120 Film Enlargement

How large can a 120 negative be blown up without losing any image quality?

several factors involved here, film iso, developer, camera, lens, tripod or no, mirror lock up or no, negative size: 645,66,67,69 etc, with my rb (6x7) shooting iso 200 i can easily go 16x20.

btw i was talking about black and white.

The biggest print I've personally made from a MF negative is 20" X 24" (from about 2/3 of a 6 X 6 negative). My enlargements that size show little grain and look quite sharp. I'm sure it's possibleto print MUCH larger, although wrestling 20 X 24 sheets of FB paper is enough of an athletic feat for me that I will rarely print that size.

There have been lots of articles and sections from whole books written about this. As previously mentioned there are lots of variables.

 

In my experience of using Velvia on 645, 6x6 and 6x7 cameras.....12x16 is the limit from an optical enlargement from 645 (before its starts going down-hill), 6x6 is 16x16, 6x7 gives 20x16 easily.

 

The way to go at bigger size enlargements is to get a scan and light-jet print where the computer will help out and you'll be able to get much larger digitally rendered prints. Ive sucessfully enlarged 6x6 to 20x20" with great quaility this way.

Let's assume the following:

 

Mamiya RZ67 Pro II w 110mm lens

Kodak Portra 160 NC

Shot on a tripod with mirror lock-up

Okay, so about 16x20 - 20x20 without losing any quality?

 

Now I am a bit confused. I always thought medium format was used to make prints much larger than this. From my understanding, most people print 20x30 from 35mm and 8MP cameras with virtually no loss to image quality (at least not visible to the naked eye). I would assume that 120 would be able to give nice quality poster size prints (i.e. the size of movie posters found in your local movie theatre).

J.,

You're looking for a quantitative answer where there is none. For one thing, it depends

on the subject. Photos with bold, high-contrast shapes stand up to enlargement better

than landscapes with lot of busy details and sky that can show grain. The other thing is

that what is perfectly acceptable for one person isn't for another. Everyone has

different eyes.

Referring back to my post - an 8mp camera will give about an 8x10" print at 300dpi and above this size, the computer needs to interpolate (add data to fill-in the blanks). You can apply the same process to MF, but you get a much bigger print (20x20") before you need to apply digital techniques to boost the size.

Thanks for the responses. This makes sense to me now.

 

J

I have seen several meters by several meters prints from 35mm negatives. You never look at those prints from close distance,

so shawing grain is not problem for those prints.

When half size cameras (Olympus Pen) were very popular, many photos

on display at Olympus sponsored photo exebits, many photos were two meter high. Most of prints were enlarged with very basic enlargers and projected side way in large rooms like auditoriums.

Hmm. Pop Photo's SQF results apply here too. The limit for enlargement of film shot with good technique etc. varies somewhat with the lens and emulsion/processing, but is around 10x. Larger than that won't bear close scrutiny.

 

That said, I have some transparencies, 6x6 as it happens, that are soft and that still look good printed fairly large (but not 10x) even at a near distance. A good image can trump softness, sharpness isn't all.

I have sold 40X60s shot with a hassey ELM, 150mm, on tripod with old VPS film in the 1980, the prints looked great from a normal viewing distance. 40X60 cropped from a 6X6 neg would really be a 60X60....

This is a strange question. The image consists out of grain particles and/or colour

clouds. As long as you find ways to enlarge these dots properly there is no real

degration of the image. Unless, of course, you would call any loss of apparent

sharpness "loss of image quality". If the latter is the case you cannot enlarge at all.

 

It all depends on what you call "loss of image quality" and de size at which the

image is projected inside your eye. When you enlarge a photo to the size of the

statue of liberty and observe it from a boat at sea it might look just as good as when

you make no enlargement at all and view the photo in your hand.

"Okay, so about 16x20 - 20x20 without losing any quality?

 

Now I am a bit confused. I always thought medium format was used to make prints much larger than this. From my understanding, most people print 20x30 from 35mm and 8MP cameras with virtually no loss to image quality (at least not visible to the naked eye). I would assume that 120 would be able to give nice quality poster size prints (i.e. the size of movie posters found in your local movie theatre)."

 

Alll things considered, about 10x is about the outer limit of things, no matter the negative size, if you are printing for a quality optical enlargement. After that, the image starts to degrade badly at close viewing distances. Don't look too closely at those 20 x 30 inch prints from digital cameras either. They do not hold up well under close examination. Most of the 20 x 24 prints I've seen from even larger digital images really stink, with all sorts of artifacts frem interpolation, etc,start becoming noticeable if you know what to look for. Viewed from a distance, say 2x the diagonal measurement of the print though, any enlargement can look OK as long as it is done right. As for those movie posters, they're not so hot looking up close.

I have had super CIbachrome (Ilfochrome) by optical enlarger up to 19,6" x 19,6 (because inItaly we have centimeter, 1 inch=2,54 centimeter) and 19,6 x 27,5 from velvia and provia 6x6 with Hasselblad and zeiss lenses (tripod and mirror up). You must look very carefully to see grain and you have a superb level of detail.

I have had print on canvas (with scan) up to 1m x 1m with no grain but obviously you do not have the same level of detail on canvas.

You can increase detail on canvas by enlarging more, reducing the size of the canvas structure relative to the image detail.<br>So go bigger! ;-)

Kodak routinely made large prints for expos, etc. Often 4X6 feet and bigger... These were usually mounted up near the ceiling and were seen from 30, 40, . . . 80, . . . 100 feet away and they looked perfect...As long as the viewing distance from the larger prints is proportional to the normal viewing distance for an 8X10, it will look sharp... The important ratio here is the area of the print to the viewing distance... Since area goes up fast, viewing distance has to increase fast as we enlarge to megaprint size...

 

Now, a Pantomic X neg from a MF camera can be enlarged considerably more than one from 35mm 1600 ASA film... Also, bold shapes stand up to enlargement better than fussy details..

and, lens quality does matter... A high quality lens of a 35mm camera will show fine detail better than that on a 4X5 or 8X10, when enlarged, say 10X respectively... What saves the MF and LF neg is that the enlargement ratio for a 16X20 print is considerably less than for 135 film...

 

The devil is in the details..

 

denny

There is that "35 mm lenses are better" thingy again!<br>As a general rule, they are not. They have to be, to make up for the smaller format, yes. And some are. But some are not.<br>So better forget about this misconception. ;-)<br><br>Erik de G. gave the correct answer. When you make bigger prints, you also look at them from a larger distance.<br>So make a print the size of the moon, from a 35 miniature-format negative, and it still looks o.k. when viewed from a distance an 8th of that between here and the moon.

Thank you Q.G. for your input on canvas, interesting and very logic indeed.

I up-dated my yesterday's post on light leak with the result on the 2 rolls developed yesterday, please take a look, your input are so usefull... thank you.

Diego

Apply the rules of 35MM to the linear inches of the larger format. So if an 11"X14" print is the limit for decent 35MM prints. This equals approximately a 30" print from a 6cm negative. Of course 30" prints are normally viewed from 2 feet away, so at normal viewing distances one can make 40",50" or even 60" prints from MF negs.

 

I have seen carefully exposed and printed 6x7 negs printed 60" from Kodak Plus-X that looked sharp. The rules of thumb can always be stretched by excellent technique.

I shoot with an RZ (both 110mm and 50mm ULD) and I scan with my Coolscan 9000. I shoot mainly Provia, Velvia and TMAX on XTOL 60/40. I have printed dozens of picture 36 and 40 inches wide and they have no discernible grain or lack of detail no matter how close you want to pixel peep.

 

Unless you develop them in plain orange juice (it can be done) and drop them in sand before you scan them, you can print 48 inches across without concern.

 

To give you a reference, the detail is superior on a 40 inch wide print of the RZ than on an 11x14 print of my 40D.

With prints that large you're really getting into the large format arena.

If you still see "no discernible grain or lack of detail no matter how close you want to pixel peep"?<br>I think not, Frank. We're still firmly in the medium format arena. ;-)

Hi Dennis

 

"The important ratio here is the area of the print to the viewing distance... Since

area goes up fast, viewing distance has to increase fast as we enlarge to

megaprint size..."

 

Umm area has no relation ship to the enlargement of a negative, it is by chance a

by product of a non applicable math calculation.

 

The only controlling dimension is any straight line on the negative, multiplied ( or

dived for reduction ) to produce an image of that line on the paper. Take a 6x6,

6x7, 6x8 et al. the simplest line to show this with is the shortest side, about, 56

mm which at 10 X is 560 mm on the paper, giving 6x6 a print of 560 x 560 an area

of 313600, 6x7 a 560 x 690 an area of 386400, 6x8 a 560 x 770 an area of 431200

for full frame enlargement.

 

Your dots per inch, line pairs per mm and your grain are all expanded ( or

contracted for reduction ) as straight lines not as an area.

 

HI J.

 

Every thing else will also influence the maximum enlargement from the taking

lens, film flatness, flare etc, through to quality of the enlarger, stability of enlarger,

enlarger lens and of course the film, paper, chemistry and the style of the print,

some very grainy prints work very well others, the slightest grain and they die.

 

The main thing is not to worry but to enjoy and experiment till you find something

that makes you feel " I did that +++ "

 

Best Regards

 

Rob.