35mm enlarging - who is passionate about it?

[Gerald C Koch]

I have been pleasantly surprised in the increase in detail in ny 35mm negstives when using an ascorbate developer. These developers do produce significantly finer grain when used for negatives and prints.

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm very interested in finding out how many people simply don't try to make 35mm work for larger prints, simply because they don't know what the medium is capable of.

And I'm interested in encouraging people to use their 35mm cameras for more than low light, quick action, and toddler portraits. Let there be a light bulb moment!
Seriously though, it's been a hell of a good ride for me to have my 35mm boundaries completely re-defined, and I wish for others to have the same revelation.

[2F/2F]

The 35mm aesthetic and aspect ratio is very important for a whole lot of what I shoot. I love 35mm. I hope it is the last format standing, though I don't know if that will be the case.

I don't find it a technically demanding format, like you mentioned. If a neg ain't really focused, it ain't really focused in any format. If it has dust, it has dust in any format. All formats are equally a P.I.T.A. to me. At least 35mm takes up less space while being a P.I.T.A.

I agree that if you try hard, the technical quality can be very good. But usually if I want to try that hard to get a very technically sound pic, I don't shoot 35mm anyhow.

Most of my prints from any format of film are on 11x14 or 8x10 paper. Those are the sizes that work best for most of what I print, IMO. From 35mm, I usually do 8x12 or 6x9 prints. I occasionally go bigger if the pix will work better, but more often my big prints are color, not b/w. I don't let technical things get in the way if I want to make a big print. I will print from 35mm if I have a pic shot on 35mm that I think will look good big. Like I said, if I wanted to worry about taking my time obsessing and having pin sharp and grainless prints, I wouldn't shoot 35mm. I approach 35mm with a certain amount of abandon, because if I didn't, I would not like using the format nearly as much, nor would I be able to use it for it's best purposes. I do use a meter when I feel like it, and I do use different lenses and, multiple bodies, but that is as far as I take the technical tomfoolery. I almost never use a tripod or cable release, or a spot meter, Zone System, etc. if shooting 35. Once the tripod comes out, I feel that most of the advantage of 35mm goes down the toilet, and I might as well just use my RZ or C220.

Long live 35mm still film!

[waynecrider]

Timely thread as I am just getting back into printing and 35mm at that. I'm shooting a K1000 (the lenses are amazing) but would love to pickup a KX. My other shooting camera is an A1 with slide film. I've been following Focomat prices for quite awhile now but could never justify the expense; Maybe one day. I got rid of my 4x5 Omega quite awhile back and picked up a Chromega B Dichroic to use instead. About 2-3 years ago I went back to 35mm shooting having gotten tired of the bigger gear bags, especially when flying, and don't miss MF/LF at all. I traded the Hassy for a M3 but want some Leica glass to go with it now so I'm living cheap.

This weekend I went thru "all" my image files looking for frames to print. Geez I must be a couple thousand pics towards being worth my salt according to Ansel. What crap. Many were FP4+, HP5+ or TX in either Xtol or Diafine. Overall I think I got the best negs out of the few times I used Delta in Xtol. Right now I'm looking for a cheap paper to practice on and a better one for final prints.

If you want to get up a best 35mm print competition btw I'm in.

[Thomas Bertilsson]

2F / 2F - I think we're on the same page. But it seems you may have a bit more control of the 35mm medium.

I guess what I mean is that with 35mm everything is magnified quite a bit more. Vibration shows up more, both when the film is in the camera and when it's in the enlarger, alignment issues become more apparent, enlarging lens quality makes a big difference at 16x or above, dust particles are twice as much enlarged, etc
To me it's that scale that makes it more difficult and time-consuming. A 16x print to make a 16x20 from 35mm is, in my opinion, more difficult to make a great print from, than one from 120, which would be more like 9x or so, half the enlargement factor.

[Gerald C Koch]

I find that I get better results with a 35mm range finder such as the Voigtlander Bessa than with an SLR, less camera shake.

[Bob Carnie]

Totally agree with this,,, the Leica rf or Contax G2 were my favourite cameras for 35mm work..
I tend to like 35mm prints around 16 x20 size, allows for more manipulation and still is not too much magnification to show issues.

I find that I get better results with a 35mm range finder such as the Voigtlander Bessa than with an SLR, less camera shake.

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Man, I wish I could afford a Leica rangefinder sometimes. They are so nice, especially at slow shutter speeds...

However, I tried out a Leica M4-P a year ago; I had it for about five months with a 50mm Summicron, a 50mm Summitar, and a 90mm Summicron. While it was amazing, I am still a bit disappointed that I can't really see a difference in picture quality compared to my Pentax SLR and lenses. No difference at all, basically. I print negatives made with either, side by side, and I have to look up which comes from which camera to be able to tell.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't still want a Leica. They are such lovely works of art in themselves, handle with such precision, and are just pure joy to use. I also like the prospect of using the older uncoated lenses for portraiture, opening up the shadows a bit, gaining some film speed.
I salivate at the prospect of owning and using one of those little beauties.

[Mick Fagan]

Thomas, the V35 enlarger is very good, but if you ever have the opportunity to get a DeVere enlarger, either a 4x5 or an 8x10, go for it.

You will find virtually no difference between any format, providing you have an array of appropriate lenses.

With a properly aligned DeVere enlarger, the enlarging world is your oyster!

I love 35mm and 4x5, I have tried medium format and have worked with medium format using the best equipment money could buy. Within reason 35mm is a handheld format whilst 4x5 is a tripod format for me.

If you are after speed printing with a very high quality output, then the V35 is close to perfection, as I'm sure you are now realising.

The standard of print I achieve with both of my preferred formats is nearly identical, has been for years now. Like 2F I make the print size based on content, not format, I print postcard stock through to 12x16 on both formats, with virtually equal results.

Mick.

[puptent]

I'm enjoying this thread. There was an amazing technology explosion in 35mm in the '70's and 80's. Lenses, cameras (systems?), film, chemistry, and enlargers. I think those two decades were the golden age for 35mm, and maybe just because I graduated from HS in'73 and was there. Today we have a couple decades worth of "evaluation" to steer us in the direction that yields RESULTS. It's not that we are Re-inventing the wheel, we are Re-discovering the wheel. I think a simple, small, light camera like the Olympus OM-2, or the Pentax K family would sell very well today (just as it did 30 years ago.). I'm printing with a 23C II, and I'd like something a little more refined sometimes, but that will come (hello e-bay). Thanks for this discussion.