Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,332   Posts: 1,537,378   Online: 1057
      
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 59
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    468
    5x7 is the biggest... If you want bigger, shoot a bigger negative.

    Just kidding (sort of),

    joe

  2. #12
    Loose Gravel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    921
    Images
    14
    Colorama, the world's largest photograph, an 18 x 60' backlit photograph in Grand Central Station, sponsored by Kodak from 1950 to 1990, was at least once an image from a Leica 35mm. Viewing distance is considerable.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    Joe is hopelessly conservative. 5x7 indeed! I would not hesitate to go all the way up to a 6x9 inch print. (not kidding)

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    As some have said, it depends on the look. I have seen Salgado (spelling?) exhibitions and was stunned by how well many of his prints work at large sizes. I almost think that with 35mm going really big as Salgado does, works as there is no attempt to hide grain, there is no 'kinda grainy'. They are grainy, but the ones I saw were stunningly good prints and worked well because of teh viewing distance. Unlike a 10x8 neg used to print a detailed lanscape where people walk up close to see if the bird on the tree 3 miles away was male of female, there would be no desire to do this with these prints. I normally do not exceed 16x20 even with 5x4 for landscapes, but felt that these reportage images were fine at 30x20 in some cases! The subject dictates. When 35mm gets grainy it becomes more graphic (Lith prints are grainy and work because of their 'look') and this can be to your advantage.

    Tom

  5. #15

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    112
    Images
    3

    16x20

    I have some 16x20 prints from Tri-X that are very nice, and not too grainy, and can be viewed from close (1'). I developed in Microdol 1:3 and I love the look. I also have some TMAX100 in Diafine at the same size, also good.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    336
    On my equipment 400asa 35mm can be enlarged to 24x36 very sharp and 36 x 48 sharp.

  7. #17
    Dorothy Blum Cooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Carolina via Louisiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    324
    Images
    2
    I've been able to enlarge and exhibit my work at 16x20 with beautiful results. We have gone up as far as 20x24 (from a 35mm neg), but I felt it was just a bit too grainy at that size. Just me. I agree with what others have said though...you can enlarge to whatever you feel comfortable with and gives you the 'look' you are wishing to achieve (billboard size and all)

    Dorothy--

  8. #18
    geraldatwork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Hicksville, NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    414
    Images
    24
    As been mentioned before it is a matter of what is acceptable which is personal to the viewer or photographer. Also previously mentioned is the viewing distance. Grain which might be noticeable on an enlargement from 2" won't be at 10 feet.

    Movie theaters use a form of 35mm film I believe. Maybe 70mm. But the point is if you sit in the front row the movie is blurry but sit farther back seems sharp.
    "When elephants fight it is the grass that suffers"
    African proverb

    IRAQNAM is Bush's legacy

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    I think there is some confusion about the idea of sharpness. At 30x20, assuming proper darkroom technique, should produce sharp grain from 35mm, but this is not easy unless alignment of everything is spot on. Yes, sharp grain, But the image will be limited in resolution by the grain and will not actually be that sharp itself. I sometimes hear people talking about 'grainless' 20x24s from 35mm FP4/TMAX100..... This aint happening! It will only be so if your darkroom practice is such that you end up with a soft image and the grain is not focused sharp, or you use a diffuser under the enlarger lens. Some of Salgados images were from 400 film and were printed big. However, this was in a gallery where the viewing distance was far more than the average home, so there was no issue.

    Tom

  10. #20
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    It depends a lot on the picture. If it entices the viewer to sniff the grain, there may be something wrong with the artistic content. I have some 11X14's in which everything I wanted to show is quite visible at 20". I have a feeling that if someone needs to get closer than the viewing distance for proper perspective, I should have come closer in the shooting so that the proper viewing distance would still be about 20".

    Grain is not always the limiting factor. No matter what you think about acutance, actual resolving power enters in at some point. Enlargement requires an extra lens, so a large contact print may have higher resolution than an enlargement of the same size and perspective. Gradations are another source of difference. IOW, it is not size alone that makes the difference. I heard that somewhere else in another context, but I'm to old to remember what it was.
    Gadget Gainer

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin