Old negative odd size need to get prints

<p>I have a 20 year old, odd size negative that I need to get prints made. Where can I find some place that can make prints from this negative?</p>

It would be a helpful start to actually measure the size of the negative. It's possible that what is "odd size" to you may be a standard format. Is it a black and white negative, or a color one (the latter will look orange, because of a mask built into the film)?</p>

<p>Finally, it's increasingly difficult to get old negatives printed anywhere. You might try taking it to a local camera store or even Walmart and see if they can send it off somewhere?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It's also frustrating that people join to make one post, and never ever check back to see if anyone has bothered to answer. For the record, I'm betting that this will be one of those cases.</p>

<p>Dang, I really am getting to be a grumpy old man.....</p>

<p>filmforclassics.com sells film in many old formats. They have references to processing services. </p>

<p>My approach for prints from old negatives is to scan them with a Kodak 3570 scanner. This scanner was built to handle sizes up to 2.25 x 3.25 inches. I modifed a film holder to handle 2.75 x 4.25 negs (116 and 616 formats). I have also scanned 4x5 images in sections and combined them in Photoshop. The attached waterfall pic is an example.</p><div></div>

<p>http://www.filmforclassics.com no longer sells film to people from there site... only through dealers.</p>

<p>First off, assuming the film has been developed, it's not a big deal: you just use a larger-size glass negative carrier in an enlarger or scanner, and printing (or scanning is printing) is the same as usual.</p>

<p>Also, if the film is only twenty years old, it's not likely to be that odd a size.</p>

<p>But if you can (carefully!) measure the exact width of the film part (itself) of the roll (if it's in a roll) and the area that shows the image, we can probably figure out what size it is and make a more specific suggestion.</p>

<p>P.S.</p>

<p>Maybe I'm just feeling unusually easy-going tonight, but I don't share JDM's annoyance. If Joe Q. Public has a photography-related problem and comes here once, looking for an answer, but otherwise has no interest in talking photography with us, that doesn't bother me. I might go more out of my way to try to help somebody who has really contributed to photo.net, but that's not the issue. If you don't want to help with a one-timer's problem, you're of course free to ignore it.</p>