Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,878   Posts: 1,629,439   Online: 921
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11
    Jersey Vic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Columbia County NY
    Shooter
    Holga
    Posts
    3,922
    Images
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by melmoth
    Hallo,


    How big can a print be blown up to without losing too much in the grain?

    Assuming that the camera lens and enlarger lens are of good quality, one has a fast/slow film and that effect wanted is defined by clarity and not grain the size of golf balls.....

    Again, very curious and most grateful for any input.

    M.
    I was taking a printing class and the instructor showed us some 20x24's he printed for a famous war photographer using TriX and they were sharp and stunning. At that size you miss the photo if you stand close enough to look at the grain. I've printed some already 'misty' images I shot on 35mm TriX at 20x24 (the opening shot on my website) and it worked great, although tmax 100 at 16x20 might better suit a grainophobes tastes.

    .

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    527
    Images
    11
    I've printed from 35mm for over 50 years. The problem isn't the grain, it's the slight degradation of image edges when they're blown up too big. I think that 13X[I][U] is the maximum enlargment which will still look good up close. That's presuming a high-acutance film/developer (Kodak TechPan/Technidol) and excellent prime optics (Leica, Zeiss, or Pentax), and a precision enlarger such as the Leica V35 with glass negative carrier.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    336
    I blow up to 36x48 inches but I have highly calibrated process cameras. This would be from 35mm Kodak ASA400, pentax point and shoot camera.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Depends on a lot of things...most important is what is acceptable to you.

    I typically will not go larger then 16X20 from 4X5 negatives...more usually my prints are 11X14 from 4X5. I would not be happy with an 8X10 from 35 mm no matter what film was used. For me there is not only grain, there is acceptable sharpness, and tonality. So it really is a matter of personal satisfaction.

  5. #15
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,671
    Images
    18
    As Donald and others have pointed out ... what is acceptable to you and what your interests are. I notice that everyone responding to this post assumed B&W negatives, but consider color transparencies - like Fuji Velvia 50, probably the sharpest color transparency film available right now. Don't limit yourself to strictly B&W, there is a whole world of excellent color images being made right now.

    FWIW, I used to find 20x30 Cibachrome prints from Ektachrome transparencies to be quite stunning. I primarily shoot 4x5 now, and regulary print to 30x40, with many of my prints being 20x24. With Fuji Velvia, my 30x40 prints show no grain, and are sharp as a tack.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arlington, Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    467
    I mostly shoot medium format because I can better control grain. But there are times when a small camera with a fast lens is the best tool.

    I've printed Neopan 1600 (EI 1000) to 8x10, but it's quite grainy (5x7 is better). HP5 yields very nice 8x10's and even 11x14's (though grain is more apparent).

    My new carry-anywhere camera is a Bronica RF645. Still testing the limits for acceptable enlargements with fast films such as Delta 3200 (only had the camera a few weeks). But I've printed very nice 16x20's with HP5 shot with my Mamiya 645, so I'm hopeful.

    Robert

  7. #17
    Guillaume Zuili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles & Paris
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,642
    Images
    216
    I use Trix, print on a regular basis on 16x20, sometime 20x24.
    A printer does 32x48 (for 135) or 40x48 (120 and larger) for exhibitions and it's stunning.
    Grain can be beautifull, it's not the issue, nor the film fast or slow. The issue is the printer...

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    123
    Images
    36

    How Big a print??

    Quote Originally Posted by melmoth
    Hallo,


    How big can a print be blown up to without losing too much in the grain?

    Assuming that the camera lens and enlarger lens are of good quality, one has a fast/slow film and that effect wanted is defined by clarity and not grain the size of golf balls.....

    Again, very curious and most grateful for any input.

    M.

    I HAVE HAD GREAT PHOTOS FROM PLUSX b&w FILM , FROM FUJI 100 & 200 FILM. aLSO, kODACHROME. uP TO 20 X30 AND 16X20. USE TRIPOD!! rEMEMBBER THEM???
    cHUCK

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tijeras, NM
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,246
    This first B+W shot I had framed was a tub shot of my oldest. It was taken with a rollei point and shoot, tmax film. We liked it so much we had it enlarged to 16x20. To this day when I look at it there is little or no impression of grain and appears sharp. (this was before i got into photography, my expectations have grown!)
    The film was sent off to a kodak lab for development, so I would assume it was done in TMAX developer.
    art is about managing compromise

  10. #20
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17
    Along with all the great and very objective comments alreadyon record - I have a thught:

    paper is (relatively) cheap - go nuts! Then look for yourself, see how you like it.

    A little off topic... I wonder how much effect the enlarger lens has on this?

    Peter.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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