how big can I print from 35mm film?

<p>It really depends on your personal standards and on the film you use. For one person it might be 6x9", for someone else 20x30. I do not go over 16x20 from 35.</p>

<p>How big can you print? As, big as you want and you are happy with the resuts. That's all it boils down to.</p>

<p>My 11 x 14" comment is based on shooting 100 ASA Kodak color film with a Leica M6 and 35 Summicron. Of course I could have printed bigger, but my personal "quality" threshold was at the upper limits at 11 x 14 for handheld landscapes. The difference between 8 x 10 and 11 x 14 is substantial. I actually preferred the 8 x 10s but could live happily with the 11 x 14s, beyond that, you take a big hit. FWIW.</p>

<p>Alex Webb enlarges his Kodachromes to 30x40 inches.</p>

<p>I'd say 8X10; but, I rarely do color. I say this solely because of my black and white negatives. Now, I can get an 11X14 out of there; but think about cropping room. Slice a small percentage for composition and there's a few inches gone. I'm sure an expert can do it well, but if you have to ask or send it out; I'd say, wrap it up at 8X10 and count yourself lucky. </p>

<p>To my way of thinking, 5X7 is pretty big considering the size of a 35mm neg. I really like the 3.5x5s and 2.5X3.5s. That smallest size is about the size of a credit card; wallet size, basically. Hang on to it at 8x10 and be proud. You can put it in a frame.</p>

<p>That frame and mat money will be out the window if genius at the lab makes the wrong mistake. I'd have a good enough relationship with a lab tech to know his face, not the store's franchise name, before I'd want to go in there and push it. No joke, best service I got in color this last year, wet or digital, was from out of a self-service robot kiosk at Kinko's. Surely not capable of competing with a good lab; but, really, have a lab on your side if you go over anything bigger than an index card. I'm discouraged; but, I wouldn't want to bait you into thinking that you can go into a lab just anywhere and expect those guys to hit a home run. Give the commercial labs simple tasks. Set some low goals and succeed. </p>

<p>Watch this: I think you will get such a bill for failures (even if it is not in money), that you could have had three 8x10s, easily, and one of them in a simple frame to give to somebody as a nice gift by the time you get halfway --halfway!-- to getting the bigger enlargement done. The guys above are right, but I'd still say 8x10.</p>

<p>"Costco." Ansel Adams didn't go there for processing. The other store names wouldn't have done well with me, either. In my opinion, a lot of them are in such a state of low quality control that they are on the brink of total failure. If it had been something like, "Well, I've gotta overnight it to Dwayne's for the slides and just bill 'em to the grave," okay. How many threads have we seen with, "What did I do wrong, I just took my film to the franchise place. . . " No offense to the Costco people, but you need John-Stevens-co. Don't be a victim. 8x10.</p>

<p>Image content makes a huge difference. When the 110 format was introduced with the pocket instamatic in 1972, a set of 16x20 demonstration prints was made. They used Kodacolor II, the very first C-41 film. It was a big step forward in its day, but modern films are vastly superior. These scenes were carefully shot to look good with extreme enlargement. They were busy scenes to hide grain--no blue sky, no uniform gray backgrounds. While there was a lot of busyness to the scenes, there were no hard edges that would invite close inspection for sharpness. </p>

<p>I agree with those who said, "Try it and jusge for yourself."</p>

<p>Stop using Costco, take it to a pro lab, it maybe more $$ but well worth it. I would have it printed on a Light Jet 5000. It can make a print form a 35mm neg/slide look like it was done by an 8x10. Personally after working in labs, I'd say it all depends on the quality of negative and or scan. Also consider where you are going to hang it? Will it be in a small room? Or a large room. People don't view artwork at close range, most people will stand six to 10 feet back. I have to agree there a lot of variables.<br>

here is a link for some info on the lightjet<br>

http://www.reedphoto.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=68</p>

<p>If you are seeing big differences between Portra 800 and Max 800, then there is a difference in the way the films were stored. These two films share most of the same components. As the film leaves the plant, the performance of these two products is similar. As a professional product, Portra has some tighter tollernaces, but on the average, fresh samples of gthe two products are equivalent. </p>

<p>Have a look at <a href="http://www.mountainlight.com/">http://www.mountainlight.com/</a> <br>

Galen Rowell used 35mm film and if you've ever been at the gallery in Bishop, CA. the web images don't even come close to the impact of the photos hanging in the gallery. </p>

<p>I've printed an image 44" x 120" from a x-pan neg. It was somewhat grainy but I'll tke grain over pixels anyday.<br>

I've also printed some 40" x 60" fiber murals from tri-x and it held together amazingly.</p>

<p>Hi John,<br>

I agree whole heartedly with Bryan, that grain is much more pleasing to the eye than pixels. With that said, up until<br>

I switched to my D300's last year, I was shooting all my wedding gigs with Fuji Pro 160S and Pro 400H and Fuji NPZ<br>

for color and Fuji acros and Kodak BW400cn for black and white. We would routinely have our lab print 11x14's and<br>

sometimes 16x20's from our well exposed negs with outstanding results. I still shoot those films on smaller jobs.<br>

Of course, as it was stated earlier, a lot depends on the quality of the equipment being used and the individual<br>

technique of the photographer, and the lab that is doing the processing and printing. One more thing, even though<br>

negative film has a much wider exposure latitude than transparency film, you are much better off with a slight over<br>

exposure than being under exposed. I always had my Nikon F5's and F6's set to +7 exposure compensation, that<br>

would be 2/3 of a stop over. <br>

Thanks, John</p>

<p>OP,<br>

I print 35mm at 16x20.</p>

<p>This is a scan of Ektar 35mm. Give it a shot at printing it.<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6499685_dJwsh#412836438_dfYZh-O-LB</p>

<div></div>

<p>As Kelly pointed out, some questions are impossible to answer. Can you make the ultimate flavored pasta dish without fresh pasta? Those who say yes change their mind when they have the dish at my house with pasta made from scratch 15 minutes, boiled one minute, before they eat it. <br>

A 13 second quarter mile car feels very fast to absolutely everyone except those who have driven a 10 second car.....then the still truly quick 13 second car feels boring.<br>

If you like critical sharpness, as I do, if you like to look at even a 16 x 20 print at 8 inches, then 5 feet, then 8 inches again (come on, everyone talks about viewing distance but secretly don't you all want to put your nose up to the work?) then you'll absolutely notice a great dropoff at 8 x 10 color print from 35mm compared to an 8 x 10 from from medium format. So for me, in color, I keep it below 8 x 10. I like some subjects with the right black and white film at 8 x 10 though. <br>

Those who say they get "pin sharp" prints at 16 x 20 or 11 x 14 have a different definition of "pin sharp" than me. But if it satisfies them, great.<br>

You have to do the tests and see what satisfies <em>you</em>.</p>

 

<p>Steve Swinehart wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Practically? 16x20 is about it from 35mm - I don't care what kind of film you're using or whether the print is made in a darkroom or digitally. The BS about Duratrans prints in Grand Central is meaningless...unless you're having Kodak make the prints for you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am going to disagree here. Galen Rowell had a 6 foot wide analog print made from a KM-25 original ( Riders and sand dunes ) and it was reported to be utterly spectacular.<br>

In 1994 I had 20x30 type R prints made from both Kodachrome and Velvia at A&I that the lab insisted on displaying, they were nearly grainless with incredible detail.<br>

But the best was recently when I made a print from an XPan Kodachrome for my girlfriend for Valentine's day. It was scanned using a 9000ED and glass holder, over 150MB in size. It is 24x65 inches and very, very well detailed, even at a viewing distance of just two feet, the grain is negligible.<br>

So yes, there is BS being doled out here, but it has nothing to do with Kodachromes blown up as Duratrans in Grand Central Station.....<br>

<br /></p>

<p>To the OP:<br>

It really is not a simple answer. I am learning myself exactly what the limitations I would say the best answer is to start by reposting and telling us what you expect your workflow to be. From subject matter, shooting styles, film speeds, to scanner type (the scanner is huge...HUGE) and then we might have a clearer idea.<br>

I've scanned some 35mm film on an Epson V750 and others on Nikon Coolscan scanners. What someone wrote above is true: some frames will hold up to massive enlargement, others degrade at anything over 8x12". I have printed via White House Custom Color a couple of negatives scanned using the 6400 dpi lens on the V750 and made 24 x 36" prints that look fine but are viewed from several feet away...this from C41 processed BW film at ISO 400 (Ilford XP2 Super). Then I've shot some gorgeous shots on good 100 speed film that degrade with any real attempt to enlarge them.<br>

My best advice to you is to just start monkeying around with scanning see what you get. Google your way to the different scanning resources and make your way through it. My other piece of advice is, if you are planning on doing your own scanning, to go with a Nikon Coolscan 5000 or 9000 depending on what your needs are. They are the best scanners you scan have at home, beyond going nuts and selling a kidney to buy an imacon or a drum.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Jay</p>

<p>If you can make a decent 16x20 print, you can make any size. As prints get larger than 16x20, the viewing distance increases so that magnification on the retina (which is what really counts) stays about the same. </p>

<p>Your milage will vary.<br>

That answer covers it.<br>

Everyone else has bickered on details, but it is really just that. It depends on the printing method and what film you are using. Superia 1600 scanned using an old flatbed and printed to 5x7 viewed at 6 inches might not look very good, but Velvia 50 scanned with a drum scanner printed at 18x24 and viewed at a foot might look very good and that same superia 1600 combo printed at 18x24 might look just fine if you viewed it across a room 20ft away.<br>

Personally, with the method I use which involves scanning the negatives with an Epson 4490 the biggest I am willing to print is around 8x12. I might print 10x15 or 11x14 if I wasn't going to be viewing it really close. By this I mean if I was say 5-6 feet from it (like over fire place or something similar) I wouldn't have any problems printing that big or maybe even 12x18, but again I would want a decent viewing distance. I know darned well, especially at something like 12x18 the image quality would fall apart if you viewed it closely (a foot or two away). The 8x12s I have printed from scans look just fine even viewing the print up close.<br>

Now get me something like a Nikon Coolscan V and I would feel like the film quality is the bigger issue then the scan quality. Then I'd say it highly depends on the film (with the 4490 I can see a very small difference between using Reala and Superia 400 for negative resolution when scanning, its there, just not much with what the 4490 can pull).</p>

<p>To expand, since you said color negative film, the supposed resolution of Reala is 140lp-mm with a high contrast area (such as a tree branch with blue sky behind or a power line with blue sky behind). That works out to 280dpmm or around 7112dpi. So if you want a 300dpi with the perfect scanner and perfect camera lens you'd have a print 33.6 inches long and 22.4 inches high (22x33 lets call it). So that is with a perfect lens, perfect scanner and a high contrast area of the image and 300dpi print. Since neither scanner nor lens are ever perfect you'd probably have more like 70-80% of the theoretical resolution (supposing a very good scanner and lens), your now to 16x24 in a high contrast area for 300dpi. Reala's rate resolution in low contrast areas is 63lp-mm or around 3200dpi. So to repeat everything for low contrast you have around 10x15' with those perfect lenses and scanners. Since the 63lp-mm is much more modest you'd probably see pretty close to that perfect scanner/lens numbers, maybe 90% to make up a number.<br>

Since most pictures are neither low contrast or high contrast pick an abitrary number in the middle for what the print would look good at. So for this made up math with Reala you could probably manage a 12x18 print and look really great from a pretty close distance (a foot or two) if you used a very good lens and a very good scanner.<br>

Some of the slide films and B&W films are even higher resolution with high contrast resolutions around 160lp-mm for Velvia/Provia and some of the slow B&W films are around 200-300lp-mm and the grain is low enough on those slow slide/B&W films that they can take advantage of those resolutions.<br>

If you are looking purely at the scanner capability, something like the Nikon Coolscan V which can actually do almost a full 4000dpi scan like it claims (test at around 3950dpi if memory serves, unlike the V750 which tested in around 2500dpi if I remember correctly) you'd be looking at 12x18 if the scene/film was capable for a 300dpi print.<br>

I've done prints at lower then 300dpi that looked just dandy. I can't tell much difference between 240dpi and 300dpi in a print unless I look at them side by side and it is a modest difference at best. I don't think I would feel comfortable printing below 240 dpi unless the viewing distance was pretty far.</p>

<p>I was quite pleased with a 16x20 print of a railroad yard taken from a bird's eye view under overcast skies. I used Kodak Gold 200 and had both the negatives and enlargement inexpensively done by an inexpensive mail order processor about a decade ago.</p>

<p>My favorite color print film, Fujicolor 200 will make grainless needlesharp 20x30's.</p>

<p>b/w: Delta 100 in rodinal 18X, TMX in Rodinal over 20X, Fuji Acro Rodinal over 20X, PXP in D76 over 20X, New TMY D76 about 16X, UFG over 16X, TriX D76 about 12X, with UFG close to 20X, Fuji Neo 400 with UFG over 18X</p>

<p>All of the 100 speed chromes will do 20X</p>

<p>Lynn</p>

<p>I have seen Galen Rowells work in person a number of years ago at his gallery in Bishop. Stopped out of curiosity one day while driving thru bishop though I have absolutely no interest in this type of cookie cutter photography (although very popular with the photo.net elves who edit these posts so I should be carefull what I say)<br>

The prints were quite sharp. However, you could tell they were decidedly NOT medium format. Stare at them a foot away and you will see clumping/grain/rough tonality at the big sizes.<br>

If they had been made with even a small medium format camera with a modern set of optics (i.e pentax 645/Bronica Etrsi/Contax 645 etc) they would have held up quite a bit better. Not a criticism. I'm sure 35mm was the best for his needs. Hiking with a ton of medium format gear can be taxing and you are forced to work with primes exclusively. Not nearly the flexibility of 35mm especially when it comes to optics. Chasing the "light" often does not lend itself to bigger gear.<br>

35mm drum scanned with lightjet/chromira printing still makes some beautiful prints up to around 16x20. I agree with Dave Henderson on this point. I wll not print mine larger than this if they are to be exhibited and usually display this stuff at 11x14.</p>

<p> </p>

<P>Actually most folks have it all BACKWARDS. IF one makes a print too small one actually looses details. Thus if one makes a 2x3" inch print; or even a 4x6 print one often LOOSES information; looses details. In court case work 35mm negatives are enlarged enough so details are not lost; maybe a 8x10 or 11x14 strip print. Printing can only hold so much details; if not enlarged enough the details cannot be supported in the print. On the other side 35mm is good enough for a 12x48 foot billboard. Amateurs often have no goals; no viewing distances, no clients with defined tasks; thus this question gets asked each week on photo.net. It is like asking how long one can go without bathing; stealing from ones employer; or diluting coffee. </P>

<p>this is a really great question - i've been wondering the same thing. i was hoping that i could ask the same question - but with a bit more specifics.<br>

could i print up to 5'x4' using 35mm? I know that technically it's possible - but i'm wondering what would be the method by which to do so?<br>

Would it be better to work from negatives, or from slides? Oddly enough, I'll be starting from digital and having the files transferred to film.<br>

I'm thinking of artists like bill henson or ryan mcginley - both shoot 35mm and print rather large.<br>

I'm aware i'll get lot of grain - but i rather like that. if you've seen a bill henson in person, they look more like paintings than photos, and the effect is rather stunning and dreamlike.<br>

but yeah, pros, cons, ideas on how to approach this?</p>

<p>thanks!</p>