How far you go with enlargements from your FSU optic-produced negatives?

I

Igor.Burshteyn

Well-known
Local time
3:32 PM
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
355
I have 30-years old J8 and 45-years old J9 in Kiev mount. What is the maximum enlargement size would you risk to order from their negatives - given that both negative and low-res (2M) scan seem to be reasonable sharp? What is your experience?
I'd like to get this one in maximum allowed enlargement (J9)
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=12680&cat=4996&page=1
Dare I go 30x45 (well, I used only 1/4 of negative area)?
 
If my enlarger could go that high I would!

I'd also use a cold tone paper to make this one more striking!
 
I'm hoping the 30x45 is cm not inches.

I think it would depend on what film you used. A slow, fine grained film should enlarge up to a 11x14 inch size without any problems, using most of the negative. I've done TMax 100 using 3/4 of the neg at this size without any apparent graininess. I'm sure I could go to 16x20" with the right negative. Using only 1/4 of the negative, a 30x45cm (12x18") print would probably start to show excessive grain. Using 1/4 of the negative at this size is like making a 120x180cm (48x72") print from the whole negative.

Of course, the only way to know for sure is to try it.

Brian
 
I've had full-frame 11X14 inch enlargements made from a Zorki-1 with Jupiter-12 lens. Film was Kodak Gold 100 color negative. I'm sure I could have gone larger, but the price of framing starts escalating above 11X14 and I had no place to dusplay the photo.

-Paul
 
I see no reason to limit the enlargement size just because the lens is from the FSU. That shouldn't make any difference. These lenses are not (by design) inferior to lenses from other countries. Many, if not all FSU lenses are based on Zeiss designs.

Rather, the choice of print size should be made on the merits of a particular negative or transparency, and whether it will "play" at a large size. This of course depends on subject matter, and film choice, etc.

I have some great 20x30 prints from 35mm negatives shot with only medium quality lenses, but the subject matter lends itself to the large print size.

I find that scanning a negative, and then cleaning it up in Photoshop CS allows for a larger print size (with my Epson Ultrachrome 9600) than conventional darkroom printing.

In any large print from 35mm, grain will be an element. This grain can either enhance the overall image or detract from it, again it depends on the subject matter.
 
I agree with Phototone; it depends upon the negative in question. Also, don't forget that each print size should be viewed from a particular distance in order to have the proper perspective. If you make a large print - say, 16x20 - then you'd want to stand back as opposed to an 8x10.

When I visited the E. Leitz factory in Wetzlar some 33 years ago and sat in their waiting room, I viewed some HUGE enlargements from Leica negatives. They were exhibition quality in every sense of the word. So, yes, it can be done.

Walker
 
Walker I think these must have been the same ones I saw in 1972 when I attended the Leica School. I was told they were taken on Agfapan25 Ortho now sadly gone! I've done 24inch wide from my Fed and 50mm Industar f3.5. I used a Durst Enlarger with El Nikkor lens projected on to a wall to which the paper was fixed with masking tape. Processing was by see-sawing the paper through chemicals in plastic window boxes. I did them for an exhibition about 20yrs ago, I've no idea what happened to them!! The picures were very sharp, the enlarging lens HAS to be as good or better than the camera lens to do this. I don't think I would do it again, I made a hell of a mess of our bathroom floor.!!! I've taken the easy way out and use an A3 inkjet now. 8-(((
 
11X14 easily. I have both the J8 (which I use occasionally on not only Russian cameras but on my Bessa R) and it's a good all round lens. I also have the J9 in M42 for my Pentax Spotmatics, and it's a quite good portrait lens.

Not every 35mm negative can be equal to a 16X20 enlargement, but some will go easily to that size. It all depends on many variables: critical focus, sharp lens, subject, film processing, etc.


Ted

PS: Hey, John in Dundee, what's an "A3 Inkjet?" I know what an inkjet printer is, but what does "A3" mean?
 
John Robertson said:
Walker I think these must have been the same ones I saw in 1972 when I attended the Leica School. I was told they were taken on Agfapan25 Ortho now sadly gone! I've done 24inch wide from my Fed and 50mm Industar f3.5. I used a Durst Enlarger with El Nikkor lens projected on to a wall to which the paper was fixed with masking tape. Processing was by see-sawing the paper through chemicals in plastic window boxes. I did them for an exhibition about 20yrs ago, I've no idea what happened to them!! The picures were very sharp, the enlarging lens HAS to be as good or better than the camera lens to do this. I don't think I would do it again, I made a hell of a mess of our bathroom floor.!!! I've taken the easy way out and use an A3 inkjet now. 8-(((
Click to expand...

John, it's very possible that we saw the same prints. I took three cameras to them for CLA; a IIIf RD in the Winter of 1970-71 and a IIIf BD and IIIb in the Winter of 1971-72. I still have the RD & IIIb but sold the BD. Wish now that I'd kept it too!

I've seen your method of developing large prints and it's quite a task. I can imagine the "mess" it made! :) The EL Nikkor lens are excellent.

Walker
 
Film in question is Ilford XP2+ - grain is comparable to 100iso b&w, non-issue here as far as I understand. I will try to enlarge 30x45cm as is, and will crop to 30x30 if i like it square better in later time. I already ordered 30x45 on color paper (convenience of C41-any lab does it). If results look good I will try it on real b&w paper - that's already another story. I have no experience in printing, so work goes to custom lab. Should XP2+ negative produce good b&w prints?
 
Hello, I think enlarging depends mainly on the sharpness of your photo and of the grain/sensivity of the film. You can try enlarging a part of it by orienting the enlarger on a wall and by selecting an area of interest, even if you do it on regular size paper, just for test purposes.

Max
 
tedwhite said:
PS: Hey, John in Dundee, what's an "A3 Inkjet?" I know what an inkjet printer is, but what does "A3" mean?
Click to expand...

Hello,

A3 is the international code for metric trimmed paper size. For instance, check this site for conversions into US units : http://www.littlebit.com/general_info/papersize.htm

For regular mail we use the A4 format, which is close to 'A (letter)' format.
A3 doubles the size of A4, it is close to your 'B' format.
The unit is A0, which is a sheet of paper of 1 sq. mt.


Cheers :)
Max
 
Ted White: A3 is an Metric paper size. works this way:-
A3 297 x 420 mm
A4 210 x 297 mm
A5 149 x 210 mm and so on each one 50% of the one before.
Imperial A3 works out at 11.7 x 16.5 inches.
I believe A0 where it starts is one square metre in area.
Sorry did not see your post Dark Avenger, you explain it better!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom