how big can I print from 35mm film?

<p>having just taken up shooting film with my Nion Fe2 I would like to know how big I can print 35mm colur negative at 100, 200, 400 and 800 iso while still having a sharp picture without loss of detail? I know for digital i simply followed the formula using the height and width of the picture in pixels divided by 300 to give me the largest usable print but having never printed pics from 35mm film before I am lost? also what will give me the best quality prints- printing direct from the negative or scanning at a very high resoltion and THEN printing from the resulting JPEG or TIFF file?</p>

<p>Kodak once made HUGE murals for Grand Central Station in NYC from 35mm slides.</p>

<p>There are lots of variables here.<br>

If you are actually printing from the 35mm color negatives, you will not quite get the resolution of old Kodachrome slides, but there are technical difficulties having to do with enlarger limitations. For really big prints you may have to turn the Enlarger head sideways and focus onto a distant wall, or some such.<br>

If you are scanning, how dense a scan are you going to make? 4000 dpi?<br>

The kind of film makes another big difference. Some color negative films are very fine grain, others not so much.<br>

How far away are the prints to be viewed? What would be formless at 10cm will perhaps look sharp at 6 meters. This applies to either digital or film prints. Those murals in NYC were viewed from a long way off.<br>

What you need to figure out is why you need big prints and how they are going to be viewed, then perhaps someone can say that "at 6 meters such and such a resolution print will look fine"<br>

Otherwise, just experiment and see. There are also things like Photoshop plugins that will allow you to get better looking products out of even fairly pixelated small files--presumably these would work in stretching out what would look good from a 35mm negative.</p>

<p>This can really vary by the exact film brand/model itself. Kodak Portra 800 would give you a much better result than Kodak Max 800. Tipically, the lower the film speed, the smaller the grain, the bigger you can get nice enlargements. I usually try to use the slowest speed possible. You should be able to go to atleast 11X14 with these films but maybe not the 800. Even if you don't own a slide projector, I highly reccomend some Ektachrome or Kodachrome slide film. Slides just act as negatives and you can get stunning prints from them!! I am not sure what you use for a lab, but you can even send slide film out through WalMart send out service to be processed. A slide projector can be obtained cheap at a yard sale, on Ebay, or at thrift store cheap! What films are you using right now?</p>

<p>right now i am using Fuli reala 100, 400 and 800 iso..I do not have my own lab and have been using costco to scan the firsst couple of rolls onto cd...so far the results have been mixed, outdoor photos with good ambient light turned out great but the indoor photos where I used no flash as i wanted to see how my nikon 50mm f/1.8 would perform turned out some rather garish colurs to say the least...I am learning!</p>

<p>Well outdoor film is balanced for 5400K roughly, the interior tungsten lighting in most homes is 2800K, in other words it will look almost orange. Add in cfl bulbs, etc, and your lighting is a nightmare to get decent images.<br>

Under exposing colour neg film will make it rather grainy. Decent negs make nice 11x14 prints.</p>

<p>Your shooting technique is a HUGE variable as well, a decent lens, tripod(even in bright sunlight), and proper exposure will help a lot in getting nice sharp large prints. Mess up on any point, and you will have issues.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Patrick</p>

<p> I agree, the Kodak Max 800 sucks. But, their Portra 800, rated @ 640, gives superb results that are capable of enlarging quite large. It's a fantastic film.</p>

<p>Russ</p>

<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>

<p>The tip on Portra 800 is a good if you want to make prints at higher ISO ... I've used it in both 35mm and 120 formats and had it pushed to 1200 ISO. </p>

<p>As far as direct printing or digital. You can probably get a little larger with digital IF you scan with a high end scanner. The problem becomes getting the grain (noise) reduced without affecting detail. You might be able to get to 20x24 - but, I've never been satisfied with the results. This includes the following film: Kodachrome 64, Kodachrome 200, E100G, Provia, Provia 400, Porta 160, Portra 400, Portra 800.</p>

<p>Viewing distance is also a factor. A big print (11 x 14 or more) is often acceptable if the viewing distance is sufficient. On the other hand, if the view is going to practically his nose in it, then an 8 x 10 might be the limit. Besides grain, the actual sharpness is important. If depth of field is too shallow to get all of the subject sharp that will be emphasized in bigger prints. Camera motion must also be addressed. Even at fairly fast shutter speeds a tripod can really make a difference. You might want to invest in a good magnifier to inspect your negatives. Scrutinize them over a bright, but diffuse light source rather than a light bulb as the smaller the light source the more the grain will be emphasized.</p>

<p>You should try some Kodak Portra (negative film) and Ektachrome (slide film). You will have much better results than with Fuji Relea</p>

<p>Depends, are you using a projection method (darkroom) or are you scanning and printing.<br>

If the latter, it all depends on the scan to some degree. So the higher the scan resolution the larger the print that can be made.<br>

As for darkroom prints, ive made great prints of a half of a negative on an 11x14 so you should be able to go easily up to more than twice that size.i probably would use a larger format for anything above 16x 20 but ive never made a print that big.<br>

If you really want to make massive prints try a 4x5 or 8x10 camera.</p>

Fujicolor Superia 100, 50 mm f/1,8 Nikkor at f/5,6, tripod: a laser lab RA-4 enlargement (Durst Lambda) from a 5400 dpi scan at 200 dpi resolution = 66 × 99 cm, 27-fold enlarged, looks fine.

 

Superia 800, scanned at 5400 dpi and "optimized" with Noise Ninja, still enables high-quality CMYK offset printing at 300 dpi = 49 × 66 cm.

<p>The biggest I've personally made were 30"x40," but they were made using K25 shot with a Leica M camera using a Focotar enlarging lens and printer on R3 paper, something you're not going to easily be able to duplicate with your Nikon. And the prints looked amazingly sharp and clear BTW, even up close.</p>

<p>There is no simple answer, but if forced to give a simple answer, in my view, for color prints, 35mm is good for roughly:<br>

11x14 inches, with the finer-grained 100- and 160-speed films;<br>

8x10 inches, with the better 400-speed films; and<br>

5x7 to 8x10 inches, with the better 800-speed films.<br>

But it really depends a lot on your tolerance for grain and unsharpness, the suject, the viewing distance, etc.</p>

<p>Your bit about dividing the pixels by 300 is way too simplistic. For many camera and subjects, dividing by 180 is fine. Also, you can scan film at any resolution, but the film has inherent limits in how fine a detail it can record. If you look at the 35mm color films' data sheets, the MTF curves fall to 50% response anywhere from about 1800 ppi (35 lp/mm, Astia 100F) to 3600 ppi (70 lp/mm, Superia Reala 100). Above that you have some response, but it is usually down to 25% or less at only slightly higher resolution, and start resolving more grain. A 4000 ppi dedicated film scanner will get almost all of the detail, with rare expceptions. A 2700 ppi dedicated film scanner will get a big majority of the detail a big majority of the time. A flatbed is subject to a wide range of issues, but most people who have used them report that few if any achieve real resolutions close to their claimed optical resolutions.</p>

<p>As for what will give you the highest quality results, it depends on the processes used, but generally, for color pictures, scanning can produce better results. But there's a huge range of scanning quality, from drum scans at a high-end pro lab like West Coast Imaging to flatbed scans at home by an inexperienced operator. And there's a huge range of optical printing quality, although fewer and fewer places do it (other than amateurs with B&W darkrooms).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The BS about Duratrans prints in Grand Central is meaningless...unless you're having Kodak make the prints for you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And a good morning to you too, Steve.<br>

You apparently don't think that viewing distance matters much, eh?<br>

Resolution of the original is irrelevant?<br>

Well....</p>

 

<p>lens quality, film quality, viewing distance, and your handiwork all come into play. I have a 24x36 framed from a shot taken with an FE2, 55mm micro and fuji 200 that looks great. But it is simple and not incredibly detailed. However, I also have an incredibly detailed shot plus-x through DR5, fe2 50mm f1.8 that doesn't withstand enlargement beyond 11x17.......and a shot on plus-x that withstands being blown to 24x36.....it's never simple.</p>

<p><img src="http://i40.tinypic.com/ae2zar.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://i40.tinypic.com/ae2zar.jpg" alt="" /> http://i40.tinypic.com/ae2zar.jpg 24x36 fuji 200</p>

<p><img src="http://i44.tinypic.com/2nlwlqq.jpg" alt="" /><br>

plus-x that won't go beyond 11 inches.</p>

<p>11 x 14"</p>

John, first off, its great that you are experimenting with film! Above all else, you simply must try a roll of slide film. And pick up a used projector on the Bay or from Craigslist. Seeing your projected slides blown up to 5 feet wide or larger for the firts time is an experience up there with sex. The colrs, sharpness, resolution, and just plain IMPACT will blow you away. Seriously, negatives can be good, but slide will give you maximum differentiation/something unique that digital cant. As mentioned, any Walmart or Kmart sendout film service can process your slides for about 6 bucks and a week.

 

 

Also, slides in general scan much cleaner (less grain, and sharper) than negative film. Only the professional/commercial scanners like the Noritsu used by Costco do negatives really well. They were designed for negative film, wheras the Nikon Coolscans and similar home user scanners are optimized for slides.

 

 

As for the myth of slides being hard to shoot, thats only true if you have no meter in your camera. Even inexpensive modern point and shoots like the Olympus Stylus Epic shoot slide with no problems.

 

 

Anyways, back to your original question. In general, you can get excellent looking 11x14's from any 800 speed or slower film from Kodak or Fuji (except Kodak Max 800). I even have a 12x18 portrait from Costco that looks fantastic, from Fuji Superia 800!

 

 

However, the type of scene also dictates maximum size. Landscapes are probably the most demanding, as they have tons of intricate detail, while portraits have large smooth areas with little detail. I have found that for potratits, a 6 megapixel file (or Costcos 2000x3000 scans) will let you print at any size you want up - the resizing algorythms used by minilabs are that good nowadays. However, with landscapes, the more resolution, the better.

 

 

In the end, you must try yourself and see, But I think you will see that perfect 11x14's from negative film are easily attained, even with fast film.

<p>I like being able to get up close to my prints, because I never know who else is going to do that and if they look ok to me from a foot away, I guess that'll do for others . </p>

<p>Following that, the max for me from 35mm negatives would be 14" x 11", and that requires a high quality original, tripod mounted, and nicely exposed. From a drum scan I'd be happy to go a size or two larger, so up to 20" x 16" if absolutely everything is close to perfect- original. scan, and print process. </p>

<p>FWIW, I've had success with high resolution scans (courtesy of NCPS in CA) of Fuji Velvia 100 35mm. I've enlarged it to 11"x14" with no issues. The 8"x10" prints from the 14MP scans look even better!</p>

<p>Much depends on view distance, subject matter, film and technique. Using good technique and slow film like Velvia or EFke 25, I have no problem going to 13X19. At this size the prints are sharp and detailed, even viewed at 12 inches away. This is the largest my Canon Pro -9000 will print. My workflow is simple. All scans are done on the Coolscan 5000. </p>

<p>Hope that helps<br>

Anthony</p>

<p>****One can make a 12x48 foot Billboard from 35mm.<br>

<br /> ****Thus this daily question has no real answer.<br>

<br /> One might also be shooting a fine detailed map and only a 8x10 small print can be done.<br /> The question is like wanting a specific black and white answer about how much one can dilute milk; OJ; Beer; lemonaid; tea.</p>

<p>A critical user can *sense* the lack of quality.</p>

<p>****Unless a viewing distance is known; there is no answer on how big a print can be made from 35mm.</p>

<p>Unless one knows how close you are going to sit to another; there is no answer on how often the chap needs to bathe too.</p>

<p>Closeness might have a tighter need for quality.</p>

<p>A Farmer might bath more often when with his wife for a dance; or at church; then tending the hogs.<br>

<br /> *****Run some experiments for your type of images; for your type of viewing distances; that is what really matters.<br>

<br /> In microfilm Aperture cards that are sprocketless B&W 35mm film; we use to blow them back to 30x42" all day with line work images; BUT they were shot when there were standards for minimum type size on a E size drawing; today some CAD chaps have turn out crap; like widths 0.001 and 0.002 thick; type 1/32 or 1/64 tall; on a E size drawing; ie McDuffus stuff; a SOB to scan or shoot.</p>

<p>With Our old microfilm blow back camera I use to make 42x63 inch greyscale prints on Kodak Super-X; it had a 60mm F5.6 Schneider Componon-M a variant for microfilm blowback; ie mural ratios. Here one was making about a 45x enlargement. Thus if one could get say 45 line pairs on film; one got about 1 on the print; thus it looked great about 3 to 10 feet away. A criteria from the 1930's is say 7 line pairs on a small print at say 12 inches; this would be 7 feet for the poster.</p>

<p>****In pro work their is a specific goal; a 12x48 ft billboard that is 300 feet away; an airport Kisok backlit transparencey that one gets only as close as 5 feet; or a slide show for an XYY digital projector; or an actors 8x10 headshot print. In amateur work few folks have goals; fewer folks consider viewing distance; thus one gets a mess of answers.</p>

<p>In pro work a chap might want a saw to cut 4x4's in one wack; in amateur work one might want a saw because you want one; and two cuts is ok for a 4x4.:)</p>

<p>***Take existing prints you have and pencil on the back what the enlargement ratio is; then compare them at different distances. A dumb 4x6 " print from 35mm from Walmart is thus about 4x; probably about 4.3X to 4.4 X ish since the 35mm short dimension is about 24mm on most cameras; ie 24/25.4= .945 inches ie 4/.945=4.23<br>

<br /> A 16x20 from a 4x5 is just abit over a 4x enlargement too; thus it looks great. From 35mm it would be over a 16X enlargement; where warts show! IF one gets close to it.<br>

<br /> Both the 10" radial arm saw and the 10" BigFoot hand circular saw can bed used to cut/make fence posts. One could always get real close and see that the Bigfoots blade makes a rougher cut; or maybe birds will have their bottoms roughened up sitting on the post tops? But for me it was easier to cut them with a giant hand circular saw. The cuts are OK; the VIEWING DISTANCE is many feet away; thus roughness being slightly higher is not a problem. If it is a problem for the birds; maybe it is good; they can make their deposits elsewhere.</p>

<p>The 10" Bigfoot uses a 10" blade; but it has a diamond knockout like a smaller worm drive saw. One can walk into a Home depot of Lowes and sometimes find an old stock 10" blade with a diamond; today they are mailorder; or you file out the diamond by hand. IF one asks the box store chap for this item; the ALL are instant experts; and preach that this blade doesnt exist; with great authority; it is really quite funny.</p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/TOOLS/P1010002BIGFOOT.jpg?t=1235313103" alt="" width="800" height="600" /></p>

<p>John-</p>

<p>Everybody's going to have a different answer. Mine is "as big as you want to". Especially with that Fuji 100-200 film, you can easily get good results unless somebody along the way does something stupid like scan the film at normal settings and get a 1,500x1,000 image which then gets printed on 24x36 (which would still look fine if viewed from 10 feet).</p>

<p>BTW, two other things:<br>

300DPI is overkill in many situations. You don't want lower than 300 in a 4x6 print but in large than 8x10 then requirements start to drop. Something being hung on a wall can easily be 150. I've heard of billboards at 2 DPI.<br>

Also, when getting large format prints done, remember tha "Giclee" is French for "Inkjet".</p>

<p>I once had a 100 foot roll of 35mm Tri-X that made grainless 11X14s, but I never bought another roll that good......Well, I had to put my 2 cents worth in.......Jim</p>