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

[plummerl]

Back in the early eighties, someone wanted one of my images from a hike in the Olympic National Park, taken on 35mm Plus-X. He wanted to install it into a new bank in a town south of the park. No problem, I even helped install it.

 

[wiltw]

Back in the early eighties, someone wanted one of my images from a hike in the Olympic National Park, taken on 35mm Plus-X. He wanted to install it into a new bank in a town south of the park. No problem, I even helped install it.

In my bachelor days, I always wanted to coat a wall of my apartment with liquid emulsion, then expose the wall to my enlarger, and process it on the wall. The issue was the fixer stink...

How did you get the enlargement made, so you could hang it like wallpaper?

 

[plummerl]

In my bachelor days, I always wanted to coat a wall of my apartment with liquid emulsion, then expose the wall to my enlarger, and process it on the wall. The issue was the fixer stink...

How did you get the enlargement made, so you could hang it like wallpaper?

I only supplied the negative! My ex-wife's uncle owned a commercial display business in Seattle. He had the job of doing the display work for the construction of the bank. He handled all the production, by a method which I've forgotten and I took part in the installation of the "wallpaper". I do remember being very impressed with the quality, especially coming from a 35mm! The largest print (silver) that I ever did was a mere 16x20. Reflecting on it, I believe that I possibly gave him a very good 8x10 silver print that he used.

 

[faberryman]

No rules. Entirely subjective. As big as you like and think it still looks good.

 

[afriman]

Reflecting on it, I believe that I possibly gave him a very good 8x10 silver print that he used.

I've often wondered whether working from an intermediate print is a better way to go about this. Can a scan from a print help obscure the grain while retaining sufficient sharpness for viewing at an appropriate distance?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If a picture has that special something, grain and other artifacts and "issues" won't matter regardless he size.

Responding to someone who mentioned big-screen theaters showing movies shot in 35mm, it's not the same. Movies are displaying 24 frames per second. So the grain is moving all the time and you don't really see it. The brain also adjusts focus and other defects that might be more apparent on a single frame.

 

[Chan Tran]

If a picture has that special something, grain and other artifacts and "issues" won't matter regardless he size.

Responding to someone who mentioned big-screen theaters showing movies shot in 35mm, it's not the same. Movies are displaying 24 frames per second. So the grain is moving all the time and you don't really see it. The brain also adjusts focus and other defects that might be more apparent on a single frame.

And you sit far away from the screen. If you say you should be proportionally away from the print as the print size goes up then there is no limit. But if you view all prints at normal viewing distance that is the closet distance your eyes is comfortably see then I would say around 11x14 is the max for 35mm film even the finest grain of them. Also the film doesn't contain any more details that a larger print can bring out. At that size all the details that the film can capture is visible at normal viewing distance which I think about 12 to 18".

 

[wiltw]

Also the film doesn't contain any more details that a larger print can bring out. At that size all the details that the film can capture is visible at normal viewing distance which I think about 12 to 18".

Indeed! Back at the peak of the film days, excellent lenses might resolve 80 line-pairs per millimeter of film; esceptional lenses (rare) could deliver 100-120 line-pairs per millimeter of film. Enlarge to 16 x 24" (16.9X), if you had one of those exceptional lenses (100 ll/mm), that presented 6 ll/mm of detail at that magnification. That has been classicly above the level of detail at which the human eye perceives 'sharp detail' in a print. With a 80 ll/mm presented detail, at 4.7 ll/mm that is just below the threshhold of 5 ll/mm, and with a more typical 64 ll/mm of presented detail, at 16.9X, the print has only 3.8 ll/mm and the eye does not perceive that as 'sharp print'

 

[faberryman]

A few years ago I did a project comprising 36 2”x3” prints in a 6x6 matrix. You would be quite surprised by the quality of 2x enlargements from 35mm film. It reminds you why you like to shoot large format.

 

[gone]

It might be helpful to look at the largest practical size print, vs the largest size you could possibly make. Years ago I had an art studio that was so small I had to stand in the hall to figure out where the painting's composition was going. You can't do it w/ your nose pressed to the canvas. The same principle applies to viewing very large photographs. You wouldn't want to make the print any larger than the viewing area can practically provide.

 

[Robert Maxey]

Hello All,

Can anyone tell me what is the biggest print I can reasonably take from a good 35mm photo ? I have a few I would like to frame from my Cosmic 35m .

Thanks all

Not familiar with the Cosmic. That said, there have been a few Coloramas produced measuring 18 foot by 60 foot. As I recall, Ernst Hass (SP) took a photograph on Kodachrome that made it to Grand Central Station. I once owned the first Kodak dealer display Colorama shot on 35mm and even reduced considerably, it was not a great image. You can tell it was done on 35mm film.

As I said, i do not know your camera but a set of slides I took on a trip with a Yashica Electro 35 GSN on Kodachrome remain the sharpest slides I have ever made. And that includes stuff from a Leicaflex. Anyone know why a cheap camera can sometimes embarrass the Germans?

Shoot Safe, Robert

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

As you enlarge, the look and feel of the image changes, the contrast doesn't look the same, so it can push you towards different exposure/development/aesthetic preferences.

I've seen excellent 20x24 and 16x20 from 35mm, but they required different controls than 5x7 or 8x10.

In other words, everything is possible, but you have to try it out, and judge critically the results to find out your way to a satisfying print.

 

[Ryan Oliveira]

As you enlarge, the look and feel of the image changes, the contrast doesn't look the same, so it can push you towards different exposure/development/aesthetic preferences.

I've seen excellent 20x24 and 16x20 from 35mm, but they required different controls than 5x7 or 8x10.

In other words, everything is possible, but you have to try it out, and judge critically the results to find out your way to a satisfying print.

What about 16×12" size ?
That's probably the maximum I'd print, so is 35mm good enough ?
It's a compromise I'm willing to make if I decide to only shoot 35mm and print in the darkroom, but if the prints look good at this size from slow speed films, I don't have many reasons to shoot medium format.

 

[MattKing]

What about 16×12" size ?
That's probably the maximum I'd print, so is 35mm good enough ?
It's a compromise I'm willing to make if I decide to only shoot 35mm and print in the darkroom, but if the prints look good at this size from slow speed films, I don't have many reasons to shoot medium format.

I've lots of 13.5" x 9" prints from 35mm T-Max 400 that would easily go to 15.5" x 11.5" if I printed on 16" x 12".
There are some subjects that deserve larger negatives - which I love printing from - but if I had to limit myself to 35mm, I could still do lots of what I do.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

What about 16×12" size? ... is 35mm good enough?

I enlarge quite a bit of 35mm to 11x14. Hanging on the wall and seen from a few feet away it wouldn't look very much different if it were taken with a MF cameras.

Technical Pan in Technidol looks like LF all the way up to 16x24. TMax100 should still be very fine grained at these sizes if developed carefully, especially if you have some Microdol-X to hand.

However, the creaminess you can get from LF isn't available from 35mm. A 4x5 negative enlarged 5x is a 20x24" print that you can get close to and see more detail. A 35mm negative enlarged 5x is a 5x7 print it will have the same level of detail as the 4x5 enlargement, but it is only 5x7" and you can't really hang it on the wall.

But in the end you have to decide what works for you. I'd stick with 35mm, you can get very good 11x14 prints from it. Don't over develop the film, err on the side of underdevelopment and over exposure if you want the best print quality. If you get the chance borrow or rent a MF camera (most camera stores will rent out their used cameras) and put a few rolls through it and see if that pleases you more.

 

[beemermark]

As others have said the viewing distance is what matters. Consider a page in life magazine, at less than 8x10 a pushed ASA 400 film looked presentable. I always considered and 11x16 print maximum from a best of class Leica lens (don't confuse sharpness with "best"). But I have 16x20 prints hanging on the wall that people rave about. Made with a 8 MB Nikon digital camera years ago. I've made this argument before and photographers that actually sell prints claim buyers get within nose distance of the print and want to see how sharp it is. If you study all the great photographers for the last 100 years or more sharpness just doesn't matter.
But I digress. To the OP's original question - 11x16. Just because in the wet darkroom you could see the degradation of the print beyond that size.

 

[Ryan Oliveira]

The main reason why I asked is because I've never printed in the darkroom, and don't know what to expect from 35mm.

So MF was a possibility, but seeing that I don't really KNOW if I'm going to print this big very often, I might stick with 35mm.

If my final print (best) is at 16×12" (best lenses, tripod, fine grain film), and most of them are 11×14" (normal handheld shots), I'm ok with 35mm.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

As I said, there's no absolute standard for enlarging. It's a workflow you have to polish. You won't achieve a super-smooth, super-slick and sharp look by enlarging 35mm into 12x16, that's for sure, even with slow films. If you want smooth, use a larger format.

But that doesn't mean you can't have excellent results, if you know what you're after. Big enlargements of 35mm will require you to accept grain as your friend, and you may have to do more dodging and burning to achieve satisfactory tones.

Or not. Again, it's your art, you decide.

What about 16×12" size ?
That's probably the maximum I'd print, so is 35mm good enough ?
It's a compromise I'm willing to make if I decide to only shoot 35mm and print in the darkroom, but if the prints look good at this size from slow speed films, I don't have many reasons to shoot medium format.

 

[Pieter12]

You can make a 14'x48' billboard from a 35mm original. Just don't stand close to it.

 

[darkosaric]

Biggest that I print is 40x60cm (16x24") from 35mm negative, and even when using iso 400 film - results are good to my eye.
Here is one example, old lens (Summitar), Kodak TX, Tmax developer, expired Ilford matte paper - so nothing special as Technical Pan or Adox CMS 20.

 

[cjbecker]

I’ve made some 8x10’s from tri-x that look decent but still too grainy for my liking. I’m now using tmax 400 and printing 5x7 and they look fantastic. Give almost the same feel as medium format hp5 printed to 5x7. 35mm is my snap shot camera, so no reason to print larger then 5x7. If I'm wanting to print larger, I will use a larger negative.

 

[Ryan Oliveira]

8×10" size seems quite limiting for me, well it's mostly ok, but seeing what can be done at larger sizes, it's unfortunate that I would need to shoot medium format for that.

I'd like to have ONE camera, and ONE system.

Tough decision, but it'd allow me to use the most out of the camera, lenses, acessories etc.

So, somewhere in between a snapshot camera and something that can be used in a studio, or for landscapes, almost anything.

I rulled out all 6×7 SLRs, as they're too heavy to carry around.

6×6 is OK, but the cameras are still big (SLRs, not TLRs), and seeing that I'll crop anyways to 6×4.5 when printing, there's no advantage in quality.

6×4.5 is where I'm at now.
Maybe a Mamiya 645 Pro or Pentax 645n.

 

[Dismayed]

It depends on whether or not you like visible grain.

 

[xtolsniffer]

I have printed from 35mm, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 in the darkroom and had similar printed in colour commercially. My own experience is that generally up to 10x8 you won't see any difference between MF and 35mm in most film types unless you have them side by side, then MF will win but it's subtle. At 12"x16" you can print monochrome to very high quality. Yes MF will appear to be more well-defined but the grain in monochrome can add to the image, I rarely find it detracts so the differences are more based on aesthetics rather than 'quality'. For colour print film such as Portra, 35mm CAN go to 12"x16" but you have to tolerate grain, it it can detract from an image, MF is much better at this size, but 10"x8" is still comparable between the formats. For E6, particularly Velvia, you can see a difference side by side between 35mm and MF at 12"x16" but if you see a big print from 35mm on its own then you would be hard-pressed to say whether it was 35mm or not. So it depends on many many factors. I have had a 35mm velvia transparency go to 5m long on a cafe wall and at a distance it looks great. At that size, I doubt if a 6x7 transparency would have been a significant improvement. They would have both turned to mush if you looked up close.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hello All,

Can anyone tell me what is the biggest print I can reasonably take from a good 35mm photo ? I have a few I would like to frame from my Cosmic 35m .

Thanks all

many have turned into billboards but, You can certainly start an 11x14 or 16x20" gallery.