it to me when he heard that I had bought a Barnack camera. He told me this was the only lens I needed to go with it. I am not real sure where he picked it up or when. It isn't real high contrast either but the range of gray tones are like no other lens I own. There are times when I get the exposure right that I think that I could be happy using only this lens.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

The Elmar came from my Grandfather. He sent it to me when he heard that I had bought a Barnack camera. He told me this was the only lens I needed to go with it. I am not real sure where he picked it up or when. It isn't real high contrast either but the range of gray tones are like no other lens I own. There are times when I get the exposure right that I think that I could be happy using only this lens.

I bet it's a great lens. I second the suggestion to research the photography of James Ravilious. He used a Leica M3 with old uncoated Leitz lenses.

 

[Mark J]

Here in the UK Taylor, Taylor, & Hobson had perfected lens coatings slightly earlier but it was deemed to be a military secret by the Government.

Very interesting, Ian - I didn't know that.

 

[Besk]

In the rural south, when I was growing up in the 1950's the typical enlargement size from 35mm film was around 3 1/2 x 5 1/2 inches for snap shots. You didn't expect more. Photos from 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 were usually contact prints from consumer type cameras.

A professional photographer would use a larger format camera and produce enlargements as desired by his/her client.

It has always seemed to me that the Leica was first designed to make smaller snap shot type prints from 35mm film.
Of course, reading the history of the invention of the original Leica indicates that was correct.

 

[Paul Howell]

If I wanted to see how large a 35mm negative can go, I would use an Argus C3 with coated triplet lens. Although mine is coated it is not much of an improvement over an uncoated, shoot Foma 400, use Kodak 50mm enlarger lens. In my way of thinking this is a base for a amature level print, then I would repeat with a prewar Leica with same film and enlarger lens. Tripod, cable release, same meter, bracket +- 2 for both. Developer, D76.

 

[Alan Johnson]

The Leica Manual A Manual For The Amateur And Professional Covering The Entire Field Of Leica Photography : Willard D. Morgan : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

archive.org

The Leica Manual of 1937 p172 refers to the production of 11x14 prints cropped from 11x 16.5 ins.

 

[Don_ih]

how large a 35mm negative can go

There are too many variables. How large an enlargement is possible from a 35mm negative depends on the film as much as the lens. It also depends on the viewing distance. I can make a 16x20 print from a 35mm negative because I'd want to look at it from a normal distance - to be able to see all of it as a photo - and not press my nose up against it to see if it's grainy (the habit of many). You can make a billboard from a 35mm negative, because no one sees it up close.

 

[Ian Grant]

If I wanted to see how large a 35mm negative can go, I would use an Argus C3 with coated triplet lens. Although mine is coated it is not much of an improvement over an uncoated, shoot Foma 400, use Kodak 50mm enlarger lens. In my way of thinking this is a base for a amature level print, then I would repeat with a prewar Leica with same film and enlarger lens. Tripod, cable release, same meter, bracket +- 2 for both. Developer, D76.

It's subjective. I was shooting with a pre-WWII uncoated 135mm Tessar then switched to a CZJ T coated 150mm Tessar, fromaround 1954, the difference was enormous. The T coated Tessar didn't flare in situations were the MC lens on my DSLR flared badly.

My experience with Kodal 203mm f7.7 Ektar lenses is the early Kodak coatings, which they termed Blooming, were not as good as the CZJ coatings. by the time Kodak Ltd switched from the early Epsilon shutter to the Prontor SVS their coatings had improved very significantly. It was the same with US made Kodak lenses, and I'd assume the Agos lens had similar early coatings.

Ian