• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Whats the maximum print size from 35mm?

Most enlarging lenses for 35 mm are optimized for 10X IIRC. Below that magnification nothing much will be lost. Above it the losses might be perceptible, especially if the viewer is looking for such things.
 
If it matters, here are some manufacturers' data for 35 mm full-format coverage lenses:

Rodenstock
40/4 Rodagon-WA: 4x-20x (10x optimum)
50/2.8 Apo-Rodagon-N: 2x-20x (10x optimum)
50/2.8 Rodagon-G: 15x-50x (25x optimum)
50/2.8 Rogonar-S: 2x-10x (4x optimum)

Nikon
EL-Nikkor 40/4: 5x-30x (10x optimum)
EL-Nikkor 50/2.8: 2x-20x (8x optimum)
EL-Nikkor 63/2.8: 2x-20x (8x optimum)

Schneider
50/2.8 Componar-S: 6x-10x optimum
40/2.8 Apo-Componon HM: (no data available, but 'not bad' at almost any magnification from life size upwards!)
45/4 Apo-Componon HM: (ditto)
50/2.8 Componon-S: 2x-20x

For very high magnification you could always use a camera lens, of course.

Apart from my opinion of the Apo-Componon HM, it's only manufacturers' information, and only part of the story, but I had it handy so here it is.

Best,
Helen
 
Helen B said:
If it matters, here are some manufacturers' data for 35 mm full-format coverage lenses:
Click to expand...

Good post!!

I would, however, caution everyone against considering the "OPTIMUM" magnification as an "only" requirement. Optimum means "best" and indicates the design "target". The image will degrade, either way, from that optimum magnification, but neither sharply or severely.... translation: Not enough to give a damn. That is why there is an adjustable column on the enlarger, and the lens is capable of focusing.

I would not hesitate to use any of those within the mechanical limits of the enlarger.
 
ebwitwicki said:
What is the largest print that can be enlarged from a 35mm negative? With 400 iso.
Click to expand...

Today I could admire (some of them 100/150cm) baryte prints from Elliott Erwitt
exhibition in Brussels (museum Botanique)
He used also 35mm Tri-x.
No problem to make huge prints of them.
Very impressive photography.

Fred
 
Yes, this is the pertinent aspect of extreme enlargement. I have eight enlarging lenses from Rodenstock (now Linox) and the 105mm is (40X optimum) which is how I can print 36 x 48 from 35mm clean and nice.
150- 20 x optimum
300- 10 x optimum

and the other end I have 485mm which is good for originals up to 24 in and a 760mm which is good for originals to 30 inches before the dof is noticable.

JL

 
The other two aspects that will enable extreme enlargement is extreme accuracy in focusing. Remeber that if you are using standard enlarging equipment,

1.place a piece of the media you will be printing on, under the focusing tool when focusing OR your focus will be off by 4 - 7mm.

2.You must be absolutely certain that the plane of the media is perfectly spaced and parallel. In other words, make sure all four corners of your media board are exactly the same distance away from the four corners of the camera front. (or lens board)
 
'Rodenstock (now Linox) and the 105mm is (40X optimum)'

Out of interest, which lens is that?

Thanks,
Helen
 
Helen, I'm not sure what you are asking. It is a rodenstock 150mm, Rodagon-G.
 
Hi

I have just printed my first 'large' print, 16" X 12", from a 35mm negative. I didnt realise that the grain would be as evident as it is, but what seems to be a sharp neg at 10X8 looks pretty soft. Is this my fault, i.e. the neg isnt as sharp as it could be or is 16X12 just too big for 35mm?

Ritchie
 
You should be able to a sharp and almost grainless 20x16 print from 35mm.
BUT you have to get everything perfect to achieve it.
Right film. Perfectly focussed neg. Right choice of developer. Perfectly aligned enlarger. Right enlarging lens for the job. i.e. technique must be spot on.
 
Maximum print size is pretty objective, only you can decide what's too much, and some subjects handle the grain, etc better than others. Some negatives will do better than others too, as Rob pointed out, enlarging a 35mm neg a long way requires technique to be perfect; that's a small piece of film being enlarged a _long_ way.

Peter
 
I've found 12X16 a bit big for 35mm sometimes, but if you have a sharp neg then you should be able to get an acceptable print. You might want check your enlarger focus and alignment are accurate

There are some real experts here though so they should be able to advise specific tests

regards

Marcus
 
which enlarger lens are you using?
 
Threads merged.
 
And also you must have a camera lens that is capable of really sharp negs if you require sharp 20x16 print when looked at close up. And that lens must be used at its sharpest aperture as must the enlarging lens.
So you have testing to do.
 
Both Larry Towell and Sebastio Salgado have done print shows where the negatives are enlarged to 24x36 and they look amazing.

Accept the grain and you have no problem with larger prints.. I really like the effect of 35mm enlarged to this size.
 

In my opinion, it's too big, but many people have become accustomed to the look of over-enlarged miniature format and don't see any problem with the indistinctness and lack of smooth tones. For my own taste, 5x7 is usually the upper limit--8x10 or 11x14 for really good negatives.
 
I think when someone is trying to tell a story the size of the negative / large print quality is secondary to the compactness and versitality of working with a hand held leica in less than perfect condition.

I do agree that better quality , tone smoothness ect. is a given with larger format cameras, no argument here.
but I would never discourage a photographer from telling a story with a 35mm in large print size.

I saw people weeping in sorrow/sadness , at George Eastman House viewing a Salgado exhibit and all these prints were 20x24 and larger from 35mm camera. In fact the 24x36 inch prints were of better quality than the 20x24 to my eyes.

I have seen many technically perfect prints from large format film that basically bore the tears out of me.
 
Hi all,

I didn't read all posts, so apologies if this has already been covered. There is another aspect to maximum print size. In my experience viewers don't bother about graininess of pictures if they are interested in the picture. In fact, they don't bother about print quality at all most of the time.
What's irritating them are differences in the degree of graininess so to say or differences in print quality in general in pictures shown side by side. So if you can avoid this, there usually is no problem in showing large prints with prominent grain. Whether this is to your own liking is another story.

Ulrich
 
<I didn't read all posts, so apologies if this has already been covered. There is another aspect to maximum print size. In my experience viewers don't bother about graininess of pictures if they are interested in the picture. In fact, they don't bother about print quality at all most of the time.>

Ulrich hit the nail on the head! In boring photographs, print quality becomes an issue and competes with the impact of the photo.

Gripping photographs speak to you, print quality is a non-issue.

Does anybody remember the photograph of the Vietnamese officer executing a man with his pistol and the photo was taken at the instant of discharge. Who can forget? But can anyone say they noticed the grain or shadow detail or highlight separation or any other print quality in that photo?

Mundane photos, in my opinion, have to sell themselves on print quality as content is usually secondary (yawn).

Powerful photographs sell themselves independent of print quality, quite often in spite of print quality.

Just my view,

Fred
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register