What is the biggest size print from a good 35mm photo ?

[Luis-F-S]

I just made 5- 6 ft wide silver Gelatin prints from XPan negatives for a new Gallery opening in Toronto... As long as the original intent is held and one is sharp at the printing stage it can work.

this would be a 27 x magnification in the above case.

Wow Bob, and I think 8x10 is pushing it!

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The practical answer is you can only make a print as large as the largest paper made, unless you don't mind a seam or seams, then you can make it as large as your warehouse darkroom can handle. If you get really big, then you are going to have to rent a light the size of the Bat Signal to expose the paper. In other words, there is no real answer to your question from anyone other than yourself. If you find the print acceptable, then it is! Don't listen to the naysayers. Most people don't know what the heck they are talking about or they are trying to put their limitations on you.

If you are really serious about making bigger prints there is more to it than just chucking the neg in the enlarger. There are threads here about all of that though, and you can just ask. Lots of people here to help you out.

Or you could just get Bob to make it for you. I've heard he is pretty good at that enlarging stuff.

 

[Bob Carnie]

The Salgado show at GEH of Migrations contained over 200 prints.. 1/2 of them were 24 x36 from 35mm the other half were 22 x16 from 35mm. This was a pivotal moment for me to attend this show as I was about to find out if I deserved to call myself a printer.
I had been at it for awhile but for about 4 years before this Salgado show I had decided to concentrate fine art gallery printing( I had been commercially printing for 15 years before that ) and now I wanted to get to a higher level much like the Salgado printer was obviously at.

A few things became extremely apparent to me:

1, being that Salgado had two printers one doing the larger prints and the other doing the smaller prints... Both printers were magnificent and I personally thought the larger prints were better.
Beautiful prints at 26 x magnification and I witnessed people standing in front of these prints and weeping, yes weeping , the show was very moving.
At that moment I realized the print sniffers could go to hell, they were lost in technical mumbo jumbo, tech sheet , graphical nonsense... the key was the ability to make images on the wall that people could view and appreciate and bring emotion to the viewer.

2, I also concluded that I was technically a good printer and there was room for me to continue printing for others... Since that date I have never tried to make the perfect print as I do not believe there is such a thing , but have tried to make prints that others appreciate when hung on the wall.

I did not flinch when my client came in with the Xpan image and said 6 ft.. I knew it could be done, the devil was in the details. I think most people here are fighting with the details , and should step back from this technical obsession and start making prints that create an emotion..

toy camera,8 x10 Sinar, pinhole, camera phone, hassalblad, leica, canon, nikon, fuji, dianna, wet plate, 20 x 24 camera... these are all the simple tools, what is important is the light on the subject and conveying that light.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The maximum size depends on the enlarger and what one will sacrifice in image quality.

 

[bimmey]

The Salgado show at GEH of Migrations contained over 200 prints.. 1/2 of them were 24 x36 from 35mm the other half were 22 x16 from 35mm. This was a pivotal moment for me to attend this show as I was about to find out if I deserved to call myself a printer.
I had been at it for awhile but for about 4 years before this Salgado show I had decided to concentrate fine art gallery printing( I had been commercially printing for 15 years before that ) and now I wanted to get to a higher level much like the Salgado printer was obviously at.

A few things became extremely apparent to me:

1, being that Salgado had two printers one doing the larger prints and the other doing the smaller prints... Both printers were magnificent and I personally thought the larger prints were better.
Beautiful prints at 26 x magnification and I witnessed people standing in front of these prints and weeping, yes weeping , the show was very moving.
At that moment I realized the print sniffers could go to hell, they were lost in technical mumbo jumbo, tech sheet , graphical nonsense... the key was the ability to make images on the wall that people could view and appreciate and bring emotion to the viewer.

2, I also concluded that I was technically a good printer and there was room for me to continue printing for others... Since that date I have never tried to make the perfect print as I do not believe there is such a thing , but have tried to make prints that others appreciate when hung on the wall.

I did not flinch when my client came in with the Xpan image and said 6 ft.. I knew it could be done, the devil was in the details. I think most people here are fighting with the details , and should step back from this technical obsession and start making prints that create an emotion..

toy camera,8 x10 Sinar, pinhole, camera phone, hassalblad, leica, canon, nikon, fuji, dianna, wet plate, 20 x 24 camera... these are all the simple tools, what is important is the light on the subject and conveying that light.

Back in the 1990's I also attended a Salgado exhibit in Philadelphia. It was the "Workers" series. Almost all the prints were 20"X24". It taught me I had a long way to go to make good prints, and as you said I stopped listening to the "print sniffers".

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

Wow plenty of replies ! I have a few walls in my workshop ( about the only part of the house that 1 is not covered in paintings of places we like and 2 is not censored by Mrs Badger) I would like to have a few prints made of my own photos probably no bigger than 14 inches at it largest side so there is hope, as someone had mentioned I had also read that 10x8 was the max I could expect.

Thanks very much everyone.

 

[RichardJack]

Depends on your film and how steady your exposure was. While 12x18" is the practical limit for a 24x36mm frame you can get away with 24x36" and if you view from a distance. People will claim they have made murals, some have but there is no hiding from the grain and I'm sure the subject matter didn't require sharpness. If size matters use large or medium format.

 

[Ian Grant]

I enlarged a 35mm negative of a F1 Power boat to life size i think somewhere between 12-15 ft wide, the client compained about the grain but I said complaint to your pro photographer you told him what he was shooting it was for.

Personally I don't print my own 35mm imageslarger than 10x8, my preference is ideally about 7x5, I just don't like grain unles I'm using it for an artistic effect for someone else.

Ian

 

[jim10219]

You could make a billboard out of a 35mm film negative because no one will be standing anywhere near it. There are a lot of factors to consider. If it's going to be something hand held or critically judged up close, then I wouldn't go above 5x7. Then again, if the grain is part of the aesthetic, you might not have an issue going larger. If it's going to be hanging on a wall, then you have to consider the size of the room it's going in. If it's going into a large room, or in a room above some furniture that prevents or discourages people from getting close, you can go a lot bigger than if it's going to hang in a narrow hallway.

Last year I entered into a regional photography contest and had a lot of prints from 35mm film negatives and slides in my submission. They all looked fine by themselves, but presented next to a sea of digital prints, they all looked noticeably grainy and soft. I won a few awards overall, but none for my 35mm film prints, even though those were some of my strongest submissions. But to the judges, the lack of sharpness and noticeable grain was a big problem they just couldn't look past, and I used fine grain films like TMAX 100, Ektar 100, and Velvia 50. To top it off, these judges were not young kids who couldn't appreciate an analog print. They were mostly retired photographers who clearly grew up with darkroom wet prints. And they weren't crazy huge, either. They were printed at 8x8, 8x10, and 8x12. But when you're looking through thousands of photos, you're looking for a fast way to weed the first few rounds out, and grain and softness will usually do it. I learned that day that that was too big of an enlargement for 35mm film if it's going to be hand held and scrutinized, such as in a juried photo contest. As a result, this year I'm only submitting prints from my digital and large format cameras (I don't shoot medium format very often).

 

[Ian Grant]

You could make a billboard out of a 35mm film negative because no one will be standing anywhere near it. There are a lot of factors to consider. If it's going to be something hand held or critically judged up close, then I wouldn't go above 5x7. Then again, if the grain is part of the aesthetic, you might not have an issue going larger. If it's going to be hanging on a wall, then you have to consider the size of the room it's going in. If it's going into a large room, or in a room above some furniture that prevents or discourages people from getting close, you can go a lot bigger than if it's going to hang in a narrow hallway.

Last year I entered into a regional photography contest and had a lot of prints from 35mm film negatives and slides in my submission. They all looked fine by themselves, but presented next to a sea of digital prints, they all looked noticeably grainy and soft. I won a few awards overall, but none for my 35mm film prints, even though those were some of my strongest submissions. But to the judges, the lack of sharpness and noticeable grain was a big problem they just couldn't look past, and I used fine grain films like TMAX 100, Ektar 100, and Velvia 50. To top it off, these judges were not young kids who couldn't appreciate an analog print. They were mostly retired photographers who clearly grew up with darkroom wet prints. And they weren't crazy huge, either. They were printed at 8x8, 8x10, and 8x12. But when you're looking through thousands of photos, you're looking for a fast way to weed the first few rounds out, and grain and softness will usually do it. I learned that day that that was too big of an enlargement for 35mm film if it's going to be hand held and scrutinized, such as in a juried photo contest. As a result, this year I'm only submitting prints from my digital and large format cameras (I don't shoot medium format very often).

In comparing film and darkroom prints to a purely digital work-flow the secret is often the printer driver or RIP software which is able to re-internet before finally printing greatly improving "apparent" print quality. I know from experience using a 2mp camera when doing my Photography MA (15/16 years ago) that I was amazed at the quality of A3 colour prints from my Canon printer.

I've used MF and LF for so long that I find 35mm quite retrograde in terms of rain, I still see it as a valid format but use it sparingly these days. That's a personal preference I've seen some excellent large 35mm prints.

Ian

 

[Grif]

Asa 12 Panatomic X in Microdol, nice 16x20s, minimal to no noticeable grain.

 

[Grif]

Although my usual prints are 8X10 to 11X14 I have printed 16X20 from 35mm, I believe that with Tmax 100 which resolves 200 l/mm

Wow, that's about the same we used to get from microfilm back in the day. (ok,,, an actual production run we'd get 120 plus/minus a bit.) 1970's

 

[jim10219]

In comparing film and darkroom prints to a purely digital work-flow the secret is often the printer driver or RIP software which is able to re-internet before finally printing greatly improving "apparent" print quality. I know from experience using a 2mp camera when doing my Photography MA (15/16 years ago) that I was amazed at the quality of A3 colour prints from my Canon printer.

I've used MF and LF for so long that I find 35mm quite retrograde in terms of rain, I still see it as a valid format but use it sparingly these days. That's a personal preference I've seen some excellent large 35mm prints.

Ian

In my experience, RIP software has more to do with color rendition than grain or apparent sharpness. I recently upgraded from a Kodak Matchprint RIP software running an Epson 9880 to a Firey XF running an Epson P9000 and neither do much for sharpness, apparent or otherwise. At least not to my eye. In my experience, the best software for increasing apparent sharpness is Photoshop, but there's only so much you can do there.

 

[blockend]

For smooth, rich tonality and the satisfaction of nose pressers, 15 x 10" is about the max for 35mm negatives, For high contrast, grainy prints of 1960s professional swingers and Japanese Provokers the sky's the limit. 15 x 10 image on larger paper is the size galleries print classic 35mm negs at. Behind glass and nicely matted it shows sufficient detail without peering and squinting.

 

[jmlynek]

I think most people here are fighting with the details , and should step back from this technical obsession and start making prints that create an emotion..

toy camera,8 x10 Sinar, pinhole, camera phone, hassalblad, leica, canon, nikon, fuji, dianna, wet plate, 20 x 24 camera... these are all the simple tools, what is important is the light on the subject and conveying that light.

Bob, Well said. It's light and and emotion. The rest is noise.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

One which still fits on enlarger easel and in the tray. Yes, in real life reasonable placing of enlarger, three trays and one for sink is the limiting factor. Not lens resolution, grain size theories. Except if you are in quickly diminishing public use darkroom and willing to work with chemical as buckets.

 

[Paul Howell]

Wow, that's about the same we used to get from microfilm back in the day. (ok,,, an actual production run we'd get 120 plus/minus a bit.) 1970's

Which is the reason Kodak gave when it discontinued PanX, Techpan, and Verichrompan, then Plus X. I have not made a 20/24 from a 35mm negative in years so don't know well Tmax 100 will enlarge, just the theory. But, if given the choice, for 20/24 I would shoot 6X9 or 4X5s, given the same scene with a normal lens, 6X9 or 4X5 will capture much more detail as there are many more lines to capture detail with a larger negative.

 

[BradS]

8x10 is about the biggest that I'll print from a from a 35mm negative. I've had larger (often 11x14) prints made from 35mm but, always have somebody more skilled than I do it.

 

[MattKing]

This came from a roll of long expired 35mm T-Max 100. It looks good as a full frame print on 11 x 14 paper.

I post it to help highlight the fact that the nature of the image is important to the answer to the OP's question.

 

[Cropline]

.....

Last year I entered into a regional photography contest and had a lot of prints from 35mm film negatives and slides in my submission. They all looked fine by themselves, but presented next to a sea of digital prints, they all looked noticeably grainy and soft. I won a few awards overall, but none for my 35mm film prints, even though those were some of my strongest submissions. But to the judges, the lack of sharpness and noticeable grain was a big problem they just couldn't look past, and I used fine grain films like TMAX 100, Ektar 100, and Velvia 50. To top it off, these judges were not young kids who couldn't appreciate an analog print. They were mostly retired photographers who clearly grew up with darkroom wet prints. And they weren't crazy huge, either. They were printed at 8x8, 8x10, and 8x12. But when you're looking through thousands of photos, you're looking for a fast way to weed the first few rounds out, and grain and softness will usually do it. I learned that day that that was too big of an enlargement for 35mm film if it's going to be hand held and scrutinized, such as in a juried photo contest. As a result, this year I'm only submitting prints from my digital and large format cameras (I don't shoot medium format very often).

Former film users can be quite critical if they've moved to strictly digital media. Your post leaves room to consider these people can't get beyond the technical aspects of an image. I prefer good contrast, resolution and minimal grain-even in 35mm-in my images. However, as Bob Carney pointed out-powerful subject matter can overrule these issues. People and circumstance will always be unique, so I don't necessarily see a pat answer for others that may be looking for one.

I've had made prints up to 16x20" with Portra 160 35mm @ box speed and the grain was marginal. I asked other local pros what they thought of a particular image-the second 16x20 I had printed up to that time. After they were told the portrait wasn't digital, I asked them to tell me what they thought about the grain. Most were surprised. One even put his nose right on the print and could not tell the grain. It was there, but again, so marginal as to practically go unnoticed. IIRC, this was in '05 and Kodak made another revision for hybrid printing afterwards which incorporated still finer grain. That version was the VC style.
I hope you understand that while I am quoting you, that is not to signal you out, but merely to share my experiences w/ Portra 160 in 35mm and it grain impression at that size to members.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The Salgado show at GEH of Migrations contained over 200 prints.. 1/2 of them were 24 x36 from 35mm the other half were 22 x16 from 35mm. This was a pivotal moment for me to attend this show as I was about to find out if I deserved to call myself a printer.
I had been at it for awhile but for about 4 years before this Salgado show I had decided to concentrate fine art gallery printing( I had been commercially printing for 15 years before that ) and now I wanted to get to a higher level much like the Salgado printer was obviously at.

A few things became extremely apparent to me:

1, being that Salgado had two printers one doing the larger prints and the other doing the smaller prints... Both printers were magnificent and I personally thought the larger prints were better.
Beautiful prints at 26 x magnification and I witnessed people standing in front of these prints and weeping, yes weeping , the show was very moving.
At that moment I realized the print sniffers could go to hell, they were lost in technical mumbo jumbo, tech sheet , graphical nonsense... the key was the ability to make images on the wall that people could view and appreciate and bring emotion to the viewer.

2, I also concluded that I was technically a good printer and there was room for me to continue printing for others... Since that date I have never tried to make the perfect print as I do not believe there is such a thing , but have tried to make prints that others appreciate when hung on the wall.

I did not flinch when my client came in with the Xpan image and said 6 ft.. I knew it could be done, the devil was in the details. I think most people here are fighting with the details , and should step back from this technical obsession and start making prints that create an emotion..

toy camera,8 x10 Sinar, pinhole, camera phone, hassalblad, leica, canon, nikon, fuji, dianna, wet plate, 20 x 24 camera... these are all the simple tools, what is important is the light on the subject and conveying that light.

I had a very similar experience to Bob quite a few years ago when I saw Nachtwey's images in a museum right around the same time War Photographer came out. They were basically the same images that were in the movie in which you can see his printer working. They were something like 36" and they were from Tri-X from what I recall. Amazing prints. I knew right then that people were full of crap. I also knew that even though people thought I was a really good printer, I wasn't really that good compared to whoever made those! Lots to learn in this life.

 

[mr rusty]

I took this image which was a portrait crop from a landscape 6MP scan of a 35mm Ektar negative (I send my colour C41 for develop and scan), mucked about with it a bit in software, and had it blown up to 700x500 and printed on to aluminium (by whitewall) for my bathroom. Looks terrific. Of course, it looks what it is if you put a magnifying glass to it - a huge blow-up of a tiny bit of negative, but it works.

 

[Cholentpot]

8x10 if people are sticking their snouts into it.

As large as you'd like if it's displayed on your roof for the interstate traffic to see.

 

[bvy]

I'm confused. Thought this was an analog discussion.

 

[warden]

I would like to have a few prints made of my own photos probably no bigger than 14 inches at it largest side so there is hope, as someone had mentioned I had also read that 10x8 was the max I could expect.

14 inches? No problem whatsoever. Do it and enjoy.