Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,266   Posts: 1,534,325   Online: 782
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 59
  1. #21
    mikewhi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Redmond, WA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    808
    Images
    9
    Personally, I don't go above 5x7 for my 35mm negatives, no matter what the ASA of the film is. I tend to view at a close distance and I'm picky about grain, mostly because it ruins smooth creamy tones that I like so much - very subjective, I know. My personal gallery prints are all 5x7 (the negatives are 5x7 negs, but the prints for the most part are 35mm). Comments about viewing distance are true, too.
    I saw the one in Grand Central and it was great, but it was color which could always handle enlargements better than b&w silver negatives.

    Just my $.02

    -Mike

  2. #22
    Adrian Twiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wigan (oop North) United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    611
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by ebwitwicki
    What is the largest print that can be enlarged from a 35mm negative? With 400 iso.
    I usually print 8x12 inches as it matches the proportions of the negative and the grain gets intrusive at larger sizes to my eye. I tend to do a lot of landscape work with plenty of sky so unobtrusive grain is important to me.

    Adrian

  3. #23
    titrisol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rotterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,671
    Images
    8
    IMHO grain is a part of photography, it just exists.
    The content of the picutre comes first, then matching the tonality to the subject, then.... and finally grain
    Mama took my APX away.....

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Århus, Denmark
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,102
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by titrisol
    IMHO grain is a part of photography, it just exists.
    Grain is one of the things that put me into black & white. I saw a lot of great pictures in BW and wanted to make photo like those...and the grain was the thing that attracted me. Without the grain the picture would just be flat and boring...!

  5. #25
    Dorothy Blum Cooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Carolina via Louisiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    324
    Images
    2
    Grain is one of the things that put me into black & white.

    Me too! That's one of the reasons I still shoot film. However, using the term 'too grainy' or 'too much grain' in my previous post might have been an inaccurate statement on my part. What I should have said was the larger I've gone in printing (from a 35mm neg) the less apparent some of the detail is. We have clean glass, sharp, in focus prints...but the larger you go, the less detail you will see in some of your print work. Again...this is speaking from an 'opinion' of our work in the darkroom. If you want billboard sized prints...go for it!!! Like most things in photography, it's what you want in the end.

    Dorothy--

  6. #26
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    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.
    Gadget Gainer

  7. #27
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    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

  8. #28
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Helen B
    If it matters, here are some manufacturers' data for 35 mm full-format coverage lenses:
    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.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  9. #29
    fred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Belgium
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,471
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ebwitwicki
    What is the largest print that can be enlarged from a 35mm negative? With 400 iso.
    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

  10. #30

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    336
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Helen B
    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

Page 3 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