maximum size print from 35x24mm frame ?

[matthew_newton]

<p>YMMV is the exact answer.<br>

You've seen everyone elses responses. In my opinion, with the scanner I have, Epson 4490, I wouldn't print bigger than 8x12 normally. With a really great scanner and proper tripod technique and one of my sharper lenses and something like Reala or Ilford XP2 super I wouldn't hesitate to print at 12x18 from a 35mm negative.<br>

If I was viewing the image from a good distance, such as 5+ft at all times 12x18 wouldn't shame me from one of my normal negative scans. I agree that at 5x enlargement, or about 5x7 you have the maximum quality you can, more or less.<br>

Of course that is if viewing at a very close distance, say arms length or a little less (2ft). Since I normally don't stand 2ft away from most of my pictures an 8x12 doesn't bother me in the least, and heck even at arms length or less it still looks pretty good from most of my Epson 4490 scans. On something I'd be mounting up high on a wall, or where viewing distance couldn't be close bigger would no problem at all. At 5ft a 12x18 is probably going to look about as good as an 8x12 at 2ft would or even a little better.<br>

I regularly print in 6x9 and 8x12 sizes and love the prints. I have only twice printed in larger than 8x12 sizes.</p>

[dangoldman]

<p>i have a 12X18 print from Kodachrome 64, scanned with an outdated Nikon IV scanner. i could have gone more. i also have done prints at 8X10 that didnt hold at all. really jut too many variables...</p>

[sanjoy_chakraborty]

<p>With direct optical printing (like Ilfochromes), you can produce amazing 12x18 prints from a well exposed 35mm fine grained film like Velvia. I have personally also had some of my Velvia slides printed this way to 16x24 with very good results, and even 20x30, which look good when viewed from a few feet away, but show the results of enlargement when examined closely.<br>

Instead of printing optically, you can have your film scanned in professionally using a high end drum scanner for a cost of about $50, then enlarge the resulting digital file in PS and print at 20x30 with acceptable results.<br>

Ultimately, if you want a high end print at very large sizes (24x36) and above, you will have to use a larger format.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=5928148">sanjoy chakraborty</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Apr 14, 2010; 11:45 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>With direct optical printing (like Ilfochromes), you can produce amazing 12x18 prints from a well exposed 35mm fine grained film like Velvia. I have personally also had some of my Velvia slides printed this way to 16x24 with very good results, and even 20x30, which look good when viewed from a few feet away, but show the results of enlargement when examined closely.<br />Instead of printing optically, you can have your film scanned in professionally using a high end drum scanner for a cost of about $50, then enlarge the resulting digital file in PS and print at 20x30 with acceptable results.<br />Ultimately, if you want a high end print at very large sizes (24x36) and above, you will have to use a larger format.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Acceptable results? The scan will maintain sharpness better than an optical print. Scanning with a scanner like an Aztek, with the optimal aperture setting, and 8000 ppi will offer more than "acceptable" results. It will offer a native file of 360+ dpi on print, with better grain, and more control over the final result.</p>

<p> </p>

 

[panoramic pei]

<p>A Kodak Technical Rep. once attended the Photo Shoots & checked quality control in the labs years ago. I was a Commercial Product Photographer utilizing a range of Film Formats from 35mm - 8X10 for printing catalogs & everything else for Mattel & Furniture & other various companies. No internet then. His advice was 15X the Film Format, therefore a 24x36mm Frame would be 14.4" X 21.6" or round it out to 16 X 20 with a excellent quality original. Presently, I basically use the same rule for Scanning originals also.</p>

[robert_meyer3]

<p>Like most of the responses, I had been happy with 8x10's or 11x14's in a pinch from my 35mm negatives, but was never satisfied with the sharpness of 16x20's from 35mm. The smallest negative that I had used for satisfactory 20x24's was 3 1/4 x 4 1/4. Then last year I got a Minolta 16 16mm camera and started to try to get decent sized prints from that format. The negative size is 10mm x 14mm. The claim I saw in the sib-mini format groups was that 11x14 inch prints could be made from these negatives. After much experimentation I was able to get semi-acceptable 11x14 enlargements (basically 25X) from 16mm negatives. This suggests that 20x24 prints should be obtainable from 35mm negs. The primary steps are: 1. use that shortest focal length lens that will cover the negative( my 28mm Voss gave sharper prints than my 50mm Schneider componon when the height was adjusted to get 25X); 2. I didn't find hunting for an optimum aperture for the lens gave me any improvement in print sharpness; 3. I got an apparently sharper print using higher contrast in my variable contrast paper; 4. I didn't find that a point source head gave me a sharper print than a condenser hear, or that the condenser head was superior to a color head. The prints I liked best (B&W) were made with my Beseler-Minolta 45A color head. 5. I think a grainless film is much preferable at 25X. In 16mm I like ASA100 films better than ASA200 films. I hadn't yet obtained any of the slower 16mm films which should have lower grain. I have some old Technical Pan in 35mm that I want to try for 25X enlargements.</p>