What are the 'accepted' enlargement sizes for different formats?

[gzinsel]

I want Santa Claus back! if Santa Claus comes back, I can believe Again. . .. . in making prints 1meter x1.5meter: enlargements from 135 tri-x developed in butler High acutance dev. @ 75 degrees with constant agitation, shot below 1/15 second with "smudges" all over my lens. And it will look AWESOME. OMG can not wait. and people say 135 looks just as good as 8x10 negs. WOW another "omg" moment!

 

[RobC]

I want Santa Claus back! if Santa Claus comes back, I can believe Again. . .. . in making prints 1meter x1.5meter: enlargements from 135 tri-x developed in butler High acutance dev. @ 75 degrees with constant agitation, shot below 1/15 second with "smudges" all over my lens. And it will look AWESOME. OMG can not wait. and people say 135 looks just as good as 8x10 negs. WOW another "omg" moment!

now now behave. If you do it right it will work. If you don't it won't.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Well, okay then. I'll just buy a Minox and make 30x40 inch prints that are every bit as good as those made from the best 8x10 camera, best film, best lenses and pristine technique. I've been foolish thinking that bigger is better for very large prints. This transposes to digital (sorry) so a 100 pixel camera is every bit as good as a 100 megapixel camera. Why in the hell do people keep buying those pricey high pixel count cameras?!? They must be complete morons!! Darn, I've been so... so... so stoopid!!!!

 

[eddie]

You won't know until you go too far...
Having said that, it's not everyone's goal to pass the "nose to the glass" test. Sharpness isn't everything. It depends on your goals for the images you make. Setting limits on what is "proper" can also set limits on your creativity.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I like pixel-peeping... grain-peeping. So extremely high resolution and tiny grain is paramount to me.

 

[Bill Burk]

Well I did say something about Minox and 8x10 having the same amount of detail in a 16x20 print.

Turns out I was mistaken. According to William Mortensen, it's not the same amount of detail that they have, it's the same definition. An 8x10 provides more detail than a Minox. You'll have to read chapter 2 of William Mortensen's The Negative to see his definition of definition.

Speaking of old books about photography, I found a relevant passage...


An Introduction to the Science of Photography
Katherine Chamberlain, SC.D. Professor of Physics, Wayne University

In Chapter VIII Projection Printing... "Detail exists on a first-rate negative made with a fine lens that the observer will be unable to see unless the print is enlarged about six times."

-You might take six times as the minimum enlargement.

Then she says... "prints seem most realistic if the image formed on the retina of the eye of the observer is about the size that it would have been if he had been looking at the actual object."

-So you might take life size to the eye as the optimum enlargement.

She then went on to describe some prints in a sales room of Jules Richard in Paris in 1926, enlarged about twenty times, but mounted as a frieze close to the ceiling so the observer had to view them from ten or twelve feet.

-So you can make them larger but make it impossible for the viewer to get too close to the prints.

 

[eddie]

So extremely high resolution and tiny grain is paramount to me.

ONF- Sometimes it's important to me, too. Other times (depending on the project) it's not.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Well I did say something about Minox and 8x10 having the same amount of detail in a 16x20 print.

Turns out I was mistaken. According to William Mortensen, it's not the same amount of detail that they have, it's the same definition. An 8x10 provides more detail than a Minox. You'll have to read chapter 2 of William Mortensen's The Negative to see his definition of definition.

Speaking of old books about photography, I found a relevant passage...


An Introduction to the Science of Photography
Katherine Chamberlain, SC.D. Professor of Physics, Wayne University

In Chapter VIII Projection Printing... "Detail exists on a first-rate negative made with a fine lens that the observer will be unable to see unless the print is enlarged about six times."

-You might take six times as the minimum (maximum??) enlargement.

>>>>> Seems reasonable but I'd allow a bit more with today's best fine grain films and best modern lenses.

Then she says... "prints seem most realistic if the image formed on the retina of the eye of the observer is about the size that it would have been if he had been looking at the actual object."

-So you might take life size to the eye as the optimum enlargement.

She then went on to describe some prints in a sales room of Jules Richard in Paris in 1926, enlarged about twenty times, but mounted as a frieze close to the ceiling so the observer had to view them from ten or twelve feet.

-So you can make them larger but make it impossible for the viewer to get too close to the prints.

>>>>> But what's the fun in that?

...

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

ONF- Sometimes it's important to me, too. Other times (depending on the project) it's not.

Understood and accepted... but it's always important to me.

 

[removed account4]

... grain-peeping. So extremely high resolution and tiny grain is paramount to me.

none of that matters to me at all ...
and while i try my best to understand why it is so important to others who believe it is most important ... i still can't figure it out ...

it is like people insisting photographers use only ebony cameras and high end schneider glass, or hassies, or leicas and leitz lenses ... when
a 4x5 box camera or a diana or loomo will do the same thing, and who knows, maybe even better ...

 

[gzinsel]

in a sober moment, I would say that CONTENT is what people ( con·nois·seur ) are after. If the enlargement brings about a dialogue that enriches the image, then thats great, even at the expense of . . . "crispness" !

 

[ac12]

It depends on the viewing distance, film quality, and what is acceptable to you.
If you stick your nose up to the print, you will see stuff that you can't see at a "normal" viewing distance.
As was mentioned if you look at a billboard size print from several hundred feet away, you won't see the grain or pixilation that you would from 2 feet away.

As for specifics. I normally printed 35mm to a max of 8x10. Why, because I bought 8x10 paper as my standard size paper. I've made acceptable 11x14s from 35mm negs and slides. And the only reasons I did not go larger than 11x14 are: COST (of the large paper and required gear), and I did not have any way of processing paper larger than 11x14 (which was part of cost and physical processing space).
As for other negative sizes. I did say 8x10 was my standard size paper. So even 120/6x6 would get printed on 8x10 paper.

As you push for a larger image, you run into other problems that can limit how large you can enlarge a negative:
- How high can you get the enlarger head above the baseboard? You are limited by the column height, or the floor to ceiling height, or using side projection, the distance along the longest wall in your darkroom.
- Will the enlarger post/column clear the image at the enlarged size? Beyond this you may have to reverse mount the enlarger, or mount the column onto a different structure, or do side projection.
- Can you physically process a paper of X by Y size?
- Can you afford the cost of paper and processing gear to print X by Y size?

In high school, a few of the guys printed "life size" enlargements of cheerleaders from 35mm negatives. So life-size is an image about 5ft to 5ft-6in tall. Film was probably Panatomic-X, but could also have been Tri-X. It looked good across the room, but again if you stuck your nose up to the print, you could see grain.
But what they had to do was nuts. They had to stack tables to get the enlarger high enough off the floor to make an image that large. The enlarger head was close to the ceiling. And processing was laying a large sheet of plastic on the floor, and a bunch of guys using sponges to put the chemicals on the paper. IOW it was a logistical nightmare. But then they were high school kids, and to do crazy stuff was their idea of fun.

 

[Arklatexian]

What are the "accepted" enlargment sizws for different formats?

I knew this was going to be somewhat of a can of worms, but I'm basically getting what I was looking for from those that understand the question. I know the amount of variables for this questions is almost infinite, but I figured those with experience will give me the guesstimates i'm hoping for.

Seems like for 35mm, 16x20 is going to be the upper limit, for average living room viewing, and possibly pushing the limits.

If you are showing your work in a museum or extremely large living room, I would limit the size to 16 x 20, no matter what the negative size is. In our living room, I found that an 11 x 14 print matted in a 16 x 20 frame is the "right" size. If your room is small, 8 x 10 prints matted in 11 x 14 frames are nice. In other words where the prints are going to be exhibited should determine print size, not the negative size. Most nice 35mm negs will make really good 11 x 14 and as has been said, sometimes 16 x 20, maybe 20 x 24 but not many of us have room for such large prints.......Regards!

 

[darkosaric]

I know this is trolling, and we will learn nothing from this thread, but I can't help it - I enjoy in those endless APUG soap operas .

 

[nworth]

Maximum enlargement size will be roughly proportional to negative size, so we are basically talking simply about magnification. I can generally get a good 8X10 from 35mm film and can often get a quite decent 11X14. 8X10 is roughly an 8X magnification, and 11X14 roughly 11X. Let's say 10X is reasonably possible. In that case, a 2-1/4 negative will make a 20X24 print quite nicely, and a 4X5 a 40X50 print. But these are just rules of thumb. In fact the maximum enlargement also depends on the quality of the negative, the subject matter, the viewing distance, and other viewing conditions - as well as the quality of the enlarging equipment and the abilities of the technician. For the technically inclined, the eye can resolve about one minute of arc, and the camera lens and film combined have quite limited resolution (it varies with the equipment and materials, but generally runs somewhere around 75 lines per mm). But you can often get away with much lower resolution than this.

 

[gzinsel]

darko, I agree! can't wait to see the next post! Apug is just like t.v. but only better!~!!!!!!!!!

 

[DREW WILEY]

So according to absolute measurable scientific fact, which one of Baskin Robbins thirty-one flavors is actually the best?

 

[eddie]

So according to absolute measurable scientific fact, which one of Baskin Robbins thirty-one flavors is actually the best?

Rodinal, but before they changed it.

 

[markbarendt]

I knew this was going to be somewhat of a can of worms, but I'm basically getting what I was looking for from those that understand the question. I know the amount of variables for this questions is almost infinite, but I figured those with experience will give me the guesstimates i'm hoping for.

Seems like for 35mm, 16x20 is going to be the upper limit, for average living room viewing, and possibly pushing the limits.

There aren’t any.

Hey Kirk,

There are norms that many don't push beyond, as you kinda define, but Clive is right, there aren't any real limits.

Steve McCurry sells 40x60's that were shot on 35mm Kodachrome. I've seen them and would love to have one. Someday when I have lots of cash handy maybe.

Don't be afraid of big prints.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Practice, practice, practice. Learn all the rules and learn them well, so you can learn to break them.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Quite a difficult question since it also depends on the film. You can make a perfectly grainless and high-resolved 20x20" print from Astia or slow B/W films and now compare that to Delta 3200...

 

[Xmas]

In a way i'm surprised that I couldn't find any info on this out there.

What are the generally accepted maximum enlargement sizes for the different formats out there? I know that it is based on viewing distance, but I think there are sizes that are typically considered the maximum for a given format. Reason I'm asking is I shot some 35mm half frame stuff, and there are a couple I'd like to print, but I'm not sure what is a comfortable size to print them at. And seeing how I shoot 35mm half frame, 35mm, 4.5x6, 6x6, and 6x7, It would be nice to know what size enlargement will hold the quality.

I know there are variables that go into the equation, just hoping to get some ideas of where grain (middle of the road grain level film) starts to really detract from the image.

There arnt any limits other than tube on enlarger or inkjet printer size. You look at the whole print.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

In a way i'm surprised that I couldn't find any info on this out there.

What are the generally accepted maximum enlargement sizes for the different formats out there? I know that it is based on viewing distance, but I think there are sizes that are typically considered the maximum for a given format. Reason I'm asking is I shot some 35mm half frame stuff, and there are a couple I'd like to print, but I'm not sure what is a comfortable size to print them at. And seeing how I shoot 35mm half frame, 35mm, 4.5x6, 6x6, and 6x7, It would be nice to know what size enlargement will hold the quality.

I know there are variables that go into the equation, just hoping to get some ideas of where grain (middle of the road grain level film) starts to really detract from the image.

from a purely technichal point of view, an 8-10x enlargementis about the limituntillgrain and loss of sharpnessor tonality really start to show.

 

[RobC]

from a purely technichal point of view, an 8-10x enlargementis about the limituntillgrain and loss of sharpnessor tonality really start to show.

I put it a tad bigger at 12x8 for 135 film format using a standard enlarging lens such as a rodagon 50. And this just happens to print really nicely on 16x12 paper with a two inch white border all round.

 

[gzinsel]

Well awhile ago when tech pan was around, and you had a sharp lens, with the use of a tripod, I would say even 16x20. Even when I use aviphot 80, or the aviphot 200. I can get real nice enlargements to 11x14 with out much of a sweat!! so to speak.