35mm scanning and printing.

[chris_antidote]

<p>I'm new to film photography. And I was wondering, from your experience, not from what the internet says, the largest you can print a 35mm neg. I'm using very fine film, Kodak Ektar, etc. I'm using some of the best Nikon Glass. I don't always but I do often use a tripod. With all those factors, how large can I go? with a digital camera, I normally print photos, and frame them, around 21.5' x 14.5 . And I'd like to continue to frame that big with film. </p>

<p>Any advice is appreciated. </p>

[jim_gardner4]

<p>Chris, assuming you are talking about scanning then printing digitaly or even printing traditionaly, the short answer is a s big as you want. The limiting factor is the quality you are happy with. Personaly I rarely printed 35mm bigger than about 12 inches on the long side. Any bigger than that and I felt the grain/lack of sharpness/detail (call it what you will) destoyed the photograph. Having said that I did have 2 35mm negs printed at 24x36 but that was for the wow factor of those particular images.<br>

Your current 21.5x14.5 inches (I am assuming 21.5' as written, means inches) seems huge to me, taking into account a border and frame you surely end up with a 28-30" frame on the long side?<br>

You will get a lot of opinions for your question but I would recomend trying bigger and bigger until you are no longer happy with the result.</p>

[chris_antidote]

<p>I definitely think it's going to come down to perceiving what's in front of me when I finally decide to print. All the blogs about this subject all say I'm going to have to move up to another format to achieve the size and clarity I'm looking for. -Medium Format. I guess Im just bummed out, Medium format camera are huge. I like my 35mm. </p>

[jim_gardner4]

<p>Chris, from my post you may have gathered that I dont use 35mm very much at all now. The reason I moved up to MF and LF was quality. In general terms,the bigger the neg the better the quality. Yes MF cameras are usually bigger than 35mm although I am sure there are some exceptions but the quality is far far better.<br>

I would be confident printing the sizes you mentioned from a 6x6 neg (if the taking lens was good quality) and from a LF neg you could print huge and retain masses of detail.</p>

<p>Try MF when you can, I am sure you will be very pleased.</p>

[jim_gardner4]

<p>Also, apart from film, developer, tripods etc etc, I still firmy believe prime lenses are a must. Zooms have come a long way in the last few years but a decent prime will always far out-perform a zoom in my opinion.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Kodak's Ektar 100 in 35mm goes to 16x20 in an optical enlarger with no problems. In fact it's damn hard to find the grain at that magnification. Now getting a high rez affordable scan in another story.</p>

 

[jim_doty]

<p>At lot will depend on the quality of your scan. The better the quality of the scan, the happier you will be with your enlargements. With a high quality scan at 4000 dpi (giving you a 4000x6000 pixel file), you should easily be able to get 21.5 x 14.5 inch enlargements that you are pleased with. With a poor quality or lower resolution scan, you won't be so happy.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>As Bob says, Ektar can easily support 16x20. If you can print that large, you can print any size assuming your are far enough away from the print to see the entire print and not burying your nose in it. Some Kodachrome slides were cropped and enlarged to 18x60 ft Colorama transparencies. I have some 20x30 inch prints that started as Royal gold 100 negatives (10 years ago). </p>

<p>Enlargement is also highly dependent on subject matter. I have a 16x20 in print from a High Speed Ektachrome (E-4) slide that was pushed from 160 to 400. It works because the subject matter is busy enough to high the grain.</p>

[chris_antidote]

<p>Thanks for all the useful information, everyone. @ Jim Doty, Do good labs scan 4000dpi if you ask them? Or should someone like myself invest in a good negative scanner? Via, Coolscan 5000 Ed, for example.... More than a couple people have told me that I'd love the coolscan scanners, and be able to cut the middle man out. </p>

<h1 title="Super COOLSCAN 5000 ED "></h1>

[JDMvW]

<p>Interestingly enough, a search on this site yields many discussions of this topic, large and small.</p>

<p>About third in line was http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00SXFA</p>

<p>Here's Kodaks <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/corp/historyOfKodak/1930.jhtml">historical note</a> about their huge photomurals, which probably do represent a practical maximum size.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>1950 - The company unveiled the first in its long-running series of KODAK COLORAMA Display transparencies - 18 feet high and 60 feet wide - overlooking the main terminal floor of Grand Central Station in New York City. An estimated 650,000 commuters and tourists viewed this popular attraction every business day, and many of the dramatic photographs displayed over the years were the subject of widespread newspaper and magazine coverage. The exhibit was permanently dismantled in early 1989 as part of Grand Central's restoration.</p>

</blockquote>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>I don't know what other photographers used for the Kodak Colorama, but St. Ansel used one 8x10 and two 5x7 cameras for one, two 8x10 overlapping transparencies for another, and a 7x17" camera (on 4 3/4 x 16 1/2 inch film) with a 13-inch Zeiss Protar lens for a third.</p>

 

[Robin Smith]

<p>Personally, using a Canoscan 4000FS (similar to a Nikon Coolscan 4000), I found a 13 x 19 print is possible and can be excellent using Velvia/Velvia 100F/Astia 100F or similar, but in general I found that a smaller size of about 10 x 15 inches produced a nicer result. A lot depends on the subject.</p>

<p>As you are using negative film you may be able to go larger, but you will still be limited by the quality of your scans and the amount of time you are prepared to put into finalizing the image. It goes without saying that a large print requires the original image to be of very high quality - very few will really make the cut for larger than say 20 inches on the long side in my opinion. But that kind of judgment is very subjective.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There were at least a few of the Coloramas done from 35mm originals - but it's really just a way of saying that the size of possible/practical enlargement is dependent on many other factors.</p>

<p>Large prints will normally not be viewed at nose-tip distances, or at least shouldn't be. You can actually get billboard-sized prints even today. [which of course, billboard people use a lot]. Roughly 20x30" is a relatively common offering from vendors.</p>

[charles_ma]

<p>I have a few 16x24 inches prints (flowers and landscape shots) made from 35mm Ektar and Velvia scanned on Coolscan 9000 and I put them into a frame of 20x30. When I put my nose on the glass, I can see grain and a little softness but standing back for a couple of feet, the pics looks great. I have also done a couple of 20x30 landscape shots (coast shots with lots of details) from 35mm Velvia. Again, I can see grain and the pics are a little soft when I look up close. However, at normal viewing distance the pics look great. </p>

<p>Both 35mm Ektar and Velvia can be easily printed up to 12x18 without much visible grain from a Coolscan scan.</p>

<p>I recommend getting or renting a dedicated film scanner to get the best quality scan. Coolscans are great. It is really a pity that Nikon discontinued this wonderful line of scanners. </p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Chris the Nikon CoolScan 5000 is no longer being produced. It is in such demand however, used ones are selling at more than twice the new cost.</p>

<p>I can do no-edits tif format scans at 4000PPI for 59 cents. See my profile.</p>

[jack_the_hat]

<p>I just got a couple of cheap 30x20" machine prints back. They were printed from my own 4000dpi (Canon FS4000US) scans of some home developed Ilford Pan 400 negs. They were for a friend who insisted she wanted them that size (against my advice). I expected the worst but I was amazed at the quality. Yes, the grain was easily visible but it was really nice. I can't wait to get some more done.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I scan with a Nikon 9000 or a 5000 and go to 13 x 19. You should be aware that a film scan does not produce the same sharpness at this size as a digital image from a good DSLR. This is not a problem from a normal viewing distance but close up the image has a different quality to a digital print. I did some tests a while ago and found that 645 film (I used my Mamiya) was about the same resolution as my Canon 5DII. A scan from my Fuji GX680 (6x8) was clearly superior to the 5DII but even using the same glass on my 5DII and an film body (e.g. one of my Canon EOS 1Vs) resulted in a lower quality image from the film body. This was also true of my Leica M6 and my Contax G series rangefinders. That said there is a different quality to film images that I like so I still scan and print 35mm film for personal use. I find that I get the best colour scans from Velvia 50 or 100 (as opposed to print film) and with B&W I get the best results staying with a traditional wet process (this is something that Digital printing cannot yet match).</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>... from your experience, not from what the internet says, the largest you can print a 35mm neg. I'm using very fine film, Kodak Ektar, etc. I'm using some of the best Nikon Glass.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A lower bound is about 5X. This is about a 4x6 print from a frame of 135 format, i.e., 35mm film. If the film is digitized or optically printed with good equipment, and if the film itself is up to it, then 10X will work well. This is about the size of a 8x10 print.</p>

<p>Enlargement beyond this gets tricky. Much depends on whether subject matter itself has much detail. If you're shooting puffy cloudscapes and if you've access to the right digital post, then figuratively the sky's the limit. Want a 30x40 print? Sure, why not. </p>

<p>However, if you're shooting highly detailed scenes, especially where subtle tonality transitions need to be reproduced, then keep your expectations in check for prints larger than 6x9.</p>

<p>Lastly, the glass you put on the camera won't matter all that much. This is especially the case if you're using prime lenses, and with the aperture closed down a couple of stops.</p>

[andylynn]

It's a matter of taste, subject matter, viewing distance, etc. Robert wouldn't go above 8x10. I have a 13x19 on my wall

of a shot I took on B&W with an SRT and a 50mm lens while standing in a stream in waders, leaning at an

uncomfortable angle, and scanned with a half broken Minolta Dual III and it looks great. I'm sure that now with my

better scanner if I used a tripod and put more effort into what I was doing I could make a 20x30 from 35mm Ektar, no

problem.