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

[BMbikerider]

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.

 

[guangong]

Does anybody remember the huge Kodak ad in Grand Central Station in NYC?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Does anybody remember the huge Kodak ad in Grand Central Station in NYC?

I worked on several during my time at Kodak. Luckily, you couldn't see them up-close. The viewing distance is all important!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Does anybody remember the huge Kodak ad in Grand Central Station in NYC?

Yes and they were high up so one could not get close.

 

[cliveh]

I would suggest moving it on to digital with interpolation.

 

[mr rusty]

I would suggest moving it on to digital with interpolation.

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.

 

[bvy]

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.

I think he meant scanning the image and upsizing it with some interpolation algorithm (Genuine Fractals or some such).

 

[guangong]

Every printing manual for beginners discusses print size and relationship to viewing distance. For a sharp big, big print a large negative is required. However, I am always amazed by those specialty talented souls that can print sharp 11x14 photos from a Minox negative. I am amazed when I can squeeze a decent 4x5 print from a Minox negative.

 

[titrisol]

It depends on your enlarger glass and your ability
I have seen some 1.20X1,80 m prints which were excellent for the purpose

 

[mgb74]

I think a lot depends on how "strong" the subject is. I.E. a merely "nice" landscape may show it's flaws at a smaller size than a very compelling subject the truly engages the viewer. My personal limit, given my equipment and skill level, is 11x14. But I'll go to 16x20 for something I feel is powerful.

 

[Ai Print]

I bet printed to 16x20 portraits shot with either Techpan ( I have a bunch ) or even Tmax 100 would look stellar with this 105mm 1.4...

 

[Ryan Oliveira]

Is 16×12" a good maximum size print for 35mm (Ektar 100/Portra 160), enlarged in a darkroom (RA-4 paper) ?

I'd like to build a camera + lenses kit from 35mm, but I have considered MF an option.
But seeing that this size might be the largest I'd print, I don't think that MF could be worth the extra bulk (6×4.5 or 6×6 format).
What do you think ?

 

[wiltw]

Every printing manual for beginners discusses print size and relationship to viewing distance. For a sharp big, big print a large negative is required.

For a big sharp print, a FAR ENOUGH VIEWING DISTANCE is all that is needed.

• an 8' x 12' print needs a 10' viewing distance to EQUAL viewing an 8" x 12" print from 10"

I have always considered 17x enlargement, making 16" x 24" enlargement the max print size from 135 format Tri-X neg, at the edge of acceptability for perceivable grain size.

 

[cliveh]

Many movie films are 35mm.

 

[removed account4]

Many movie films are 35mm.

hi clive

I only watch movies on a 8x10 screen

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have had several 35mm negatives printed 24"x36" which is a 24 times enlargement.

 

[Chan Tran]

I don't think I want to print a 35mm larger than 11x14. I don't like the grain.

 

[wiltw]

I have had several 35mm negatives printed 24"x36" which is a 24 times enlargement.

Being picky...
24" x 25.4mm/in / 24mm = 25.4X

I don't think I want to print a 35mm larger than 11x14. I don't like the grain.

If you view from a proportionally larger viewing distance, the apparent grain size is not increased!

• 8" x 10" viewed from 10"
• 11" x 14" viewed from 14"
• 16" x 20" viewed from 20"
• 16ft x 20ft viewed from 20ft

...will all appear to be INDENTICAL in quality! You only notice the manified grain when you view all from 10"

 

[hoojammyflip]

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

I was about to suggest to BADGERBRAD that Adox CMS 20 35mm might well be the film capable of the biggest enlargement but then checked and discovered that he was last seen over 3 years ago.

pentaxuser

 

[Ryan Oliveira]

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.

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...

 

[warden]

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.

 

[Ryan Oliveira]

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.

I have never experienced something more modern in 35mm, instead I shoot with a Pentax Spotmatic, so I'm used to doing the metering by hand, composing, manual focusing, checking depth of field and shooting.
But it's getting a bit too slow for me.
I'd have to try more modern 35mm SLRs, but a built-in lightmeter and AF would really help, something hard to get with most MF cameras without the extra bulk.

I'd also like to project some slide film, and both options are available, but 35mm slide projectors are much easier to find. It should be a nice experience.

 

[Chan Tran]

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!

• 8" x 10" viewed from 10"
• 11" x 14" viewed from 14"
• 16" x 20" viewed from 20"
• 16ft x 20ft viewed from 20ft

...will all appear to be INDENTICAL in quality! You only notice the manified grain when you view all from 10"

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.

 

[wiltw]

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.

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.
The proverbial greasy nose prints on museum photo displays is indicative of that.