Would you enlarge and sell an image to 16x20 from a 35mm neg?

[Ryan Montgomery]

Viewing distance is proportional to print size. Format does not matter once it's past a certain threshold resolution. 35mm is past that threshold.

Your signature would disagree!!

If the image is sharp there is no reason to limit the display size, I'll quite happily print up to 20x30 from a good 35mm neg. On the other hand, I'm very against printing OOF images, I often hear people saying, "It's not quite in focus, but I'd print it up to 8x10...". Artistic focus (holga etc) is a whole other ball game.

 

[clayne]

Well, to be honest I made the comment so someone wouldn't change the format in the discussion to 8 or 16mm or something . I think you know what I'm saying though - there's not a huge difference, resolution wise, between 8x10 and 20x24 once it's being viewed. People will move in or out. Intimacy of print changes with size though.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I saw a Galen Rowell print that had to be 2 feet by 3 feet. It was made from a 35mm negative. I have to admit, it did not appeal to me but, the man made a decent living shooting 35mm and enlarging to sizes that most would consider "not doable form 35mm".

I say try it and see...but if you are not comfortable with the result, do not show it to the potential customer. Only show work that you feel good about. Only show your best. I'd also try 11x14 as a possible compromise (it is also closer to full frame for 35mm).

I have several 35mm negatives that I have used to make 24"x35" prints and framed them for others.

 

[BradS]

my lack of interest in the Galen Rowell print had nothing to do with size and everything to do with content.

 

[ic-racer]

I recently made a 16x20 of this Drogo bodied 330 ( http://www.coachbuild.com/index.php?option=com_gallery2&Itemid=50&g2_itemId=9256 ) for the folks that are restoring it back to original. They wanted the print big to analyze the detail of the bodywork and trim. In fact it was this same picture...HELP...internet police...someone stole my picture! Seriously, though, that which you see on the screen is a low resolution scan (through the negative preserver!) and is, of course, intended to be downloaded to every computer that happens upon the site. That is why I posted it to one of the automobile forums a few years ago; so people can see the car. Whereas the print I sold to the folks was composed of silver and paper fibers and you hold it in your hands. It is a totally different thing.

The print was grainy, but had fantastic resolution. The taking lens was a 50mm Fujinon and the enlarging lens was a 45mm HM-Apo-Componon-S which I obtained just for the instance of making 16x20s from 35mm.

 

[dehk]

Next time consider using Adox CHS 25, of coz you didn't know you wanna blow it up that big before hand this time but those CHS25 are nice.

 

[darkosaric]

Intimacy of print changes with size though.

So true. Recently I was in Steve McCurry exhibition in Rome - many prints were huge. I recognized also some prints that he made from last role of kodachrome (portrait of Robert De Niro and other). Anyhow, there were more than 2 meters in size, and they were impressive - but I felt lack of intimacy: they were "screaming" at me with those screaming colors and huge size.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Intimacy of print changes with size though.

It depends on the composition. One is a reflection in a large pond. Another is a sunrise. With the first one is more intimate with the leaves and the ripples from the rain drops. The latter adds to the impact of the scene.

Would it work for a baby picture? Probably not.

 

[keithwms]

I'm curious. Would I be pushing the boundaries going to that size? I have it as an 8x10 and its OK, but as a 16x20, I'm not so sure.

Go forth and print, and look at it from a reasonable distance and decide for yourself.

If it were I, of course I would do it. As long as the magnification doesn't reveal some embarrassing flaw of technique!

My blog essay on print size may interest you. Or maybe not These days, I think we need to think a bit more critically about big prints and question the trend.

 

[warejn]

15 years ago this would not even have been a question. I have made lots of big prints from 35mm.

I say do it. Making large prints is a whole new experience. It's fantastic.

The film print is a whole different animal than the plastic, smooth, digital/ inkjet thing.

 

[vpwphoto]

That is NOTHING... I just had a request for a 5x8 FOOT print from a 35mm frame taken in 1990. This will be going the DPUG route though.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Go for it! Just do it.

I just sold two 16x20 prints, one made from Tri-X 400 and the other TMax 3200.

Don't let the whole 'but it's so grainy' thing stop you. Use your most critical eye when you print. Get that tonality just right. Use a really good enlarging lens in an aligned enlarger, and a glass negative carrier. Do a great job of spotting the print to perfection.

My experience is that hardly anybody, except photographers, care about grain.

- Thomas

 

[removed account4]

Go for it! Just do it.

I just sold two 16x20 prints, one made from Tri-X 400 and the other TMax 3200.

Don't let the whole 'but it's so grainy' thing stop you. Use your most critical eye when you print. Get that tonality just right. Use a really good enlarging lens in an aligned enlarger, and a glass negative carrier. Do a great job of spotting the print to perfection.

My experience is that hardly anybody, except photographers, care about grain.

- Thomas

exactly ...

 

[rakeshmravi]

Go for it! Just do it.

I just sold two 16x20 prints, one made from Tri-X 400 and the other TMax 3200.

Don't let the whole 'but it's so grainy' thing stop you. Use your most critical eye when you print. Get that tonality just right. Use a really good enlarging lens in an aligned enlarger, and a glass negative carrier. Do a great job of spotting the print to perfection.

My experience is that hardly anybody, except photographers, care about grain.

- Thomas

Couldn't have said it any better.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I too agree with Thomas B... in fact I would go so far as to say that I often prefer large prints from small negs, because of that crisp grain and sparkle that you can get with the right handling.

Interestingly, almost every time, I will prefer a well-suited Tmax 3200 neg at 20x16 than Fp4+....

My exhibition default sizes are 20x16 (17" image) and 24"x20 while I have often wanted the 20x16s to be bigger, I have rarely wanted them to be smaller unless there are technical issues, in which case I will print much smaller if need be. This is largely due to venue sizes and making viewing easier without print sniffing. For a domestic setting, its different. I recently sold an image from an exhibition and the print was a 20x24; however, I suggested to the buyer a 20x16 max for this particular image in a domestic setting. When he opened the package in his home, he felt it was larger than the 24" print he saw exhibited!

My next project will likely be 5x5" prints though!

 

[vpwphoto]

I view Ansel Adam's Fiat Lux traveling show a few years back. Even those 3x4 foor prints from 4x and 8x negatives looked less than "tight" if you are used to seeing his stuff 16x20 and in fine books.

 

[PhotoBob]

I just printed some 16x20s this weekend, but from medium format negatives and they look wonderful as far as grain is concerned. I don't know if I would feel comfortable with 35mm. If you could do a test at 16x20 magnification on a smaller sheet of paper first, this might give you an indication and save some money ... this size is quite expensive.
All the best