Originally posted by dj_saunter Generally speaking, what is the largest you would normally consider printing from a 35mm negative?
A) straight from the negative in a darkroom
B) from a digitally scanned negative?
Just out of curiosity, what would the results be for 120 film? (I do not need a 645, I do not need a 645, I do not need...
)
In my opinion, there are no fixed rules in this regard. It depends on the photographer's intent and style and subjective opinions of what constitutes acceptable quality.
I view mechanistic calculations based on lens resolution, film resolution, and arbitrary ideas about what constitutes a sharp image to be of limited usefulness in the real world. The bottom line is simply whether a given image works or not.
If I'm doing classic stye landscapes on 35mm, I count on going to 24 inches across. If a shot isn't sharp enough for that size, I've screwed up badly. A substantial portion of my shots work well at 36 inches across. My 35 mm work is often mistaken for 6x9, which is my subjective opinion of what constitutes acceptable quality for that particular milieu.
My 6x7 shots will comfortably go to 30x40 inches, although I usually print 24x30.
In photojournalistic mode, the largest prints I've done were about 6 feet across, from 35mm Kodacolor 200. The shots were printed by a first-class lab. There is visible grain-very crisp grain- but that doesn't hurt the effectiveness of the images at all.They tell the story, and they've been on display in a museum since 1989.
The largest print I've ever been involved with was a copy I made of a very old image, about 2 and a half inches wide. It was printed about 8 feet high by 50 feet wide for a very major museum exhibit. The copy neg was 4x5 Technical Pan processed in highly diluted TMax developer. There was no visible grain from the copy neg.
The original image was technicaly crappy, but worked very well as a design element.
So, it all depends!
John