What is 35mm capable of?

[mrak]

Hello,

I like use 35mm film but I don't have a darkroom and I only have a low-end scanner which is only fine for web. I haven't taken a great photograph yet so I never bothered getting a photo of mine printed or drum-scanned. Full-resolution samples are hard to find so I wonder what 35mm film is really capable off. I know that if one needs resolution one should use medium format or bigger but I still wonder just how much resolution there is on films like Portra 160, 400, Ektar 100, Provia 100F, Velvia 50 and 100 and Tri-X 400 (used with good lenses)? How big can these be enlarged while still looking sharp from up close? How do they look when scanned with a high-end scanner? Can one even get all the details without getting grain as well? How big is the dynamic range?

Thanks in advance for the replies.

 

[Pioneer]

If everything works out right; exposure, focus, correct film, proper lens, excellent technique, development, printing paper, correct print exposure, good enlarger lens...

I think you get the idea. Assuming the the gods in Olympus are pleased 35mm will enlarge 10 times the original size, or perhaps even more in some cases.

Where medium format and large format have the advantage is that they increase the odds you will get a nice print, without the need for a special dispensation from Olympus.

As you have noted, getting really nice scans from 35mm usually requires a good scanner. My experience, which is very little, has indicated that to get relatively decent scans from 35mm, a dedicated 35mm scanner is best. However, I have personally learned that if you take the time to determine the best height for the holder, an Epson flat bed can do a decent job as well.

EDIT - Of course you should take this advice carefully since I have been told by some that my standards are uncommonly low. 🙂

 

[Godfrey]

Hello,

I like use 35mm film but I don't have a darkroom and I only have a low-end scanner which is only fine for web. I haven't taken a great photograph yet so I never bothered getting a photo of mine printed or drum-scanned. Full-resolution samples are hard to find so I wonder what 35mm film is really capable off. I know that if one needs resolution one should use medium format or bigger but I still wonder just how much resolution there is on films like Portra 160, 400, Ektar 100, Provia 100F, Velvia 50 and 100 and Tri-X 400 (used with good lenses)? How big can these be enlarged while still looking sharp from up close? How do they look when scanned with a high-end scanner? Can one even get all the details without getting grain as well? How big is the dynamic range?

Thanks in advance for the replies.

The resolution and DR limits of film is an elusive thing to quantify. Given a unit length to analyze, resolution and DR depends upon the characteristics of the emulsion (slow or fast meaning fine grained to coarse grained), how it is exposed, and how it is processed. And that's without considering the camera (how flat is the film in the camera? how good a lens does the camera have? Is the film and the lens in proper alignment? How well is the lens focused? How well does the lens perform at a given lens opening? and so forth).

But ignore all that and let's think about practical rules of thumb based on my 50 years of working with film...

- For dynamic range, all but very very careful processing of ultra-fine-grained 35mm film nets a maximum of around 9 to 10 stops of DR. Most films are significantly more constrained than that, although optical effects on perception can fool the brain into thinking there's more.

- Regards resolution: Slow, fine-grained 35mm film (say, up to ISO 100) that is properly exposed and processed using a quality camera and a good lens, properly focused, can, at the limit, produce a high quality print at sizes up to about 16x magnification—a 16x24 inch printed area. Higher film speeds will show more grain than is acceptable for a "high quality" print.

Considering scanning that reference 35mm original (negative or positive), you'll need enough optical scan resolution to achieve about a 300ppi output at that size for viewing at 'normal reading distance' (or about 18-20 inches). That's about 5000 ppi scanning resolution with a good scanner, or 33-34 Mpixel of information.

Now, you normally don't look at 16x24 inch prints from 'normal reading distance' like that. You normally view that large a print at about 3-4 feet distance. That relaxes the resolution requirements by some amount ... I've printed scanned 35mm film (full frame) to that size at 240ppi with excellent results, which can be achieved with a 4000 ppi scanner.

However, these are the limits - most 35mm film work cannot stand so much enlargement without severe degradation and it's more useful to think of a 10x magnification as being the practical limit. That's a 10x15" print, which can be achieved at 300 ppi output to very good results with about a 2900 ppi resolution dedicated scanner. That's the equivalent of about 12 Mpixels worth of data.

That's my take on it. There's a solid reason why anyone doing larger scale prints while working with film moved to medium formats (645, 6x6, 6x7, etc) and then large formats (4x5, 5x7, 8x10, etc).

G

 

[Paul Jenkin]

When you bear in mind that the likes of David Bailey shot fashion (both studio and location) on black and white and colour in the 1960s with a Pentax S3 and contemporary film stock, and that Robert Capa shot D-Day landings in 1944 using a Leica and even older film stock, there's nothing that current 35mm equipment and film can't do that most amateurs would require.

If you're hoping that it can produce the clinical, colour-perfect and low-light excellence of, say, a Nikon D4, then you'll be disappointed. However, that's why I still shoot 90% film - because I love the fact that film isn't "perfect". For me, these "imperfections" add something to the end result rather than detract from it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Assuming the the gods in Olympus are pleased 35mm will enlarge 10 times the original size, or perhaps even more in some cases.. . .

Of course the gods in Solms and Wetzlar may allow slightly more...

But as you say, it's not a terribly meaningful question. There are too many variables; and at the edges of those variables, things become very hazy indeed. A popular (and defensible) figure for a perfectly exposed low-speed transparency or Ektar 100 shot taken with the sharpest available lenses and the camera mounted on a tripod is that you get the equivalent of 18-22 megapixels -- BUT, if you're talking about discontinuities in a line (so called vernier resolution) you might need 30 megapixels to equal the film, because the megapixels are a regular array and the film isn't.

Then there are the questions of viewing distance and acceptability. Sure, an A3 enlargement from 6 megapixels and a standard zoom is held up by many as "acceptable", but it ain't likely as sharp as 6 megapixels and a good lens or 18 megapixels and an outstanding lens. It may seem odd to relate 35mm to megapixels but it's a convenient and widely-understood comparison.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

When you bear in mind that the likes of David Bailey shot fashion (both studio and location) on black and white and colour in the 1960s with a Pentax S3 and contemporary film stock, and that Robert Capa shot D-Day landings in 1944 using a Leica and even older film stock, there's nothing that current 35mm equipment and film can't do that most amateurs would require.

If you're hoping that it can produce the clinical, colour-perfect and low-light excellence of, say, a Nikon D4, then you'll be disappointed. However, that's why I still shoot 90% film - because I love the fact that film isn't "perfect". For me, these "imperfections" add something to the end result rather than detract from it.

Dear Paul,

But there's a big difference between "most" and "all". After all, camera phones can do everything that most amateurs require: it's a question of what sort of amateur.

Cheers,

R.

 

[flip]

You know, I was surprised when I scanned my first roll of efke 25 in rodinal 1:100. The details blew my mind. it takes more work to exceed digital but with good lens and technique...

 

[gdmcclintock]

35mm Tri-X in a Widelux

 

[Pioneer]

Of course the gods in Solms and Wetzlar may allow slightly more...

But as you say, it's not a terribly meaningful question. There are too many variables; and at the edges of those variables, things become very hazy indeed. A popular (and defensible) figure for a perfectly exposed low-speed transparency or Ektar 100 shot taken with the sharpest available lenses and the camera mounted on a tripod is that you get the equivalent of 18-22 megapixels -- BUT, if you're talking about discontinuities in a line (so called vernier resolution) you might need 30 megapixels to equal the film, because the megapixels are a regular array and the film isn't.

Then there are the questions of viewing distance and acceptability. Sure, an A3 enlargement from 6 megapixels and a standard zoom is held up by many as "acceptable", but it ain't likely as sharp as 6 megapixels and a good lens or 18 megapixels and an outstanding lens. It may seem odd to relate 35mm to megapixels but it's a convenient and widely-understood comparison.

Cheers,

R.

It would seem there must be camera gods everywhere. 🙂

This does seem to be one of those questions that pops up from time to time.

For me, and me alone, a 35mm negative will enlarge 10 times without too much grief. Obviously you can get more than that from time to time (it would seem that the gods in Wetzlar allow a 12 times enlargement) but it takes more work to get there. Especially when all I need to do is start shooting my Fuji GA645 or Pentax 645 and I can easily go much larger. And...if for some reason I want to go larger still, my Crown Graphic will go there with ease.

So, for me alone, I am not usually very interested in trying to enlarge my 35mm negatives more than 10 times, unless of course they were shot with a Leica, which everyone knows is good for a 12 times enlargement shot handheld at 1/20 second shutter speeds. 🙂

Or maybe that was 16 times? 🙄

 

[David Hughes]

Hmmm, well, um, half frame (or academy) 35mm cine stock can be blown up to the size of a cinema screen. It doesn't stand examination close up but a lot of people are happy with it. Wasn't it what inspired Barnack?

Regards, David

 

[DCB]

Remember back in the day... Very large prints from 35mm. With slides print directly and negatives would be one more step. I have seen some amazing enlargements from film.

Peace

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . a Leica, which everyone knows is good for a 12 times enlargement shot handheld at 1/20 second shutter speeds. 🙂

Or maybe that was 16 times? 🙄

Only at full aperture with uncoated pre-war lenses. Modern coated lenses are well known to be at least twice as good, as are scratched Summars when stopped down to f/9. Though of course modern M-series aren't as good at 1/15 as pre-war Leicas at 1/5. All well known facts: just check the internet.

Cheers,

R.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Years ago when I used slide film all the time I would often risk a hand held shot with the Summicron at a half or full second. Most of the time I got a usable/good shot and slides were/are shown from 4 feet wide, not a mere 10" or 16"...

Regards, David

PS And watch "Citizen Kane" at a cinema to see what 35mm film can do, it's an eye-opener.

PPS (Edit) Roger, you've just used "facts" and "internet" in the same sentence. Are you sure? ;-)

 

[Godfrey]

Hi,

Years ago when I used slide film all the time I would often risk a hand held shot with the Summicron at a half or full second. Most of the time I got a usable/good shot and slides were/are shown from 4 feet wide, not a mere 10" or 16"...

Regards, David

PS And watch "Citizen Kane" at a cinema to see what 35mm film can do, it's an eye-opener.

PPS (Edit) Roger, you've just used "facts" and "internet" in the same sentence. Are you sure? ;-)

If you sit 5 to 30 feet away from the screen, a projected 16mm frame can look pretty good. The OP's question was, "How big can these [prints] be enlarged while still looking sharp from up close?"

G

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi,

Years ago when I used slide film all the time I would often risk a hand held shot with the Summicron at a half or full second. Most of the time I got a usable/good shot and slides were/are shown from 4 feet wide, not a mere 10" or 16"...

Regards, David

PS And watch "Citizen Kane" at a cinema to see what 35mm film can do, it's an eye-opener.

PPS (Edit) Roger, you've just used "facts" and "internet" in the same sentence. Are you sure? ;-)

Dear David,

Your irony meter must have been demagnetized. Re-read the sentence...

Cheers,

R.

 

[David Hughes]

Dear David,

Your irony meter must have been demagnetized. Re-read the sentence...

Cheers,

R.

We need a little symbol, perhaps -) meaning tongue in cheek...

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

If you sit 5 to 30 feet away from the screen, a projected 16mm frame can look pretty good. The OP's question was, "How big can these [prints] be enlarged while still looking sharp from up close?"

G

Hi,

Sorry I qualified it in post 10 which I assumed would be read in sequence with it but there you are... Also I see "close" for a slide as far enough away to see it all without having to look up and down.

Seriously, I've been on stage when some of my Summicron and/or Yashica slides were shown 10 or 12 ft high and have been staggered by what I saw when turning round to look at it.

Regards, David

 

[DCB]

A projected 35mm slide is simply amazing!

Peace

 

[Nathan King]

I regularly make 16x20 prints in my darkroom from Tri-X negatives that are quite nice. They are very sharp with moderate, but not distracting grain. When I use a slower film such as Ilford Pan F with a tripod, careful metering, and slightly less development than normal I can print about ten stops of dynamic range with some dodging and burning and have very fine grain at any standard enlargement. The difficulty is bringing out the contrast in the tones that fall in the foot or shoulder of the characteristic curve of the film and paper.

Medium format gives you a bit more wiggle room for less than ideal conditions and slightly more subtle tonal gradations. I can't comment on color film because I only use black and white. Do you often print very large? I do not and have no issues with 35mm for my photography.

I did move to medium format (6x7) for a while. I moved back to 35mm after becoming tired of being tethered to a tripod for all but the brightest of days and missing photographs because I was no longer nimble enough.

 

[hepcat]

The resolution and DR limits of film is an elusive thing to quantify.
G

But as you say, it's not a terribly meaningful question. There are too many variables; and at the edges of those variables, things become very hazy indeed.
Cheers,

R.

"measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk, and cut with an axe."

Generally speaking, a well done 20x24 print from a well-exposed and well-focused 35mm negative will hold up for casual viewing on the wall. That's about as precise as you can get with this subject. Given the variables, everything else is more fuzzy. Add scanning to the mix, and the whole subject gets even more fuzzy.