How big can a 35mm neg go?

[danic]

I'm looking at getting a rather large print done of a photo from a 35mm neg. How large will I be able to go? I'm actually looking at getting two done. These are the two I'm looking at.





Cheers

[another view]

Hard to judge sharpness with a 600px image, but of course the bigger the print the more that any technical flaw becomes. They seem to have that "snap" to them but like I said I really can't judge. Film type has a lot to do with it too - grainy b&w might not look as good with a big print vs something with really fine grain. How the print is made is a huge factor too - optical enlargement vs. desktop scan vs. drum scan.

But the main thing is something nobody else can answer - your expectations. You'll almost need to make a print and then see what you think. FWIW, I've seen beautiful 16x20 Velvia prints from 35mm. They were shot by Galen Rowell who was a master of the technical aspects and were drum scanned by one of the really high-end labs (I think either Colorfolio or West Coast Imaging). You wouldn't have known they were 35mm.

I've also seen 16x20's from 35mm Tri-X in a museum that were obviously done by a skilled printer. They looked really good - gritty but just enough sharpness to work.

These prints looked totally different but I loved them both. Again, no right or wrong answers other than what is acceptable to you.

[mtbbrian]

Back in the day, I made a print from a 35mm negative that was about 3'x5'.
I did it the wet way too I might add.
It was a lot of fun.
Brian

[Photo-John]

Maybe it was one of my prints. I used to print some of his stuff at Calypso, before West Coast Imaging had their own print facilities. That was a long time ago. Those prints are probably all long gone.

[another view]

No kidding! I saw him the first time I visited the area in about April 2001, he did a presentation for a mountaineering club and we were able to make it. That dude was just a ball of energy. And those prints really were amazing. I felt like someone kicked me in the gut when I heard that his plane crashed...

Brian, that's one large print from 35mm! Getting back on track, a 3'x5' print wouldn't be viewed from the same distance as a 16x20, a 5x7 or a billboard. That's another point that needs to be factored in. It's complicated...

[mtbbrian]

Brian, that's one large print from 35mm! Getting back on track, a 3'x5' print wouldn't be viewed from the same distance as a 16x20, a 5x7 or a billboard. That's another point that needs to be factored in. It's complicated...

I made this large print as part of a college class, we did an excercise that showed the differences from size to size, where we had have four different sizes of the same photograph. I did mine from contact print, to 11"x14" to 20"x24" to the 3'x5'. It was really something to see the differences in the different sizes. It gave me a whole new appreciation for photograph size.
Brian

[Greg McCary]

I have done a couple of 10x15"s and 11x14's of some things I have developed and had scanned at the lab. They came out nice. It depends a lot on the quality of the shot too.

[opus]

Are you talking about having them scanned? Or using an old-fashioned enlarger?


At the print shop where I used to work we had a high end drum scanner. Most of what we scanned was square format or slide film. We made many large format posters and trade-show banners. A lot depends on the scanner settings.

[danic]

I'm looking at probably 16x20.

As far as getting scanned or enlarged, I don't know. What will provide the best result? Is the cost significant?

Both shots should be developed properly as they are C41. I'm looking at getting a pro-lab here in Perth scanned properly, so it won't be a home job. I know I could never produce the quality I need from a $130 scanner

[mtbbrian]

I'm looking at probably 16x20.

As far as getting scanned or enlarged, I don't know. What will provide the best result? Is the cost significant?

Here in the states they are about the same cost wise.
I am very much a traditional photographer as far as process goes, so if asked I will always suggest prints made accordingly.
Brian

[another view]

Here in the US, there aren't a whole lot of people that would make a traditional 16x20 "wet" print for you. Unless you live in NYC or Chicago, you'd likely have to send it out of town, and then you can't have that face to face conversation about what you want the print to look like. At least a few years ago there used to be one with a great reputation in Chicago - specializing in B&W. And not inexpensive, of course. I don't know how things are in Australia but I wouldn't imagine they're much different. Maybe there's an amateur expert print maker that's in a camera club? Talk to an art school with a fine-art photography program? I know there are people that can do it, it just may take some creativity to find them.

Of course, a top-quality digital scan and print job would cost money too. The two I mentioned above are in California, and there's also Calypso. Any of them will be really good. I'm sure you'd have something like that that wasn't half a world away by sending it here though!

As far as what the final print will look like, it's really an impossible question to answer until you actually hold it in your hands and look at it.

[mtbbrian]

Here in the US, there aren't a whole lot of people that would make a traditional 16x20 "wet" print for you. Unless you live in NYC or Chicago.

You can add Salt Lake City to that list. There are a few pro labs that still do it, and others that do a really good job out of their homes.
:thumbsup:
Brian

[WesternGuy]

I have done them (years ago) up to 16" by 20" and the detail was still good. Had them done by a local professional lab. HTH.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

[danic]

Thanks for all your input. I'll suss it out when I have a bit of money to play with and see how it comes out. I'll let you all know how satisfied I am with the results.