typica print size from 35mm neg

Discussion in 'Enlarging' started by stradibarrius, Nov 22, 2010.

  1. stradibarrius

    stradibarrius Member

    Messages:
    1,382
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Location:
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    what is the typical print size I can expect to get from 35mm film?
     
  2. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,032
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    That's up to you.

    I used to do 20"x16" prints off 35mm but these days won't go higher than around 10"x8". It's down to what you consider you want in terms of print quality, particualrly grain size and tonality (smoothness of tones).

    Ian
     
  3. Les Sarile

    Les Sarile Member

    Messages:
    1,325
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I had 20" X 30" optical prints made from each film type I used to know visually how each would come out. Of course each would vary based on how good the exposure is as well as content/subject matter. Depending on film type, I can routinely make 20" X 30" prints that stand up to close-up scrutiny.
     
  4. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,032
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Standing up to close scrutiny is relative.

    I've blown a 35mm negative up to about 18ft wide for a client, he (or rather the company) complained about the grain and lack of sharpness (the grain was sharp), to which I said well I asked for a Large format original. I was told the photographer was the best around and very professional :D I queried teh 35mm neg and was told it very high quality :smile:

    So putting a print from a 35mm negative alongside an image shot on 5"x4" or 10"x8" at the same enlargement wouldn't need much scrutiny to see there's an enormous difference.

    Close scrutiny means nothing.

    Ian
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2010
  5. PVia

    PVia Member

    Messages:
    813
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    For me, usually 6x9 or a 7x7 crop looks really good on 8x10 paper. I routinely make 9x12 or slightly larger on 11x14 paper as well. Grain shows up at that size (400 TX) depending on the image and exposure but it is not intrusive.
     
  6. Colin Corneau

    Colin Corneau Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,871
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Location:
    Brandon, MB
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Don't underestimate the effect camera shake has on sharpness, and your ability to enlarge past 8x10.

    Shots that I swore looked fine in a contact sheet or smaller print really betrayed the difference once blown up past that size. And of course, your lens quality as well as film/developer choice will factor in, too.
     
  7. Les Sarile

    Les Sarile Member

    Messages:
    1,325
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Everything else being equal, larger film produces more detail - this is no secret. When I visited the Air and Space Museum, they had on display a room size print from the very high res and very large film used in the spy plane. It is awesome.

    My former company provides billboards in Las Vegas and those are very low res by comparison. However, those are clearly intended for considerable distance viewing.

    Two completely different applications using completely different film sizes, subject matter and yes . . . viewing distance.
     
  8. Sirius Glass

    Sirius Glass Subscriber

    Messages:
    20,590
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have made 24"x36" prints from 35mm negatives, but the composition has to be worth it, the subject has to be interesting, and the photograph has to be technically good enough.

    Steve
     
  9. keithwms

    keithwms Member

    Messages:
    6,074
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Location:
    Charlottesvi
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Of course, a well-executed 35mm image can go very far. There is no firm answer how far you could or should go with 35mm. Push your limits and see for yourself! It's usually moot, in my book; sometimes 35mm is the only way to get a particular image. And those of us who do LF or ULF typically do it not for detail at massive enlargement but because of the joys of contact printing.

    Should it interest you how grain enters the picture, l have short blog entry on this topic. It addresses the issue of grain (and therefore also tonality, I would say) as a function of format size, in very simple terms. Too simply really, but it gives some ballpark numbers.

    Many of us have fond memories of 35mm slides projected to mural sizes. I don't remember anybody ever complaining.
     
  10. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    19,972
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    local
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    i think it is all personal preference ..
    i have enlarged 35mm film way-bigger than 16x20
     
  11. Mark Fisher

    Mark Fisher Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,678
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I'm a bit backwards compared to the rest of the world. I love 35mm for the gritty, big grained look you can get out of it.......Tri-X and Rodinal then lith printed. I shoot larger formats I shoot Acros to get fine grain and wonderful mid-tones. Either one can look great printed big, although I don't go past about 12x18 on 16x20 paper simply because my my trays aren't any bigger!
     
  12. hpulley

    hpulley Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Location:
    Guelph, Onta
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I love Delta 100 35mm printed on 11x14" and if I had a bigger easel and trays I bet 16x20" would look good too, maybe more. It is very sharp and the grain is quite small so there is lots of detail and good tonality as well.

    It's about viewing distance too, Delta 3200 on 8x10 has obvious grain when held up to your face but on a wall or a desk the grain melts into the background. At the same time I find grain pleasing in the right shots so sometimes a nice big gritty enlargement is just what you need.
     
  13. PVia

    PVia Member

    Messages:
    813
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I should have mentioned in my previous post that I love grain...
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. Ken Nadvornick

    Ken Nadvornick Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,045
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Location:
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I consider 5x7.5 inches to be my maximum. These are miniature negatives, after all. My normal is 2x to 4x magnifications, with only 35mm exceeding that. By that standard nothing smaller than 4x5 negatives may be used for 16x20 inch prints. But then, I love the look of 8x10 contact prints.

    Ken
     
  16. 2F/2F

    2F/2F Member

    Messages:
    8,004
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    You need to name your evaluation criteria for a print in order to get a meaningful answer. Any piece of film can be blown up as large as is physically possible with ones darkroom equipment.

    My standard sizes for prints from 35mm (in inches) are 6x9 and 8x12. I also do 10x15, 12x18, and 4x6 sometimes. (2x3 is fun too, but a P.I.T.A. I really like the cute 2x3 speed easels. :D) However, my standard print sizes have nothing to do with "image quality." They have to do with the size of prints that I want for the picture at hand. If "image quality" is really an important part of what I am after with a picture, I don't even consider using 35mm.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 23, 2010
  17. Jerevan

    Jerevan Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,031
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Location:
    Sweden/Germany
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I've always heard that you can't enlarge a 35mm negative more than 5x7" and you need at least a 8x10" camera to do anything decent. So I've felt a bit adventurous going over 5x7" in size whenever I printed my own things. Until I saw a friends' 30x40 cm prints (that's 12x16") and saw that the images didn't fall apart or make a good image a less good. It made it different. So basically, I think that the process and the subject has to somehow "fit" the size. And it is up to you to find the process that fits a subject in a certain size.
     
  18. perkeleellinen

    perkeleellinen Member

    Messages:
    2,258
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Location:
    Warwickshire
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Seems to me to be entirely subjective. The bigger the print, the further away you must stand.

    The big issue here is really the tendency to judge under circumstances that are often ridiculous. High magnification loupes, 100% enlargements on computer screens, even microscopes as I read in a thread here recently. Imagine how ludicrous it would be for me to judge a Picasso using a 12x loupe. Perhaps I should record my wife playing piano and then use software to examine each note for clarity. Examined under a microscope, that Shakespeare sonnet shows signs of softness that indicate his quill was not of the best quality, in future he should use an arm rest to maximise stability.
     
  19. hpulley

    hpulley Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Location:
    Guelph, Onta
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I agree completely on both the viewing distance and the use of AutoTune :laugh: Plastic people with plastic voices, analog photography and analog music :smile: OK, I admit I like electronic music but not the AutoTune...
     
  20. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    7,470
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    My typical size for 35mm is around 4x6" on an 8x10 sheet. I actually stopped 35mm after getting into 8x10 because the 10x to 20x images were so inferior in side-by-side comparision to 8x10 negatives enlarged 1.4x to 2x. However, after 'discovering' small printing, I'm doing more 35mm.
     
  21. perkeleellinen

    perkeleellinen Member

    Messages:
    2,258
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Location:
    Warwickshire
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I often wonder if we could capture all the energy people use to focus upon technical aspects of photography: sharpness, grain, tonality. If we captured this energy and diverted into artistic aspects such as mood, feeling, perhaps even the central message of the picture. I wonder what type of photography would be the outcome.
     
  22. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,032
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    This is why it's important to master the craft, that then gives you the freedom to explore the artistic and creative aspects.

    Without craft there's no art.

    Ian
     
  23. stradibarrius

    stradibarrius Member

    Messages:
    1,382
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Location:
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I agree that it is very easy to OVER examine the image for technical perfection at the loss of the reason for taking the photograph.
    Ian your point is exactly why I am exploring this subject. As I grow my knowledge base about photography I will be able to create MY vision.
    I appreciate the type of responses that I typically get at APUG.
    I was afraid that asking this question was going to draw a lot of negative comments but it is obvious from the responses that everyone understood the the question.

    Part of growing for me is knowing when to use which camera. I have some professional grade 35mm gear as well as 645 and 6x7.

    Ralph Gibson says that he exclusively uses a Leica and Tri-X. At this particular moment I love his grainy high contrast results.
     
  24. Jim Jones

    Jim Jones Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,390
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    Rural NW MO
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    For more than 40 years the Kodak Coloramas were displayed in New York's Grand Central Terminal. They were usually shot with equipment from an 8x20 Deardorff down to 120 size. At least one was shot with a 35mm SLR. These transilluminated images measured 18x60 FEET, not inches. However, viewing distance was also great.
     
  25. darkroom_rookie

    darkroom_rookie Member

    Messages:
    366
    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    So far the largest print I made from 35mm was 20x30". The details: neg shot with a 20mm manual Nikkor on an overcast day at f5.6-8, Agfa APX100 developed in XTOL 1:1 with minimal agitation in a stainless steel tank, diffusion enlarger, Rodagon-G 105mm at f5.6, EMAKS grade 2 developed in Ilford PQ. Turned out gorgeous.
     
  26. nworth

    nworth Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,191
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Location:
    Los Alamos,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It depends on the negative, the subject, the display environment, and the use. I think that 35mm print generally look best as 5x7s. You can almost always get a good 8X10 (or 8X12) from a 35mm negative if you have a decent negative. Fairly often, but not very often, you can go larger. Use of a tripod is generally required for anything over 8X10 (and often for 8X10). Some subjects tolerate grain and some unsharpness better than others, so you can print those bigger. If the print is to be viewed from a sizable distance or if it is used simply to set the mood and is not viewed critically, you can also go larger.