Big Prints -- help me work through my confusion

[dzeanah]

I'm back at a point in my life where I can take pictures for myself

again.  In the past I haven't made many enlargements, but when I

wanted something enlarged I wanted it big enough to not look tiny on

the wall (16x20" minimum).  I'm trying to get my head straight on

which materials/processes will work best, but this new-fangled

chromogenic B&W and digital stuff is confusing me.  For

instance:<br>

<ol>

<li>Once upon a time a portrait client who had never bought a print

larger than 8x10" decided to buy a 30x40" print from one of my 35mm

negs.  It was handheld, Delta 100 processed in XTOL 1:3, and was a

little bit under-exposed.  I didn't have high hopes and it was too

large for my own darkroom, so I sent it to a professional printer on

the other side of the country.  It came out <span

style="font-style: italic;">beautiful</span>, and the only crtiticism

I had of it was the slight camera shake evident in the image.</li>

<li>Same period of my life, making wall prints from 645.  Going

much larger than 16x20" was an iffy proposition with the HP5+ negs I

was producing.  More than maybe 20x24" (uncropped) resulted in the

image starting to "fall apart."  Clients might not notice, but I

did.  (Might have been technique or the quality of my enlarging

lens -- don't know).<br>

</li>

<li>Did a shoot in a warehouse more recently to make some wall

prints, using TMAX-400CN in 35mm and HP5+ in 6x6.  Had my

high-volume portrait & wedding lab make a machine print of the

400CN neg for a 16x20, and had the lab that made such a good print from

the neg in #1 make a 16x20 from the 6x6 neg.  The results were a

wash -- the print from medium format was starting to show some grain

but had great tonality; the 35mm neg printed better overall, though the

tonality looked a little worse than the other print side-by-side.</li>

<li>I remember reading something by Galen Rowell years ago that

talked about <span style="font-style: italic;">big</span> prints he

was making -- like 40x60's or something else shockingly large.  He

was starting from 35mm chromes, scanning into Photoshop, mucking around

a little, and printing out these huge prints (I believe on a Lightjet)

that he claimed looked better than smaller prints.  Something

about scans not losing the really saturated color like they would if

they were enlarged, plus the ability to blur the grain in big open

spaces like skies.</li>

<li>Lots of people whose photography I've never seen on online board

talking about how they D30's prints look better than they're getting

from medium format, though there's a lack of detail that you'd notice

if you look closely.</li>

</ol>

So, can someone summarize the <span style="font-style:

italic;">real</span>

differences in the available black and white processes?  Is medium

format as important as it used to be, now that we've got films like

XP2?  If it's possible to get astonishingly good prints from a

low-res digicam, might it be possible to do the same thing from a

scanned neg like Galen Rowell was talking about (though ideally with

less effort in Photoshop)?  Is a 645 XP2 print going to be

noticable better than a 35mm XP2 print when printed to 20x24 and viewed

from a few feet away?  How does this all compare to Reala that's

converted to B&W as Scott Eaton likes to recommend?<br>

<br>

How do digital image capture and digital post-processing really tie in

to all this?<br>

<br>

What I <span style="font-style: italic;">want</span> to hear is that I

can shoot everything with my favorite 35mm SLR and know that when a

great image comes along I can pay someone (or develop the skills

myself) to do some digital magic and have a great looking print. 

That just doesn't sound reasonable, though -- I might do better to buy

a MF SLR since they're so cheap right now.  Or maybe I should wait

3 years and see where Digital is at that point.<br>

<br>

Sorry for the length and vagueness of all this.  I just don't have

enough experience with all this stuff to be able to draw any reasonable

conclusions, and asking here seemed like the best starting point for

gaining a real understanding of the current status-quo.<br>

[barry schmetter]

There's no right answer here, since we all have different ideas about what constitutes acceptable quality in a print. However, all things being equal, the MF neg will always beat the 35mm neg. I've been making a lot of large (16x20 and 20x24) black and white prints these days and I consider 6x6 negs shot with slow conventional b&w film to be the minimum requirement for what I consider to be good quality prints.

 

For 35mm negs, color images seem to hold up a lot better to greater enlargment than b&w negs. With color, you have a whole different dimension to look at that makes sharpness less important. A good example is completely desaturating the image on your low-def big screen TV -- not a pretty sight.

 

Digital prints are definitely the way to go for big 35mm color prints and I've seen excellent large color work done with D60's/D100's, etc. The lack of film grain makes for some smooth tonality and the color masks a lot of the digital artifacting. B&W is another story, though.

 

I'm trying to squeeze every last bit of quality from my MF negs--tripod, slow film, Zeiss lenses, laser-aligned enlarger, glass carrier, Apo-Rodagon-N enlarging lens, etc. and I still find I'm being inexorably led toward large format :-)

[donald_miller1]

I used to shoot medium format black and white because the quality was better then 35 mm. Then I went to 4X5 since it was noticably better in both sharpness and tonality. Now I lean more to 8X10 and 12X20 contact prints because there is no comparison. I am shooting less and less 4X5 and no,absolutely no, medium format.

 

I wouldn't even consider 35 mm in my work today. It is a waste of my energy and time. Medium format color may be another matter. But I don't shoot any color today. My tastes have changed as to what good quality consists of.

[lex_jenkins]

My expectations of what a format can deliver acceptably depends on subject matter. Yesterday I made some 11x14's from 35mm TMY pushed to EI 1600. Very grainy and only moderately sharp due to subject and camera blur. But they're entirely acceptable because of the dynamic subject matter (a theatre rehearsal). I'd even be willing to go 16x20 from these negs.

 

But something like a landscape, architectural study or still life on the same roll would quite likely make me nauseous.

 

That's why with MF I typically use slow, fine grain film and a tripod. I want every possible advantage. I see a huge difference between my MF TMX negs and 35mm TMX negs from tripod mounted cameras, but very little between my 35mm and 120 Tri-X in Diafine handheld work. After a certain point photographer-induced camera blur negates any advantage to the larger negative.

 

Digital vs. film? Can't answer that one. My P&S digicam can't touch film for overall quality. I get better results scanning TMY negs @ EI 1600-6400 than from my digicam at the ISO 400 setting.

 

As for large reproduction, it's likely that digital will surpass film in relative terms simply because manufacturers and service bureaus will give up on equipment and services for large, high quality reproductions from film. So digital will win by default, even if the end result is, in fact, inferior. Hopefully they won't settle on an inferior paradigm but will actually push forward the standards.

[StuartMoxham]

I would guess that the viewing distance comes into play some what. Of course larger transparency produce better images but on a wall viewed from 6 ft or more away would you notice maybe not. I would go for a MF SLR if I had the money.

[andrew_hull]

Derek:

 

I have personally enlarged negatives up to 16x20 from 35mm and the results were good. Obviously they simply cannot be as sharp as medium or large format. That being said, some of the images could not have been taken with medium or large format. I would say that 16x20 is just about limit IMHO of 35mm unless you know that they wouldn't be viewed from very close. I tried getting an internegative made from a 35mm negative and then that 4x5 negative enlarged, but the results were very disappointing. I have heard this can be done well, just not in the experience that I have had. Bottom line, I have seen 35mm Tri-X negs at 16x20 that were sold for $1000's of dollars and were wonderfully presented prints. Granted they were printed by a master printer, but it can be done.

[dzeanah]

I'm in agreement with what I've read so far, but I'm probably not being

clear in my question (a problem with muddled thinking, I suppose.)<br>

<br>

I agree that subject matter has a huge influence here.  I few

weekends ago I was in a gallery in New Orleans and noticed 3 prints I

liked: <br>

<ul>

<li>The first was Moonrise over Hernandez (priced at $175,000)

printed at about a 20x30.  It was strikingly beautiful, due to the

print quality more than the image itself.  If there were any

visible grain in the image, it would have destroyed the beauty in the

print.</li>

<li>The second was a HCB print from the boy with a bottle of wine

image, printed at about 11x14 or a little larger. ($5k for whoever's

interested).  It's one of the few HCB images I really like, and

it's because of the subject matter more than anything else.  I

didn't notice whether it was grainy or not (viewed from 3 feet away),

and don't know that I'd care if it wasn't obvioius enough to distract

from the kid's expression and body language.</li>

<li>The third was a shot of the princess of Monaco out boating, shot

by Helmut Newton.  Wonderful 20x30 that had noticable grain, but

it didn't detract from the image at all.  Hell, I loved the print

and can't remember whether it was black-and-white or color, and really

couldn't care less.  It was more about a moment in time than

anything else...</li>

</ul>

Anyway, I think we're in agreement that with traditional black and

white processes, larger negs result in better final image quality, and

may be required with some large images.  (The obvious exception

would be images that "embrace" grain -- shot on Tri-X and developed in

D76 or HC110 or whatever, with a sharp grain structure.  I've seen

Herb Ritts images of Mel Gibson that had strong grain and it didn't

detract from the image at all, and it might have if it had been less

obvious...)<br>

<br>

I think we're also in agreement that while a 6x7 chrome is a better

starting point for a print than a 35mm chrome, someone from the

bolt-it-to-the-tripod-and-lock-up-the-mirror school of 35mm nature

photography like John Shaw can get wonderful large prints by scanning

the image and using digital techniques to hold the image together for

large prints (like what Rowell was talking about doing with Lightjets

he was printing.)  Starting from 6x7 would probably be "better"

from the perspective of final print quality, but going the 35mm tranny

to digital route certainly qualifies as "good enough," assuming the

image is a good one.<br>

<br>

My question really falls in the middle there: how does a film like XP2

compare to traditional black and white film with regard to image

quality of large prints?  If it starts to fall apart at 16x20 or a

little larger like you'd expect, what can digital processing do to make

a better big print?  We know it works with color; does it work as

well with black and white images from "color" materials?  The end

result will affect how I approach subjects that require tight grain for

the image I have in mind -- if I can achieve high-quality black and

white 20x30's (or 30x40's) from 35mm XP2 negs (even if 4x5 Tri-X would

be "better" in a technical sense) then I don't need to worry about

larger formats.<br>

<br>

With regard to contact prints from 12x20 negatives, I don't doubt

you're right about the quality that can be achieved.  I'm not

looking for technical perfection here though; I'm looking for that

"more than good enough" that's suitable for displaying the images I

want to share.  <br>

<br>

Maybe I can explain it better this way: I've done the Leica and

Hasselblad and Mamiya 7 thing and have really appreciated the superb

negatives that quality glass can render, but that doesn't change the

fact that some of the work I'm proudest of has been done with Canon FD

and Bronica ETR equipment.  Unless your goal is supreme technical

excellence, you reach a point of dimishing returns, where your

materials are more than sufficient for communicating whatever it is you

have to communicate (or <span style="font-style: italic;">my</span>

tools are good enough for <span style="font-style: italic;">my</span>

purposes); where it doesn't make any sense to put more effort into

"better" equipment, because the limiting factor at that point is vision

rather than glass or whatever.<br>

<br>

I'm trying to figure out what the "good enough" point is for film right

now.  If it's traditional B&W materials, handheld tri-x or

hp5+ in 35mm can do a great job for many subjects; 6x7 tri-x might be

required on occasion.  Now the question is whether materials

like XP2 and the availability of digital image manipulation and

printing methods will compensate for a smaller neg as a starting point for those subjects that require a "smooth" interpretation.<br>

[lex_jenkins]

Derek, based on some fine art prints I saw at a spring show this year I'd say you'd be very pleased with prints up to 16x20 from XP2 Super.

 

One print, in particular, was of a very difficult scene ranging from deep shadow to bright highlight and detail was visible throughout. The photographer told me the negative (Kodak's chromogenic monochrome in MF or 4x5, I don't recall which) was scanned on a high-end scanner by a service bureau. He then tweaked it himself and returned the file for printing on a LightJet or Lambda, don't recall which (sheesh, my memory...).

 

The final print was nearly flawless. The only nit I could pick was that it looked like a print from chromogenic monochrome film, which is just an acknowledgement of recognition of the distinctive midtones that are characteristic of these films. That's not a bad thing, since I'm not sure most traditional b&w films printed conventionally could have captured this extreme range without some serious darkroom gymnastics.

[dk_thompson]

no--there's no amount of digital magic that can save bad technique in the first place...we have to make murals off all sorts of compromised originals at the museum where I work, because if someone gives you a snapshot with no negative in existence anymore or some old 35mm slide, there's not much you can do about it, no matter how hard you try. Recently we had to make a mural using a Lightjet printer that wound up being a 1600% increase off the original file which was 10 inches at 150dpi. We knew it would look like crap, but had no choice. Actually, it surprised us how well it turned out, even though it still looked pretty horrible if you scrutinized it up close. Thing is--when you have a 8x16 foot print, it's seldom viewed up close--the distance on this one is like 12-15 feet or more, and it's got a bunch of stuff piled up in front of it, so it's like a backdrop really. The lab ran Genuine Fractals on it, and this smoothed out the edges--otherwise on the test strips it was stairstepped--but it also killed the sharpness ever so slightly. At any rate, we had 2 tests done, one with the GF, one without. From maybe 5 feet or so, you could really see the difference--not so from more than 10..after a certain point, they both looked the same really...It's not anything I want to brag about it, we're just doing what we're told to do--but it did surprise me a bit. I had expected it to look like super-super-super crap. It just looks like super-crap to me now, but to the everyday person it probably looks okay...There's still no comparison to doing it right the first time though--makes everyone's job easier....

[dougmiles]

Hi Derek... Interesting question and replies! I wonder if approaching this issue from another direction might be useful. Think about the kinds of pictures you want to produce, and (given your past experience) consider which kind(s) of equipment make this happen most easily for you.

 

Actually, it might not be any one system or film format. I like to shoot in the malls and on the streets with Leica and Minolta CLE, but I'm now trying to do this with MF rangefinders like Bronica RF645 and Fuji 645. Oddly, with 35mm I've preferred B&W (XP2) but choose fast color neg film with 645.

 

But there are times for nature, landscapes, waterfalls, mountains, color abstracts etc and I've loved doing this with the Pentax 6x7 system. I don't think this gear is as well suited to fast work on the street as the rangefinders; each has its environment.

 

It seems clear to me that bigger negs record more information, and I want to start with more information for bigger prints. So, maybe for a general rule, if you have a choice, pack with you the biggest negative producer reasonable for the circumstances...

 

So, what kind of rig is most likely to produce your "keepers"?