Starting to Print from MF ... Sizes?

I'm shooting a Contax 645 and Zeiss lenses. I always use a tripod and 2 second delay with

mirror lockup and am careful with focussing so most of my shots are pretty sharp.

 

I'm not printing my own stuff yet. Getting it done at Hollands in Austin using Ilfochrome

and Chromira processes. My first question is how big? In other's experience what is the

limit (given my desire for the best quality prints) of the expected print size given 645?

 

My second question is about standard frame sizes vs standard print sizes. Again we are

not talking inkjet paper sizes here. I'm having trouble finding the best accomodation

between the size transparency I use, the standard papers labs use .... and the standard

frame sizes readily available.

 

Anybody know of good info regarding this? I have worked out that certain full step

enlargements of 645 film mostly fit Holland's paper sizes:ie a 7x enlargement of a 645

frame is very close to 11 x 16 inches. A 9x is very close to 16 x 20 inches. Most others

crop a lot of ones transparencies or don't fit standdard paper sizes untill you get to 18x

which is near a perfect 30 x 40 inches however that's not exactly practical or even

doable.

 

My worse problems regard 6 x 7 and 6 x 8 and 6 x 9 cm. I get these from crops of my 4

x 5 trannies. I'm lost here.

 

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Based on Kodak's numbers, (Print Grain Index,PGI) an 8x from a 35mm neg(Portra 160), has the same grain as an 16x from a 6x6 neg.

 

So just as a 35mm negs can be blown larger than 8x, Medium format negs can go larger than 16x. I have seen 30x and 40x's from properly focused, and properly exposed 645 negs(especially color).

I'd expect very different answers from Ilfochrome and Chromira. For the Ilfochrome I'd certainly expect pretty good 16"x 12" and maybe 20"x 16" from your best transparencies. My experience is based on Type R prints that are closely related to Ilfochromes, and colleagues' Ilfochromes from labs and own darkrooms

 

From a Chromira I have a lot of experience from WCI and I'm absolutely confident that with a drum scan and good file creation work that around 36" x 27" is comfortably possible, and maybe bigger.

 

Paper for the Chromira tends to come in big rolls, the labs gang up their prints to make best use of the paper, and so the concept of standard sizes is less relevent. Labs price lists often set out standard sizes but they are able (and in my experience willing) to quote and supply intermediate sizes.

 

Side by side and assuming similar levels of competence on both routes, I'd be likely to strongly prefer the Chromira version to an Ilfochrome, particularly if I got a small proof print first.

Thanks guys. That's good info. Hoping for more.

 

It's a real mystery to me what goes on behind the counter ... and through the other door

of a photo lab. A whole new world I need to understand. The people that take your stuff

in are usually not all that helpful. If my prints start to move ..big IF ... I think I will need a

sitdown with the manager.

regarding the enlargment size, everyone's opinion of what is good or acceptable varies. Some people will say that you can make a good 30x40" print from a 35mm neg, obviously others will disagree. What is acceptable to you can only be determined by you. <p> The equipment and techniques you are using will certainly maximize your negative's potential, but how far that will go is entirely subjective. <p> I am of the opinion that bigger prints are not always better and that the desire for the biggest prints possible is understandable, but sometimes a given image will actually be better in much smaller sizes. Many of the greater photographers of the past (again this is fairly subjective) rarely printed bigger than 11x14 (like Weston and I think Strand). This may have been a practical choice rather than esthetic, however it is a clear example that bigger prints are not necessary to be a successful photographer. The "wow factor" of big prints wears thin pretty fast for anyone that has seen a fair amount of good photography, and the entire presentation of the image becomes more important. Big prints dont mean anything about your photography. Some images work well in large sizes, others will be better in smaller sizes. <p> To make up your own mind, get prints made in a few different sizes, including the big one, and seriously consider the quality and effect of the print size. No one can tell you "how big?"<p>Todd Schoenbaum<br><a href ="http://www.celluloidandsilver.com">Celluloid and Silver</a>

Hi Scott, I am quoting from a Book written by Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz titled" Medium and Large Format Photography " in there the enlargement ranges are given as follows with a perfect enlarging lens:

35mm- 6X9inch to 12X18 inch

645- 9X11 to 18X22

6X7- 11X14 to 22X28

4X5- 16X20 to 32X40 inch.

These numbers are based on line pair per millimeter for the film sizes etc.. It gets technical from there and I am not qualified to go any further. The above is for your information intended as a guide line as considered by very experinced photographers. Others may have different opinions.

Regards Peter

Hey, Scott -- I'm in Austin too. Do you have a website? Or showing your stuff anywhere?

Scott:

 

I have printed 24x30 inch from 6x9 digitally with excellent results. At this size I am just starting to see the limits of the lens and film combination (Apo-Grandagon/Velvia100F). So I suspect with your Zeiss optics and 645, you will be very happy up to at least 18x24 image area on 20x24 paper, assuming the scanning and digital work flow (particularly final sharpening at output resolution) are done well.

Wow, somebody is still printing Ifochromes? Anyway, I'd advise looking into a good digital printing shop, the reason being it greatly expands your size / clarity / color correction potential. During the period when I was transitioning to digital printing, I had several prints made by a local digital shop using my dark room prints as a guides. I can only think now of one image out of about 10 that I preferred the darkroom print in the end. As far as size, I believe a medium format neg scanned on an Imacon should be able to print up to 30 inches without problems, probably higher if you got a drum scan. Just a thought.

35mm is often good enough for a giant highway billboard; 14x48 ft; or 20x60ft. (14.26x14.6 meters; 6.1x18.3 meters) Here the viewing distances are large. <BR><BR>If you print a 30x40 prints from a 8x10' 4x5; MF; or 35mm camera; you will view the print usually close up at times.<BR><BR> The 8x10 and 4x5 originals make a smoother tonal loking image.<BR><BR>The depth of field is less in the large format images; than MF or 35mm.<BR><BR>In mapping work; tiny details are often needed in a print; and we would use a 12x18 negative; to make a 30x40 print.

Find a print shop that has samples of large prints; done with many different size negatives. Here I have 30x40 prints done with cellphone digital to 4x5 negatives.

Learned a lot from this thread. I think I must presume upon my local lab to give me a

tour. My last order with them was over six hundred dollars and I thought I picked up a bit

of extra enthusiasm from the counter man. I buy all my film from them too.

 

I know they just bought an Imacon scanner. I'm so dumb I didn't realize my

transparencies were being printed digitally untill just recently. Really makes me wonder if

they have anybody more trained than the counter people working that scanner.

 

Darn. Here I thought that learning to make the camera do what I wanted it to do was the

hard part and now I have to get involved in all this technical stuff. If I have to get this

involved in the printing maybe I should just buy a 343 and a 7600 and pay a consultant to

set it up and tutor me for a few days.

 

Thanks for all the help guys. I really really appreciate it.

 

PS:As to what and where my work is. It's all landscape and it's now hanging in a local

testaurant wayyyyyyy out here in the country (we do get a few tourists) and that's probably

where it belongs as I am NOT ready for prime time yet. None of it is on the web. Sheesh,

I'm not sure it looks good enough in a real print .... I'm not about to shrink it down to 6 x

9 inches and 72 pixels.