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

[Ronald Moravec]

Around 8x if that is within limits for enlarger lens.

Slow films can go bigger than fast.

 

[removed account4]

doesn't it all boil down to who is doing the accepting, and what the viewing distance is ?
putting limitations on one's own creativity doesn't seem to be a good idea.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I think most folks are expressing their 'personal' limits, not limits on what others should do. At least that's how I'm reading these posts.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Get a bigger camera. It's that simple. When you're standing there with something atop a huge wooden tripod with conspicuous spike feet,
the cell phone crowd doesn't dare snicker at you. Or if you're the polite type there are alternative things you can say. When some twenty
somethings on their first backpack outing asked what I was doing with that gear I told them it was a camera. Then when they asked why so
big, and if I was trying to shoot wildlife, and if there were any bears in those woods.... Well, then I told them there were no bears to worry
about, but that there were carnivorous deer and giant centipedes around, and that's why I needed those big spike tripod feet, just in case I
needed to defend myself. That kinda spoiled their first backpack. They probably didn't sleep well that nite.

 

[wiltw]

This question almost always turns into philosophical debate.

I mostly shoot 35mm. For this size, I find 8x10 is very nice. 11x14 is often very good. 16x20 starts to show limits but still possible. I have not gone larger.

I have found, as have many many other photographers, that 16x20 is about the limit of the 135 format due to not wanting grain to become an overly distracting characteristic, because we know so many viewers will view from too close a distance. A 16" print height requires a 17x magnification of the original image, so enlarging 6x7 image results in a 37" tall print or 4x5 image results in a 62" tall print -- at the same 17x magnification for same granularity in the print.

Then it simply is an issue of how much or how little granularity (or color dye clouds) the individual viewer finds tolerable.

Kodak used to make these massive enlargements for display purposes on Duratrans transparency material, apparently to no one's objection about quality! Today you can still find vendors making Duratrans images, the smallest is 10' tall roll, the biggest is 74' tall roll!

Today's digital photographer -- particularly the ones who never experienced film and 16x20 enlargements -- is unnecessarily overly sensitive to the perceived 'grain' in higher ISO digital images, making even a 16x20 overly noisy for their tastes

 

[pentaxuser]

When some twenty
somethings on their first backpack outing asked what I was doing with that gear I told them it was a camera. Then when they asked why so
big, and if I was trying to shoot wildlife, and if there were any bears in those woods.... Well, then I told them there were no bears to worry
about, but that there were carnivorous deer and giant centipedes around, and that's why I needed those big spike tripod feet, just in case I
needed to defend myself. That kinda spoiled their first backpack. They probably didn't sleep well that nite.

I can only hope that the complete staff at their respective former educational establishments didn't sleep well either as they have a lot to answer for.

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Lots of people have never even seen a sharp print. I suspect that also applies to at least 75% of people working in camera stores or even chiming in on the average camera forum. So consensus opinion is worth zero to me. I trust my eyes. For those of you who grew up equating
spray can vandalism to "street art", well, I can understand how fuzz might get misinterpreted as imagery. The nice thing about that is that the aerosol can solvents have already destroyed all your relevant brain cells, so no sense worrying about it.

 

[eddie]

Don't let others tell you what's "acceptable". If you do, you'll end up working to their standards, not your own.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Don't let others tell you what's "acceptable". If you do, you'll end up working to their standards, not your own.

That's a very wise statement. Frankly, I don't care what others think I should do. I'll do what I think I should do. My future doesn't include 135 format.

 

[ac12]

That's a very wise statement. Frankly, I don't care what others think I should do. I'll do what I think I should do. My future doesn't include 135 format.

Since digital has destroyed the resale price of medium format gear, I picked up a Hasselblad kit (500cm, 80mm CF, A12 back)...for less than I paid for my Nikon D70. That was sad. So now I get to shoot with the MF camera I never thought I would ever own. Next step 4x5.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Since digital has destroyed the resale price of medium format gear, I picked up a Hasselblad kit (500cm, 80mm CF, A12 back)...for less than I paid for my Nikon D70. That was sad. So now I get to shoot with the MF camera I never thought I would ever own. Next step 4x5.

The only positive thing about the digital revolution is that now we can buy cameras that we could not even afford to dream about. Enjoy, you make a wise decision.

 

[gzinsel]

special, special, special!!! thats what i think when an artist says I need to make this image "huge" or "large". its obviously very important to them( cool, I get it!), and therefor you (others)too,.. . . should take notice. However, . . .. . . I have seen some very small prints, contacts of 2&1/4 that were very charming, very intimate, and very satisfying to view. I am not sure that enlargements are ALWAYS the answer. Sure. . . . sometimes. . . but don't count out the overly "simplistic" ( note: the irony) contact ! Its doesn't have to be BIG to get your idea across. When I consider enlargement,, i am thinking about impact for the viewer ( both beneficial and antithetically) rarely does "grain" come into discussion in my mind. I mean .. . . Oh , I don't know, . . . .. . . . (you make it up)

 

[darkosaric]

special, "huge" or "large"

For me personally best size from 35mm is 24x36cm on 30x40cm paper, with 2-3 cm white border. Good to hold in hands, good to hang on the wall, just feels right.

 

[RobC]

Don't let others tell you what's "acceptable". If you do, you'll end up working to their standards, not your own.

This means we should ignore your advice :confused:

 

[eddie]

Yes, because my standards, techniques, materials, experiences, and goals are probably different from the OP's.

 

[removed account4]

the OP should make a variety of enlargements to whatever size he wants, to see for himself what enlargement sizes he finds acceptable for different formats.

i never understand threads like this, everyone has their own ideas of what works for them, development regimens, printing methods and preconceived notions from experience
and how my suggesting 16x20" enlargements from 35mm or 5x7 from half frame even matters, except to cause trouble with others who would rather have their own prints look a certain way
or shout me down claiming i am an idiot for enlarging anything " that big" because you can see the grain, or up close you can't see the whole image or whatever ..it is beyond me
a lot of people who respond to these threads just re-tweeet what they read somewhere else, and they don't have experience in making ( or don't like making ) large prints.
or they just like stirring the pot making claims and posturing.

Yes, because my standards, techniques, materials, experiences, and goals are probably different from the OP's.

exactly ...

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Hi John, I don't sense that anyone is stirring the pot, making inexperienced claims or posturing. A statement like that would read something like...

"I'm not a photographer but I stayed at a Motel 8 once. I read back in 1972 in a photo magazine (the only thing to read during a flight to Kalamazoo) that 135 should absolutely never be enlarged beyond sixteen thousand feet because the airplane turbulence is too... something about granularositicity... or something. Some of you morons may argue with me but to hell with everyone. I'm right and I damn-well know it. Anyone who thinks they know better are idiots and they'd better not come knocking on my door to argue about it (see below)."


THIS is offensive posturing.

[video=youtube;NelBNtNm8l0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NelBNtNm8l0[/video]


EDIT: ...and threads like this SUCK but my post is BRILLIANT!!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Yeah, this guy knows how to posture.

[video=youtube;V7Nci-GVuHE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Nci-GVuHE[/video]

 

[DREW WILEY]

Dirty Harry was Mayor of Carmel, walking the streets there, back when people could still see lots of wonderfully made prints prior to the inkjet mush / cellphone /"only the image counts" generation. Quite a few famous names were still alive and on gallery walls, along with a few relative youngsters like me, way back then. They had a law banning ice cream cone sales. You could only buy ice cream in a bowl at a real restaurant. So Dirty Harry pulled out his magnum revolver and ran for office against the cone ban. His political ad mocked the retail establishment with the banner, "Use a cone, go to jail". He obviously won, without ever firing a shot. Most prints I see these days are good
only for target practice.

 

[Doc W]

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.

If you are looking for sharpness in your prints, then there are indeed limits on the extent to which you can enlarge the negative. However, there are other factors involved, such as: the distance at which the final print will be viewed; the amount of grain in the negative; the developer used; and so on. I suggest that you take the 35mm half frame negatives and just do a series of test prints of increasing size. View them all at the same distance and decide at what point the print loses the quality you seek. That will then give you a rule of thumb for further prints from negatives that size. Don't do a large abstract test of all the different formats you use. Test when you are going to print from a given negative or set of negs since these other facts will also help determine the limits of print size. The more you test before establishing the final print size, the more you will learn about the limits imposed by your style, procedures and materials.

I shoot MF, 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. I also shoot mainly Ilford FP4 (developed in HC-110) and for colour I use Portra 160 NC (if it is still called that!). Prints from MF and 4x5 are pretty much the same, until they start to get really large. I have some really sharp 20x24 prints from 4x5 and I think that the prints from 6x7 are also pretty good at that size. Any larger, and I would not use 6x7. I mostly contact print the 8x10 and the 5x7.

 

[chris77]

Dirty Harry was Mayor of Carmel, walking the streets there, back when people could still see lots of wonderfully made prints prior to the inkjet mush / cellphone /"only the image counts" generation. Quite a few famous names were still alive and on gallery walls, along with a few relative youngsters like me, way back then. They had a law banning ice cream cone sales. You could only buy ice cream in a bowl at a real restaurant. So Dirty Harry pulled out his magnum revolver and ran for office against the cone ban. His political ad mocked the retail establishment with the banner, "Use a cone, go to jail". He obviously won, without ever firing a shot. Most prints I see these days are good
only for target practice.

thanks!

 

[gzinsel]

you guys are funny!