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

[Kirks518]

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.

 

[MartinP]

There is no limit.

Edit:
There is no specific limit, at which the photo of a mountain suddenly turns into a picture of a chihuahau, and is therefore 'wrong'.

Changes in magnification lead to differences between prints, for reasons of technical difficulty as well as changes in viewing.

What you want to produce from a neg decides what decisions you make regarding printing, inter-negging, materials etc.etc. The thought that one result is wrong and the other is right, and that one must never approach the 'wrong' one, smacks of witch burning.

When does grain affect an image? If you make anything other than a contact-print then you will be introducing optical and mechanical, flaws and limitations. But what looks acceptable depends on you and the viewer -- why not make some print trials with your friends to give an idea of the viewer half of the process?

 

[RobC]

It's a good question and I would suggest that the answer is to enlarge them no more than the design optimum of your enlarging lens.
Most 50mm lens are optimised for 8-10 magnification factor. There are exceptions such as the rodagon G lenses. However, 1/2 frame 35mm is covered by some 35mm enlarging lenses such as a Rodagon 35mm which covers 24x24 and is claimed by rodenstock to be optimised for 20X enlargement. So you need to research your lenses to get the most from your neg.

 

[MattKing]

There are so many variables, it is just about impossible to answer your question.

Included in those variables is the skill and experience of the photographer.

I am very comfortable enlarging 35mm to 11x14, when the negative warrants it.

I have seen many 16x20 enlargements from 35mm that are quite successful.

I've even seen a very good 3x4 foot enlargement from a tiny disk negative - although that requiredthe resources of Kodak's support lab in Rochester.

 

[removed account4]

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.

good luck with this thread !
you will get a range of people that suggest there are no limits
the limits lie within your imagination .. and people might say ( for example )
that 8x10 is the limit of a 35mm enlargement and if you say otherwise you are wrong ...
so in the end it is personal taste...


what do i think ?
i think your imagination is the limit .. and anyone who says otherwise, well, they are missing out on a lot of things ...

 

[Xmas]

There is a strong dependency on the shot. If the shot dominates people won't look at the grain.

Now days kids won't be looking for grain - instead digital noise.

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Quality" is a very plastic term. You have to decide on your own definition, based on your own equipment and skills. I mainly shoot large 8x10 and 4x5 film, and people do put their noses right up to even my biggest prints; so I rarely like to enlarge these any more than 4X at the most. But I also have an alter-ego, where I like to go out and snapshoot grainy little 35mm high-speed films, and print for a totally different effect which is more off-the-cuff and poetic. Just do it and make your own rules.

 

[tkamiya]

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.

 

[brian steinberger]

Enlarge each format to say three different sizes and make your own conclusions. This is what I have done. One person may say 35mm looks beautiful at 16x20 and another will say not to go larger than 5x7. To each their own....

 

[bdial]

As others have said, there is no fixed limit, and not really even a "rule of thumb", or "accepted best practice".

Because, it depends entirely on the negative, your equipment and your taste. I have 4x5 negatives where there was some blurring due to camera movement or whatever, and they don't look good enlarged bigger than 8x10.
OTH, I have some nicely sharp 35mm negs that look good at 12x16, and could probably be bigger, but that's the limit of what I can handle easily in my dark room.

 

[Kirks518]

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.

 

[Bob Carnie]

from 35 mm Image sizes in traditional lab environment

4 x6 , 6 x9 , 8 x12, 12 x18 ,24 x36 and so on.

4 x5 negative

4 x5 , 8 x10 , 16 x20 , 20 x24 , 30 x40 and so on.

I personally do not like cropping the aspect ratio of the original film format...others may.

 

[cliveh]

There aren’t any.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There were some Kodak Colorama displays made from 35mm Kodachrome slides--and what better source to determine what is "accepted" than Kodak?--so the limit for enlarging 35mm is 18x60 feet, and not an inch more.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

This is just me but I would try to never go beyond the following limits given the very best of film quality (finest sharpest grain) and processing/printing techniques.

Rounded down to USA standard print formats...
135 -------- 8x10"
6x4.5cm -- 16x20"
6x7cm ---- 20x24"
4x5 inch -- 30x40"

 

[DREW WILEY]

Possibly the most influential photograph in history was routinely enlarged up to forty feet across from a poorly focused 35mm shot. That's the
Marlboro Man billboard, which has probably killed as many people as the average war, maybe more. It looks perfectly sharp from the "normal
viewing distance" of a third of a mile away. So much for formulas. I prefer things sharper myself.

 

[tkamiya]

Oh, by the way....

When I started enlarging 35mm to 16x20, misalignment of my enlarger became an issue. So an apparent sharpness or even-ness of sharpness across the whole print was also dependent upon the enlarger as well. I ended up buying a laser alignment tool to get it right.

Misalignment that may be acceptable for smaller prints may start to give you problems at this magnification. On mine, prints were obviously wrong looking at the arm's length.

 

[darkosaric]

Limit for 35mm is the size of your paper and position of enlarger. So in my setup limit is 40x60 cm - with some good film like Technical Pan or CMS 20 - there is no grain on this size (if this is important for you). I am planing soon to make 1x1,5 meters from 35mm and I know it will be great.

Couple of years ago I was on Steve McCurry exhibition in Rome and I have seen 2x3 meters prints from 35mm and they looked very nice indeed.

 

[DanielStone]

I've seen(in person) some absolutely gorgeous silver prints(actual direct enlargements) printed up to 30x40(ish) inches(print size, NOT final mat size). Look up James Nachtwey. The grain was sharp, but the detail held well. These were from Tri-X negatives, FYI.
Here's a video showing some darkroom printing of his negatives, also look up the documentary on him, "War Photographer"

[video=youtube;J0VPCHDqg7M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0VPCHDqg7M[/video]

 

[Sirius Glass]

The limits are based on grain size, the camera optics, the enlarger optics and the film developer.

 

[removed account4]

Limit for 35mm is the size of your paper and position of enlarger. So in my setup limit is 40x60 cm - with some good film like Technical Pan or CMS 20 - there is no grain on this size (if this is important for you). I am planing soon to make 1x1,5 meters from 35mm and I know it will be great.

Couple of years ago I was on Steve McCurry exhibition in Rome and I have seen 2x3 meters prints from 35mm and they looked very nice indeed.

There were some Kodak Colorama displays made from 35mm Kodachrome slides--and what better source to determine what is "accepted" than Kodak?--so the limit for enlarging 35mm is 18x60 feet, and not an inch more.

I've seen(in person) some absolutely gorgeous silver prints(actual direct enlargements) printed up to 30x40(ish) inches(print size, NOT final mat size). Look up James Nachtwey. The grain was sharp, but the detail held well. These were from Tri-X negatives, FYI.
Here's a video showing some darkroom printing of his negatives, also look up the documentary on him, "War Photographer"

obviously you 3, james nachtwey and steve mccurry have been talking to the wrong people
and mixing with the wrong crowds, ...some here on apug would
tell you and misters nachtwey and mccurry you are all wrong, kodak too ......

:munch:

 

[gzinsel]

from what I remember reading it s 5x enlargement based on "standard" Coc and depth of field scale. so 135 is 5x7, 6x4.5 is 8x10, 6x9 is just shy of 11x14, 4x5 is 20x24.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

from what I remember reading it s 5x enlargement based on "standard" Coc and depth of field scale. so 135 is 5x7, 6x4.5 is 8x10, 6x9 is just shy of 11x14, 4x5 is 20x24.

At one time I would have agreed with this but films and lenses have improved over the last many decades so I've moved up one or more sizes on every format.

Obviously, there are those who believe 135 and even Minox are every bit as good as 4x5, 8x10 or even ULF and won't accept proven scientific facts even when laid directly in front of them. I'm not one of those 'faithful believers'.

IMHO, every one of these faithful believers have miserably failed to prove that tiny films are able to keep up with progressively larger formats when making progressively larger prints. It's completely illogical but blind faith makes people believe in the impossible... such as Santa Clause sliding down billions of chimneys to deliver toys and gifts to everyone in the world and all in one night. But if you ask a three-year-old about Santa Clause he/she will excitedly jump up and down and squeal, "When's he coming... WHEN'S HE COMING?!?" And when you tell them not for six months they'll sit in a corner and sulk or vehemently insist that you're wrong or you need to make him come back quicker... or will beg the question, "Why can't he bring presents every single day?!?"

 

[darkosaric]

I've seen(in person) some absolutely gorgeous silver prints(actual direct enlargements) printed up to 30x40(ish) inches(print size, NOT final mat size). Look up James Nachtwey. The grain was sharp, but the detail held well. These were from Tri-X negatives, FYI.
Here's a video showing some darkroom printing of his negatives, also look up the documentary on him, "War Photographer"

Not so long ago I posted here the same video , but in discussion how to get 3D pop out effect. This boy is jumping from the picture!

 

[RobC]

for the OP. If your technique is excellent, you have excellent camera lenses and have excellent enlarging lenses optimised for big prints for your film format, then very big prints are a possibility. BUT very few people have all those things and therefore the advice I gave in my previous post is about right.
As soon enlargemnt factor goes above lens optimum it should be common sense that quality is going to fall off. However, how much above optimum magnification before you can see it depends again on your lens. APO enlarging lenses will tend to allow a little more.
But your question specifically said:

"It would be nice to know what size enlargement will hold the quality."

and that means, IMO, upto lens design optimum and no further which is something different from acceptable quality for purpose which is what everyone else seems to be talking about. Take your pick. My bet is that much above enlarging lens design optimum you will see the degredation pretty quick.