35mm film for large prints? Pan F?

[marke_gilbert]

Im thinking of a project that would involve 18x18 prints-- can I pull

this off with Pan F in 35mm? Obviously, Im thinking optimal

conditions, tripod, stopped down, etc.

<P>Any other suggestions for film choice?

[johnmarkpainter]

Have you shot Pan F before? It has a different look to it that isn't appropriate for

everything. DOn't use it just because it is Slower. Give it a try and see if you like it for

your subject matter.

 

I tend to prefer FP4. That said...I have 16x20 prints from TriX and HP5 that look great.

 

jmp

[silent1]

TMX (T-Max 100) is one of the preferred films for subminiature, where every print is a "big" enlargement (a 4x6 from a Minolta 16 frame is blowing up about 10x).

[jbq]

TMX sounds like a good candidate.

 

Any chance that you could put your hands on a TLR? If you're after resolution and low grain, a Seagull 4-element at f/11 is likely to beat just about any 35mm camera.

[__wally_klinger]

will 35mm film fit in a medum size camra?

[andre_noble3]

Marke,

 

PanF can be very contrasty with traditional developers. However, when rated at ASA 20 and developed with the Pyro developer Wimberely WD2D+, for example, you are absolutely correct in that you will achieve superior results with this film. No need for medium format.

[r._odinal]

If you want "18x18" prints, that means cropping the 35mm frame from about an 18x27 enlargement. If you want 'high quality' looking prints, then I think this is pushing it. I've found that printing on 16x20 paper (image is actually about 13x19 from full frame 35mm), does not give me consistently satisfactory results when I'm looking for the image to hold sharpness. With FP4+, the grain is acceptable to me but it does become more obvious. On the other hand, sharpness and grain don't make or break an image, and I have a couple of nice 16x20 prints from 35mm. But, in any case, now I don't ever go beyond about 10x13 (on 11x14 paper) with my 35mm negs, and I've always gotten great results at that size even with hand-held shots using fast film.

 

That said, medium format is better and can go bigger. I'd recommend if you want to go to a square 18x18 print and keep "high" image quality, try medium format. You can get a nice 6x6 format camera at reasonable prices, and it will definately beat 35mm for those big enlargements. You will also have more flexibility in film choice...no need to use PanF, etc. Even Tri-X or HP5 will do nicely.

[jonathan_bundick]

I don't think you would be pleased with your results from 35mm B&W enlarged that much regardless of the film/developer combo used.

[gareth_harper]

Only you can decide.

It also depends at lot on subject matter etc..

I've done 12x16inch prints on fibre paper from 35mm from Delta 3200 @ 3200asa. I'm happy with them.

[al_kaplan1]

Reality! Most prints that size are displayed in frames hanging on walls, and they're viewed from several feet away. Most viewers are not photographers, have only the foggiest notion of what "grain" is, and don't walk up to stick their noses in the picture looking for issues of sharpness and resolution, nor would they recognize bokeh if it fell on them. I think a lot has to do with what your subject is and how you want to portray it. I'd pick a film/developer combo based on me giving the tonality I seek over other considerations. For me that would mostly be Tri-X/D-76 1:1.

[tim obrien]

I'm with Al on this one. D76 1:1 with Tri-X. I did a portfolio at 11x14 with it, some blown up to 16x20, grain not an issue. That said, if you want superior prints, Medium or Large format is the answer. Then you can use whatever film you like, at whatever speed you like and the results will astound you.

 

tim in san jose

[conrad_hoffman]

I must be completely blind to grain and tonal quality. I saw an exhibit of Salgado prints with lots of them at 16x20 and larger. I'm sure they were Tri-X or something similar. Sure, you could see the grain, but from the correct viewing distance, they looked fantastic. Let's put the magnifiers away!

[doug_bennett]

Amen, Conrad. I've always advised folks to be sure that they really don't want grain before they decide "I don't want grain." In other words, produce some grainy prints, take a look, then decide.

 

Salgado is a great example of a photographer who makes you forget about technical details like grain. His stuff just looks great, period.

 

That being said, Pan F would be an obvious choice, and I agree with Andre: a pyro developer (I also use WD2D+) may be the perfect candidate to tame this somewhat difficult-to-use film. FP4 in Rodinal would be another good combo: grainy, yes, but handled properly it will be razor sharp. Tri-X in Rodinal is loads of fun, as is Efke25.

 

Film is cheap. Shoot. Print. Have fun.

[titrisol]

I understand you have to do this, and there's nothing wrong with having a 35mm blown up to 18x18 (probably cropping from 18x27 or 20x30)

Depending on the "Look" you or your customers expect Agfapan 100, Neopan Acros, FP4, or Delta 100 are all good choices, with the use of a good fine grain developer.....

what about those Acufine/Diafine lovers giving some feedback.

 

maybe any of the Patrick Gainer formulas can help?

[dave_s]

<i>Obviously, Im thinking optimal conditions . . . stopped down, etc. </i>

<p>

Don't stop down <u>too</u> much.

[r._odinal]

>> Don't stop down too much.

 

How 'bout a project with big enlargements (20x24 or better) of just pinhole photography. I'd like to see that. Forget about sharpness and fine grain. Visualize the image you want to create. Then go out and make it. Of course, your vision might be to make the sharpest, finest grain image possible. Unless you have a client, nothing is inherently "wrong".

[dave_s]

<i>Of course, your vision might be to make the sharpest, finest grain image possible. Unless you have a client, nothing is inherently "wrong".</i>

<p>

Well, no offense, but optimizing quality was the point of the original post. Marke sounds like he's going after MF/LF quality in a 35mm enlargement.

<p>

Notwithstanding the fact that this is impossible, the closest approximation is to do simple things using stuff you already have: (i) a good modern lens with a good shade, (ii) choose an ultrafine grain film like TMX or Pan F, (iii) lock down to a solid tripod and use a release, (iv) prefire the mirror and aperture if you can, (v) shoot at f/5.6 or f/8, (vi) align your enlarger and use a good lens. Maybe a few other things, not rocket science.

<p>

A better solution (would cost a couple of hundred bucks) is to buy a used MF camera, say a TLR with a decent lens, and do the above at f/11. Half as much linear enlargement = way better print.

[silent1]

<i>A better solution (would cost a couple of hundred bucks) is to buy a used MF camera, say a TLR with a decent lens, and do the above at f/11. Half as much linear enlargement = way better print.</i><p>

 

Well, heck, if you're after buying a camera to improve your definition, grain, etc. for a single project, spend that same $200 on a working Speed or other 4x5 press camera. You get a ground glass, so you can focus with a magnifier ($10 for the magnifier, if you get one at the local science shop), even limited movements, and then you create a negative that's only 4x at 16x20. Sure, your choice of emulsions is limited compared to 35 mm or even 120 -- but TMX is still included, as well as a number of nice rebranded 100 and 200 ISO emulsions at very reasonable prices. You can even develop a couple sheets at a time in a dual-120 stainless daylight tank, if you have to, using inch-and-a-half plastic pipe as tubes to hold the film in the tank. Should totally blow away anything you can put on MF -- certainly anything for under a couple grand in equipment.<p>

 

But if you still want to shoot in 35 mm, there's always Tech Pan in Technidol. You have to shoot at EI 25 or so, because to get pictorial tonality you're effectively grossly underdeveloping -- but you'll get grain that makes even Pan F look coarse.

[dave_s]

Donald, I couldn't agree more. Something like a used Crown Graphic is one of the best buys out there if you really want high quality. It is head-scratchingly insane that you can currently buy this much photographic cojones, with lens, for like $200 or 250.

 

The downside, of course, is most of us mortals (myself included) don't have a 4 x 5 enlarger. But if you want one of those, they're being practically given away now. I saw a nice 10 or 12-year-old D5 with colorhead and timer (no lens) sell for around $275 a couple of months ago.

[lex_jenkins]

Pan F just isn't my cup of java. Tried it, couldn't quite develop a taste for it.

 

I'd use what I already use for many occasions in medium format when I want an absolutely grainless sky or other large expanses of the same tone: TMX in ID-11 @ 1:1.

 

Not everyone likes the look of TMX, regardless of developer. I do, tho' I'll admit the look is, for lack of a more precise description, a bit melodramatic. Not suitable for every occasion. Great for landscapes but I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable using it for portraits, tho' I've seen some very good people pix done by other photographers on TMX.

[elek_ludvigh]

Hi Marke,

 

I have, off and on for many years, tried film and developer combinations to enable prints of up to 20X24 from 35 MM. The all time best I found was H&W control film in H&W developer. It gave very nice tonality, Tech Pan level grain and a legitimate ISO of 50. Unfortunately, it has not been available for about 25 or 30 years.

 

If your subject matter has a brightnes range of no more than 6 stops, Tech Pan in Technidol is worth a try. I think the world of Photographers Formulary and what they do for we film-developer enthusiasts, but I have not been able to get the results with their TD3 that I have with Technidol.

 

I like Pan F a lot, if developed in a compensating developer such as Edwal FG7 or DD-X 1:9, but my current suggestion for overall results from a practicality - quality standpoint is Fuji Across 100 in Acutol @ 1:14. I like its tonality better than T max 100 or Delta 100 and its grain and sharpness are close to T Max 100 (which is awsomely sharp and grain free if you can live with the tonality).

 

That's my two cents worth. I hope it is helpful.

 

Good luck in your endeavors.

 

Jay

[lee_shively]

Pan F? Sure. It's a beautiful film. But play with it first before you get serious. Use a compensating developer and cut the time recommended by about 20-25%. The highlights will block up if if you give it too much development. I like D76 1:3 but Ilford makes several developers I've used with it that work well, too.

[silent1]

<i>The all time best I found was H&W control film in H&W developer. It gave very nice tonality, Tech Pan level grain and a legitimate ISO of 50. Unfortunately, it has not been available for about 25 or 30 years.</i><p>

 

There are a couple alternatives currently available in 35 mm from <a href="http://www.frugalphotographer.com/index.htm">The Frugal Photographer</a> that probably equal H&W Control -- Bluefire Police, which is now known to be an Adox microfilm product, developed in Bluefire Control developer (probably a very close cousin of H&W Control developer) gives broad tonal scale, EI 100, and grain fine enough that at 60x it's the lens, not the grain, that limits resolution. In addition, the same vendors sell Agfa Copex Rapid in 35 mm, another microfilm that can be exposed at EI 100 and, developed in Spur Nanospeed, is one of the films of choice for Minox cameras, with a negative 8x11 mm (4x6 prints are already bigger than 12x). The Copex Rapid is available in bulk rolls, the Bluefire Police preloaded in 35 mm cassettes.<p>

 

The main disadvantages of these films is that they aren't very forgiving -- they have to be exposed and developed just so, or the contrast can get out of hand and you get a result more like lith film than pictorial film -- and the requirement to develop in special ultra-low contrast developers, most of which (like POTA or Technidol) also lose a stop of speed compared to the specific products recommended for these films. These are the same disadvantages of Tech Pan, of course, and at least the Bluefire Police and Bluefire Control are much less costly than Tech Pan and Technidol -- but you can probably find Tech Pan at most larger camera stores, while you're unlikely to find even Copex Rapid anywhere other than mail/Internet order. That can influence your choice if time is short.

[eduardo_benavidez1]

Pan-F+ developed in highly diluted Acutol or Rodinal 1:100 or even 1:200 is a great choice because the combination between high acutance and rich tonal range, and in the case of Acutol, a real speed increase of about 1 f. stop wich means Pan-F+ exposed at ISO 80-100 easely with great shadow details. The only dark side of Pan-F+ is its tendency excessive contrast and to block-up highlights but you will avoid it via compensating developing. As per the grain, I agree with several earlier opinions. The grain IS NOT an issue when big enlargements are wieved from the proper distance. Salgado´s pictures have a lot of grain but his photos are beautiful. In facts, Salgado uses two fast, inherently grainy films, Tri-X and eventually TMZ (p3200), both surely developed in a NOT fine grain developer. Regards. Eduardo.