How big can 35mm go?

[dovevadar]

I'm doing some prints and have both medium format and 35mm. Of course MF surely beats 35mm.. I just wonder how big a print can a 35mm Leica shot go up to? Lens resolution and film play a part. But will appreciate if anyone here can share their experience on doing 35mm prints..

How big have you gone? Under what condition did you shoot and what film or lens did you use?

cheers!

 

[usagisakana]

As big as you want. Depends on viewing distance and the aesthetic you're going for.

I've only ever had stuff printed up to 11x14, but I would go bigger for some things and smaller for others. There's no one answer, just print and see what you like 🙂

 

[aizan]

what he said. if you want a smooth print, i would use iso 100 film and go no larger than 4x6. that's even if you're using modern films.

 

[mfogiel]

I have seen Salgado's and HCB's exhibitions with prints from Leica B&W shots which had wonderful quality on a 20x30 inch enlargements, although I am sure this has been tackled by specialized master printers.

 

[drewbarb]

I've done plenty of 20x24 inch prints from 35mm negs that have looked great. I have never tried to print larger from 35mm. However, I've also seen plenty of 35mm images that just fall apart at sizes larger than 8x10 or so. It depends upon the specific negative. It doesn't seem to be just about the quality of the gear it was shot with, either- it's really more about how big you can print a specific negative or image before it starts looking bad. You just have to try it. Don't forget to judge the results viewing the print the way it's intended to be seen. (How would you show a 20x24 print? How far away will the viewer be?) Obviously, any 35mm image printed to 16x20 and viewed with a loupe won't look great.

 

[J. Borger]

Technical possibilities aside ..... not every subject looks great printing large.
There is a tendency for large and larger prints these days .....but i in general prefer to look at a beautifull smaller print up-close.......
A lot of pictures fall apart printing large not technical but because of content.
Of course on the contrary there is also content that gains by printing large and does not look all that great printed small.
Technical as said .by others....... there are lots of possibilities these days with 35mm!

 

[payasam]

I've done 20" by 30" prints from 35mm negatives. Naturally you shouldn't look at them from six inches away. Ideally, for good prints you'd have perfect exposure and perfect film development. And no bloody dust.

 

[kievman]

I have gone as large as 24x36in with a kodacrome 64 slide. I think you could go larger with certain software. B&W negs and anolog printing,- maybe 24x36ins. under the best conditions - 100 speed film, superior optics and cameras... I talking the best of Leica, Zeiss, and Nikon here etc... Michael

 

[waileong]

?

?

My enlarger only goes up to 16x20, and I've printed pix from Yosemite using Adox CHS 25 film, shot on my 35/1.4 @ F2.8, 1/15. Appearance is grainless, extremely beautiful tones. No tripod, but I held the camera against a tree trunk.

I can't go much bigger than that because the biggest paper I could buy here is 20x24, I don't have roll-paper nor do I have an easel or tray or tube for anything bigger.

Basically, it's a question of how well you've exposed the picture, how sharp your focus is, and how much grain you're willing to tolerate. For anything less than 20 x 30, 35 mm can do it if you get it right.

Bigger than that I think medium format will have to be used.

I'm doing some prints and have both medium format and 35mm. Of course MF surely beats 35mm.. I just wonder how big a print can a 35mm Leica shot go up to? Lens resolution and film play a part. But will appreciate if anyone here can share their experience on doing 35mm prints..

How big have you gone? Under what condition did you shoot and what film or lens did you use?

cheers!

 

[rui]

The larger the print, the farther away you stand to look at it, so you can print it really big.
I've just digitally printed two photos on 45x70 cm (17x27 inches) and it works just fine! Those photos were taken with a Summaron 35/2.8 lens on a Kodak Tri-X and scanned at 4800 dpi on a Canon 8600F scanner.
A couple of year ago, I had an even larger print made optically from a Provia100 slide (Nikon 105/2.5 lens) blown up to 140cmx80xm (something like 50x30 inches) and, as the image was sharp, resulted wonderfully. Go for it! 🙂

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Go to a movie theater, they use 35mm film - but only 'half frame', and still project the pictures big.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Go to a movie theater, they use 35mm film - but only 'half frame', and still project the pictures big.

But they show you 25 frames a second so you acn't actually see any of them.

Mike

 

[Livesteamer]

A very long time ago I was told a story about the early Nikon rangefinder cameras. I think it was from Time or Life and the Korean war. Supposedly they had a 35mm neg they wanted to enlarge to 8 feet by 10 feet but it had a dust spot on it. They blew it up anyway and the dust spot turned into a helicopter. Can anyone substantiate this story? All that said, Y'all probably know big prints in a chemical darkroom are a pain. It's the one time I would say scan the neg and print digital. Joe

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

A friend of mine has a printer that can take media up to 2m wide, so that would imply a 3m x 2m print from a 35mm negative.

I've seen her prints that sort of size at exhibitions and the like and they are perfectly good from a few steps back.

 

[Krosya]

I think that everyone's standards are different. What looks good to one person - may not to the other. What one finds as "superior" optics - may not be the same to someone else. Some Holga pics can look better than pnes from Leica. I personally only did up to 11x14, as I dont need a larger one from a 35mm. I have done a much larger from 6x6 negs. Can it be done larger? sure. But should it be done larger? well - not always. All is a personal choice and compromise.

 

[dovevadar]

Interesting. Thanks for the replies.

I was considering printing digital from scan. Drumscan has to be it. But anyone tried a home flatbed like Epson V700? It can go up to pretty high dpi but I'm not sure about the quality against a drum-scanner.

 

[uhligfd]

I think quite a few billboards originally come from 35 mm film or FX or DX format sensors. No problem with sharpness etc, unless you want to view the billboard from 2 feet off.

 

[aizan]

after a certain point, viewing distance renders close examination irrelevant. who actually has the means to print THAT big?

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

My friend with the 2m printer does stuff from digital P&S's which are then viewed from maybe 3m away.

She often produces backdrops for trade exhibition stands using the clients own digital files. Which will not be top quality files anyway.

On occasion she splits the file to print it on the the media in sections and then tiles them together for a much larger print.

The side of a medium size truck could be a typical end result.

It works.

 

[mfogiel]

If you really "focus" the holder and keep the neg flat on the Epson V700, and do some clever post processing, the image should hold for up to 8x enlargement, above that you need a dedicated film scanner, or better yet a drum scan. I remember when these scanners came out someone made a resolution test and it came out at around 2200ppi - which gives you an 8x enlargement at 275dpi, so in fact in case of bigger negatives, you could probably enlarge a little more, as the big prints are acceptable even at 180dpi.