The largest print that I have seen which was acceptably sharp and with reasonable grain was a 20x16 black and white. It was taken with a leica M4 with a 50mm Summicron lens with the camera on a tripod. The film was Ilford Pan F.
I worked on several during my time at Kodak. Luckily, you couldn't see them up-close. The viewing distance is all important!Does anybody remember the huge Kodak ad in Grand Central Station in NYC?
Does anybody remember the huge Kodak ad in Grand Central Station in NYC?
I would suggest moving it on to digital with interpolation.
I think he meant scanning the image and upsizing it with some interpolation algorithm (Genuine Fractals or some such).Why? the subject of the thread is the largest print from a 35mm negative? No print methodology specified, but 35mm is definitely analogue. If threads are going to start bouncing around the second an analogue thread has a post that mentions anything remotely hybrid, then I suggest an awful lot of threads will start disappearing/moving. Think of it from a newbies point of view - they might be newly in to analogue and wondering "whats the largest print I can get from 35mm?". I think they should find the answer in the analogue part of the forum, even if some of the answers may not be truly 100% analogue.
Every printing manual for beginners discusses print size and relationship to viewing distance. For a sharp big, big print a large negative is required.
hi cliveMany movie films are 35mm.
Being picky...I have had several 35mm negatives printed 24"x36" which is a 24 times enlargement.
If you view from a proportionally larger viewing distance, the apparent grain size is not increased!I don't think I want to print a 35mm larger than 11x14. I don't like the grain.
I'd like to build a camera + lenses kit from 35mm, but I have considered MF an option.
Is this really a question about what kit to buy? I'd just buy a simple 35mm camera and shoot some film. Test and learn. Something with a 50mm 1.7/1.8 lens. The 50mm lens will give you all you need in the beginning. I've bought *so many* lenses, in pursuit of the ultimate lens, but really, a simple Pentax ME Super and 50 1.7 will get you there. I think (I've never tried it) that RA4 printing will be tricky in terms of colour balance, and a great place to start is in fact with black and white.
To be brutal, the size you print at is secondary to just learning to take a photo of something you would actually want to see printed. In the beginning I was obsessed with grainless TMY with XTOL, glass carriers etc. Now I am just banging through cheap film and looking at composition. Technically perfect photos of cats are going to look a bit boring.
If your concern is the size and the bulk of a medium format camera, just stick with 35 mm. You can do what you want to with a 35 mm camera system, no problem.Not really, I already have in mind what I want to have for a 35mm SLR kit (something like a Nikon F3 or F5, a couple lenses), but would be a bit disapointed to see that I won't be getting the "automation" of 35mm if I were to choose a MF kit, AND that my printing size would not justify the move to a bulky MF system.
Maybe an ocasional 16×12" (best shots), but if I was lugging around a heavy MF camera for that, maybe it's not worth it.
Spending a lot of money on 35mm gear is a bit risky, if I could get better results from MF, for a similar price.
MF and the darkroom go hand in hand with each other, a slow process.
But I'd like to dedicate to only ONE system (either 35mm OR MF) to do it all, and that's almost impossible to decide...
If your concern is the size and the bulk of a medium format camera, just stick with 35 mm. You can do what you want to with a 35 mm camera system, no problem.
No I view all of them from about 14". I do not view my print from longer distance. Otherwise Kodak did made some large Colorama at the grand central station in NY from 35mm.and they are fine at the far distance.Being picky...
24" x 25.4mm/in / 24mm = 25.4X
If you view from a proportionally larger viewing distance, the apparent grain size is not increased!
...will all appear to be INDENTICAL in quality! You only notice the manified grain when you view all from 10"
- 8" x 10" viewed from 10"
- 11" x 14" viewed from 14"
- 16" x 20" viewed from 20"
- 16ft x 20ft viewed from 20ft
I was merely pointing out that apparent quality is dependent upon viewing distance, and gave multiple examples of that. That a person chooses to NOT adhere to that viewing distance proportionality is the reason why folks complain about 'too grainy' enlargements and max sizes you can print from 135 format.No I view all of them from about 14". I do not view my print from longer distance. Otherwise Kodak did made some large Colorama at the grand central station in NY from 35mm.and they are fine at the far distance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?