[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...)

[LesDMess]

Big a printer as you can get.

For myself, using fine film, good optics and technique with suitable subject matter scanned on my 4000dpi Coolscan, I would be disappointed it I can not casually get 20" X 30" with hardly any pre or post processing. Example below is from Fuji Velvia 50 original, taken handheld with a Pentax LX + 50mm F4 macro straight up scan from the Coolscan 9000 is a comfortable 20" X 30" glossy print scrutinized closely.



Link to full size 1Meg highly compressed JPEG file -> http://www.fototime.com/1D7B8B1DA9126D7/orig.jpg

Please note that viewing past 100% on-screen will start to show JPEG artifacting which still won't show even on glossy paper.

Needless to say, 4000dpi scans of medium format 6X7 have more than 4 times the size of 35mm and can make correspondingly larger prints.

[tuco]

At 4000dpi scan of a 6x7 negative should get you an A1 print at 300dpi and no upscaling if you didn't have to crop.

[stevebrot]

At 4000dpi scan of a 6x7 negative should get you print an A1 print at 300dpi and no upscaling if you didn't have to crop.

I should hope so! 36.8" on the long axis if I do my calculations correctly!

For 35mm, the maximum from a scanned image at 4000 dpi is a bit less...about 19" on the long side.

These numbers are comparable to what you can expect from a good lens with good technique in a traditional wet darkroom where 16x20 is the practical maximum size you can expect from a 35mm negative. (Perhaps a little larger with excellent technique and an extremely high quality negative.) Considering that my K10D yields a printed image a little less than 13" on the long side at 300 dpi and a little more with up-scaling, this is pretty good.


Steve


(A small word of caution regarding these numbers. First off, all negatives are not created equal and the same is true of the film used to make them. Second, the standard for sharpness of large prints is somewhat less than that for smaller copies. That is how we manage to make huge posters from relatively small negatives and/or digital files.)

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 05-16-2011 at 08:49 PM.

[Digitalis]

in a traditional wet darkroom where 16x20 is the practical maximum size you can expect from a 35mm negative.

providing of course you have developing trays big enough- I have done 16"X38" print that took up the whole film print developing trough - but that shot was from a 6X23 field camera.

with 35mm film (with optimal technique and top-tier lenses were used) the biggest I would print was 13"X19" - and the last print of that size I have produced was with a ME super with the FA77 limited with T-max 100

[stevebrot]

with 35mm film (with optimal technique and top-tier lenses were used) the biggest I would print was 13"X19" - and the last print of that size I have produced was with a ME super with the FA77 limited with T-max 100

The largest I personally ever printed was on 11x14 paper from Panatomic-X and Technical Pan. With the Technical Pan, the images were definitely limited by the optics not the film. The negatives were incredible to see under the grain magnifier.


Steve

[Digitalis]

I agree with you Steve, 11X14 is as big as you would want to regularly print 35mm film. Though with top of the line glass and a good enlarger lens (I used to use an EL Nikkor 63mm f/2.8 for printing my 35mm work) you can get away with pushing those boundaries to an extent. At 13X19" a print from 645 will of course look substantially better than anything from 35mm.

The negatives were incredible to see under the grain magnifier.

you should see tech-pan negs in 8X10 format sometime.

[Kim C]

I would agree with 11x14 from 35mm. On the other hand I have 20x24 prints from my MF negs on the wall and could go larger and still be happy with them.

Kim

[Nesster]

...on the other hand, assuming the original negative is sharp, you can easily enlarge the bitmap in photoshop. I've printed a 35mm negative from the usual 1500pix wide drug store scan to 13 x 19 on the Epson R1800.

Could it be better with a larger original file? Sure. However, at normal viewing distance the photo is plenty sharp and detailed looking with good 3-D.

[dj_saunter]

Thanks for all the great advice.

I'm really glad the film community is smaller than digital. I find the feedback here more helpful.

Grouphug guys hehe

[LesDMess]

BTW, if you don't already know and have access to either Costco or Sam's Club, you can have 20" X 30" prints made for about $8 on quality glossy paper. This will give you a good idea and show you that even this is more forgiving then viewing on-screen. Less then this and you can even go larger. For instance on canvas prints you can easily double the print size as the paper will hide all the blemish that would have shown on glossy.

[hillerby]

providing of course you have developing trays big enough- I have done 16"X38" print that took up the whole film print developing trough - but that shot was from a 6X23 field camera.

with 35mm film (with optimal technique and top-tier lenses were used) the biggest I would print was 13"X19" - and the last print of that size I have produced was with a ME super with the FA77 limited with T-max 100

I'd have to agree with Digitalis on this one. When I was shooting film, the absolute largest I would even attempt w/35mm is a 16x20, and that would have to be a shot w/1st Class Glass on a tripod. Normally, I would trust 35 negs larger than 11 x14 or 8 x 10 depending on the film used, etc.
If I needed anything larger, I grabbed my 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 Speed Graphic ....... now that thing would make some humongous prints!

[Kim C]

I have 24x 20 prints on the wall from MF negs and I can go right up to them and almost use a magnifying glass to see the detail.

No you don't need a 645 (even if they are great!!!!) I have had some very good results from old folders which you can pick up for about $50

Kim

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...)

[gofour3]

I have a 24” x 36” print from a 35mm Kodachrome 64 slide. The print was done years ago back when the labs would use Kodak internegative film for printing.

I recently had a 20” x 30” print done from a 35mm Elitechrome 100 slide. The print was done from an image produced by a Howtek HiResolve 8000 dpi drum scanner.

The results from the internegative print are much better, unfortunately Kodak no longer makes internegative film.

Phil.

[whojammyflip]

Just found this...its a cool question. If you have a decent set up and recorded 100lpmm on a negative, you could optically enlarge 12x according to 8lpmm. This would be a maximum without image quality issues at normal viewing distances. Apparently our eyes are sensitive to breaks in lines at much higher frequencies than the common 8lpmm print requirement, so we can see more like 30lpmm...therefore, 3x would be a lower limit. Somewhere between the two would be a sensible happy medium...

With digital which records at 30lpmm and then oversharpens, you are limited to between 1x and 3x with the same argument, mwahhahaa, ie somewhere between the size of a fingernail and a postage stamp . Unfortunately, only film guys are going to read this (in fact I wouldnt post it in a consumer push part of the forum, as its a bit inflamatory).