printing from 35mm

M

meandihagee

Well-known
Local time
1:24 PM
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
216
hello,

I just got some awesome analogue prints from martin-f5, here on the forum (my first real prints).

The biggest one was 18x24 cm from 35mm film shot on 400iso. However there is some grain there and I'm thinking if i go even bigger the grain will not be acceptable.

So my question is this: how big can I go with 400iso (or maybe 200) on 35mm?

I'm pondering on a new camera and maybe I should look into MF, but I'm not sure. I'm not very found of lugging around a very flashy camera. I don't want gigantor prints, but with 35mm could I get bigger than say, A3?

Could I get more from a 35mm neg if I scan it on a Nikon 9000 (the most capable scanner available in my country)?

Thanks
 
you should be able to go up to 11x14" with delta 400, tmax 400 v2, etc. btw as your print gets larger you should move further away so maybe it doesnt matter quite as much to you?

MF is fine but not particularly convenient. I like have 36 shots on a roll and a small camera.
 
Completely subjective and in case-by-case basis.
Without knowing what your subjects/lighting/scene, how can one know?

I know for a fact that for certain photos, big grains enhanced the look tremendously. I don't think 11x14 inches is absurd for 35mm 400 negative at all.

Use a diffuser light head if you're using an enlarger, or just tone down the grain using software if you go the digital route.
 
As Shadow Fox said, the size you can go before grain is objectionable is completely subjective/. Check out Eddie Ephraums older work for how grain can look good even on landscape shots. He enlarged 16x 20 inch useing 400 ASA with Rodinal. Unless you are looking for really fine grain, I find that 11X 14 inch with TriX & D76 is no problem.
 
As big as you want. I've seen some of Avedon's portraits exhibited that were shot on 35mm. We all know he likes to print his large format stuff big. His 35 work was no exception to this rule of his. Black and whites blown up to probably 40"x60". Obviously there was a ton of grain but IT LOOKED AWESOME. Please try to imagine. The grain added such a different texture to the images that you don't see in his other work. Not better or worse, just a totally different feel.
 
Fawley said:
As Shadow Fox said, the size you can go before grain is objectionable is completely subjective/. Check out Eddie Ephraums older work for how grain can look good even on landscape shots. He enlarged 16x 20 inch useing 400 ASA with Rodinal. Unless you are looking for really fine grain, I find that 11X 14 inch with TriX & D76 is no problem.
Click to expand...

On the side, I like Eddie Ephraums old work much better than his newer ones.
His book on landscape shots and how he worked on those in the darkroom is one of my favorite book that motivated me to do darkroom printing.
 
thanks everybody for the answers.

I'm a newb in printing...

maybe grain will look on bw (and the analog prints look great), but I forgot to say I was referring to colour. the project I'm working on has lots of dark areas as it's shot completely in darkish hallways and I expect to notice a lot of grain there. hmm or maybe not...

I'm really torn between which camera to get for this. I have a feeling MF is not really obligatory for getting bigger than A3 prints, but maybe I should print for myself and find out.
 
If it's color, how did you scan?

If it's a typical corner lab scan, forget it, they all suck. Find a decent scanner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom