zx9
old hand
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 1041
Loc: London
|
|
With all this talk of slow film and grain, I just thought how big do people regularly print, from 35mm, MF and 5x4? I never print more than 9 1/2 x 12 from say 50% of a 35mm neg. I guess that I have settled on this as a maximum size dictated by my enlarger and low ceiling height in my converted loft darkroom. So how large do you print to get the grain, or lack of grain you like?
--------------------
ZX9 (Keith)  
My Flickr Pictures
|
Woolliscroft
veteran
Reged: 23/08/2005
Posts: 1253
|
|
I seldom print 35mm bigger than full neg on 8 x 10, which means an image size of 7 x 10. I'll happily print 6 x 7 medium format to 16 x 20, or a bit bigger. I've never used a larger format, although I've often felt like having a go.
--------------------
David.
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4982
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
I just thought how big do people regularly print, from 35mm, MF
I'm fairly confident about printing enlargements up to x12 from Pan F / Perceptol, x10 from FP4 / ID-11, x8 from HP5+ / Microphen. The last looks grainy but it's atmospheric. Actual print size depends on the crop ... obviously MF allows bigger prints and/or less enlargement!
I did get away with making a 15x10 print from a 50% crop from a 35mm transparency (Sensia 100) - i.e. approx. x15 enlargement - it's fairly grainy, but atmospheric.
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1184
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
I've been playing around with large print sizes this week using 4x5 transparencies scanned at 2,400 dpi (my computer couldn't command enough memory for higher resolutions). I found that the printed scans stood close but not microscopic examination with 60" wide prints which equates to 200dpi which is 12x although I might have been limited by resolution of the scan. The recommended 300dpi would bring me down to a 40" print which is the same as a 12" print from 35mm which is as far as I was ever happy with from a miniature camera. The biggest I've had traditionally printed have been 20" (they're so expensive).
Woolliscroft really should have a go with 4x5. With five times the area of 6x6 there is a real difference and the slow pace makes you look carefully at what you're doing.
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15464
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
My printing sizes vary considerably - actually it makes more sense to talk in terms of enlargement factors - 17x is about the upper limit I can manage with my enlarger and 35mm, using a 50mm lens, and I do print that big sometimes. Between 8x and 12x is more usual for me though. With larger formats obviously the factor comes down somewhat - 6-8x maybe for medium format, and 4x or 5x at the most for 5x4.
However, grain is rarely, if ever, the the thing that determines how large I print a neg. I have no rooted objections to its appearance, so I decide on the basis of other things, like the impact of the print, or whether it can hold up in terms of sharpeness and detail, and that sort of thing. And ultimately it's the size of print that I can handle - 20" x 16" at the most in my darkroom - that stops me going any bigger.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
  
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1184
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
Why do you say "With larger formats obviously the factor comes down somewhat - 6-8x maybe for medium format, and 4x or 5x at the most for 5x4".
Assuming the film is the same why should a Hasselblad with a Planar, for example, not allow as much a magnification factor as a 35mm? Similarly for 4x5. It comes as a bit of a shock to learn that I can enlarge to 25" from a 35mm (x17) but only 20-25" from a 4x5 (x4 or x5) or 13-18" from medium format (x6 or x8).
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37887
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
I don't think Huw says that one can't, simply that he doesn't, and his darkroom setup imposes certain physical limits.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
zx9
old hand
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 1041
Loc: London
|
|
Hi folks, interesting comments, it was just the recent talk of fine grain film and developer combinations that got me thinking about print size. That and the fact that I have recently found a 10x8 sheet film neg. shot at collage, over 20 years ago. It is about 4x life size of a Weston Master V. The film stock is unknown as it has no edge markings, I suppose I could contact print it, but due to poor storage it is scratched to h**l. Doh.
--------------------
ZX9 (Keith)
My Flickr Pictures
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1184
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
If you really want it you could scan and repair.
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15464
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
I don't think Huw says that one can't, simply that he doesn't, and his darkroom setup imposes certain physical limits.
Yup, exactly. Although even if I had unlimited space and size of tanks and so on, I'd probably still work to smaller enlargement factors with bigger formats. Obviously you can look at it both ways - you can use larger formats to get bigger prints for the same sort of final image quality on the paper, grain size and so on, or to get higher quality, finer grain, etc. with the same size print.
As it is, with the same enlarger I can get about 17x with a 50mm lens for 35mm, about 8x with a 100mm lens on 120, and about 5x with a 135mm lens or 4x with a 150mm on 5x4. And in all cases the biggest paper size I can either dev, wash, or dry is 20"x16", which happens to fit all those enlargement factors quite well.
Having said that, some months ago I acquired a 28mm Componon which would allow me enlargements of up to about 34x off about half of a 35mm neg, and I do hope to explore the creative possibilities of that some time with some really outrageously grainy prints. I might try pushing HP5 up to about 3200 and shooting with wider lenses than the compositions require and see if I like the results.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
zx9
old hand
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 1041
Loc: London
|
|
Hue, I like the idea of a 28mm Componon, I've seen 40mm s but the advantage seems limited, but 28mm would be interesting, I assume it was designed for half fame.
Large format, I may well have a go over the school Christmas holidays.
--------------------
ZX9 (Keith)
My Flickr Pictures
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15464
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Yes, I think half-frame would be about right. I don't think the lens is still available new, but it came up in the used listings at Ffordes or somewhere like that and I grabbed it. Anyway, I'm sure I shall have fun experimenting with it. :-)
Re. large format - great fun but hard work. :-)
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
Woolliscroft
veteran
Reged: 23/08/2005
Posts: 1253
|
|
Quote:
Woolliscroft really should have a go with 4x5. With five times the area of 6x6 there is a real difference and the slow pace makes you look carefully at what you're doing.
I know you're right, but I have chickened out so far. I'd need someone to teach me all those movements, and the prospect of yet another camera, lenses and enlarger has put me off so far. Maybe one day.
--------------------
David.
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4982
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
I'd need someone to teach me all those movements
Surely learning is (at least) half the fun?
Quote:
the prospect of yet another ... enlarger has put me off
Ah. Get a 10x8, or even a 20x16, forget the enlarger, contact printing will be enough... 
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1184
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
If you can afford the film! The upside is that the cameras are so cheap it makes my eyes water.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
