Optimal printing size for 35mm

[jon_josh_chua]

Hi all,<br>

<br>

Can you all share your experience of 35mm on 11" X 14" print?<br>

I have comfortably print on 8" X 10" with no problem, would like to

<br>try 11" X 14" and beyond, would I encounter any loss of quality

and unacceptable grains?<br><br>

1)What is your best color negative film for 11" X 14" and beyond?<br>

2)What is the optimal print size for 35mm negative anyway?<br>

<br>

Thanks,<br>

Jon

[theumguy]

what speed film are you shooting? Kodak technical pan (iso 50) could be enlarged much

farther that say Fuji Superia 800....

[ronald_smith2]

The quality of the lens is as important as anything, here. In my experiences, 11x14 is about the safest size to make enlargements if you want to be ultra-critical and examine the prints up close. However, I have made even 20x30 posters using careful methods and they looked fine.

[jon_josh_chua]

I would use 400 for indoor shots and probably 200 or 160 for outdoor. Lens wise, most probably using prime lens 24mm, 50mm and 85mm. I had never went beyond 8 X 10, so 11 X 14 is something new to me. Any suggestion what is the best film for e.g. outdoor graduation portraits? Would there be any issues blowing up to 11 X 14.<br><br>

 

Thanks!

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Have you considered medium format? There are great deals now on used gear.

 

Robert

[captain1]

You didn't mention the film and printing methods you are using now. With fuji reala 100 and a good prime you will have no problem with big enlargements assuming it's processed properly or scanned properly. Use it in decent lighting or with fill flash. A little glimpse of sunlight brings out the glow in this film. It's good outdoors.

 

Take a roll so you can see how it responds and how you like it before you use it for the graduation portraits.

[SCL]

16 x 20 works fine at the appropriate viewing distance. IMHO the films aren't size dependent, but rather speed and color dependent. Most of my large color prints over the years came from Kodachromes and Kodacolors. My friends seem to be getting excellent results for large color prints from Velvia.

[francois_gauthier]

From a close distance, the thrue perfect 35mm (finest lens, film, development, exposure, use of tripod, etc.) can go up to 16x24 .

 

Since we never reach perfection, 11x14 is more like it but it still needs a pretty good neg or slide.

 

Uncropped 12x18 is as far as i go in 35mm color.

[jesse_de_la_llata]

I've never gone past 11x14" with film. Here's my experience: I did a photoshoot of a co-worker and his wife with Fuji NPH-400 using my 100mm f2.0 and a 50mm 1.8 (Canon) lenses. He enlarged several photos to 11x14" at a pro lab that I normally use and the prints were amazing. Although I haven't gone up to 16x20, my best guess is that I should still be fine. I'll probably do a test print at that size in the near future.

[craig_shearman1]

You can print any size you want. Whether it will be adequate depends on the sharpness of the negative and the viewing distance. Larger prints are typically viewed from longer distances so grain, lack of sharpness and other imperfections aren't as noticeable. You might stare at an 8x10 from six inches away but a 30x40 is going to be on the wall and looked at from 10 feet away (by anybody except photographers going up close to check out the grain.) Keep in mind that the 40-foot screen at the local movie theater is being projected from 35mm in what amounts to half-frame, but the individual still images are going by so fast you never get a good look at them, and you're watching from 50 fet away. Looks tack sharp from your seat but it's grainy and blurry as hell if you were to stand with your nose to the screen.

[pjlukasik]

I have 11 X 14 prints from Kodak Gold 100 that came out quite nicely. I've also made some

rather nice 11 X 14 and 16 X 20 prints from FP4+. Not gallery quality of course, but still

quite nice.

[pjlukasik]

I'm sorry, I forgot you were talking about color.

[ivan_dzo]

Big = Tripod

[RaymondC]

I agree with medium format too. They are cheaper than 35mm cameras.

With MF film, you get less shots per roll which if that is enof. For me and some pple 36 pix is a bit too much on many occasions.

Provided you go to a decent place, dip dunk machines for processing film is the same price for 35mm film or MF film. Less prints per roll for MF film thus the price is cheaper still for MF quality.

[jon_josh_chua]

Wow, Thanks guys.

[ldw]

Ray Said:<BR>

<I>I agree with medium format too. They are cheaper than 35mm cameras.</I>

<BR><BR>

I disagree with the above. I own a Nikon F100 and a Hasselblad 501CM. I am pretty sure you can buy an F100 or a F4/F5 for much less than a Hassy and lens. <BR><BR>As for the broader discussion, you can print 20X30 with fine grain 35mm film (e.g. Velvia 100F). If you find that large prints with 35mm don't cut it, then maybe look into MF, but I wouldn't just jump to MF without considering investments, etc.