How big can you print a photo from a 35mm negative?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2024
- There's so many possibilities with printing, you don't just have to print on glossy paper!
Follow Will on instagram: willmalone
Website: willmalone.com
Thanks for watching!
In classic silver printing in the darkroom, very large enlargements can be made, the quality will always be superior to a digitized negative. I have attended exhibitions of prints measuring more than a meter on a side from 35mm film and which were very clear. It also depends on the quality of the material used.
Yeah for sure. There are no pixels in an enlargement mucking up the quality of the image. I wish I had the set up for that but alas
Yep, this is probably more of an example of the quality of the scan, not the print but interesting nonetheless.
Acceptable print size for 35mm depends from multiple factors: Especially the scan could make extrem differences and in best case you start with a drum scan. The Cinestill is also not the film with highest resolution and there are definitely better color films (search for Henning Serger, Germany - he has done scientific analysis). By far the best color films are slide films like Provia and Ektachrome E100, followed by Ektar 100 and Cinestill 50D. In its own class is Adox CMS 20ii. The resolution exceeds 200-300 MP and here other components become the bottle neck (lens, scanner). Interesting topic in general…
Yes for sure. I'm probably going to try this with Ektachrome or Ektar here soon, I just rarely shoot low ISO films. I'm usually shooting stuff in the 400 to 800 range. I'm definitely going to revisit this topic with another video
If you’re using a scan, the print size will depend on the quality of the scan. I was hoping the comparison would be from the negative itself. Maybe you can revisit this question with a darkroom pro ;)
Long before digital, we were capable of producing a clean, reasonably sharp, and semi-fine grain print up to 16x20 inches, using film of modest speed, optimally processed, assuming that the original negative was shot of a still subject from a still platform, usually a good tripod. What you have here is a negative, which may or may not be inherently sharp, scanned (which will limit its natural enlarging resolution to no more than 11x14 inches), being printed on a medium (inkjet matte paper) which conceals its image imperfections. The image itself is processed to "sharpen", and fill in the resulting gaps in details with manufactured "image" information. The result is more poster than photograph. The resulting print can look fine viewed at a reasonable distance, but will disintegrate if examined very closely. That's the price you pay for digital. It cannot print there what wasn't in the negative to begin with. Both scanning and inkjet printing will impose additional resolution limitations, which further detract from image quality. Of course, you run into different issues with the same sort of print problems once you try to enlarge a 35mm negative in a darkroom to a print size larger than the film and shooting situation will support.
@@randallstewart1224 Good to know. I remember seeing a photo at my girlfriend’s house of her dad printed at life size. The image was him standing upright and captured from head to toe. It was from a 35mm neg and I believe it was printed in the darkroom. This was decades ago and I was in my early teens but that image has never escaped me. I was taken back by the clarity and the fact that he was able to produce a huge print from such a tiny object like a 35mm neg. That’s why this video caught my attention cause that burning question has always been in the back of my mind ever since I seen that photo.
Oh thanks for highlighting this wasn't about traditional enlarging, saved me some time 😅
@@davegeraghty2187 Lol time is precious 😄👍🏾
Can you do a video comparing different types of film? Like film optimized for digitizing (Kodak Porta 400) compared to film optemized for a sharper image from a 35mm SLR (ADOX CMS 20 II)? Awesome video btw, I wish more people delved into this subject lol
thanks for the feedback! That's a great idea, I'm curious about what that would be like as well. I'll have to look into making something like that
Great subject whether you shoot 35mm film or not. I'll always watch comparison videos. Thanks for tip of printing on Matte!!
Thanks for watching! I have more things like this planned in the future!
Here is reply from the answer of thoughts in my head for a month thank you
The answer is: As big as you want. It just depends upon how far away the viewer will be.
I have made nice 13x19 prints at 35mm film, it all depends on the film and the type of image. For most work, I do use medium format in 6x6 or 6x7, they really deliver images that are detailed in massive size prints. Even cropping 6x6 to 645 seems to surpass the quality of 35mm. When it comes to digital, FF sensors can deliver higher quality images in larger sized prints. I can get large detailed size 40” prints from my Nikon D800, I can only imagine that digital medium format can do billboard size prints. Again, it’s all the type of image and the end product.
With some post-processing, I think most large image files can be made into a giant print. I just printed a 60x40 inch piece from my Fuji X-E4 which is crop sensor at 25 megapixels and you'd never know it wasn't my D850 or something. But the photo is in bright sunlight and very colorful so that's much easier to print large than a low-light image that was shot at a higher ISO. You're right, it's really more about image and conditions than the camera these days especially
I never use Topaz with 35mm scans with digital images it looks very good but with film it's crappie. Probably AI can not deal with grain on those photos
Yeah I’ve never tried it with film until this video. Honestly, I don’t think it made a huge difference with these, it’s almost impossible to tell the difference. Even with digital shots topaz can be pretty weird though, in my experience it’s less digital vs film and it’s more image to image. Some images work and others end up looking weird.
What's that picture in the back ground of the man playing the guitar?! I want that!
yeah there's some cool art hanging in this print shop! That's just one of their photographer clients who shoots photos of musicians in Nashville
I wonder how Adox II would fare.
I still need to try it!!
If I know that I want to take pictures that have to be blown up or printed on poster scale, 35mm film would not even cross my mind. So I don’t see the point. Small negatives for small enlargements, large negatives for large enlargements.
I tend to shoot with whatever camera I’m in the mood for largely (when it isn’t client stuff) so if an image resonates and I’m making prints everything is fair game. I just may not go as large with some. I have some prints that I’ve printed large I never expected to, but people wanted to buy them large. So for me I just never know.
135 format, i.e., “35mm” is good for up to about 8x10 prints. This is why traditionally formal portraits, product photography and such were shot on medium format.
Basically, keep the enlargement below 6x and the print looks it could have been shot with modern digital. And before the days when digital capture was the rule, that’s what photogs looked for and clients demanded.
Which is probably why the 8x10 looked best. I'll probably do similar test with some medium format work soon.
I have a 20"X16" Cibachrome print which I made at home from a Kodachrome 64 Pro transparency from about 1985. I used a Nikon FE and a Nikon 50mm Series E lens for this. It is absolutely razor sharp and with no visible grain. The richness of the colours ( an English sunset over a pond in the late autumn ) and the tonality is beyond belief. A good 35mm film or transparency is capable of being enlarged to much much more than the usual 8X10 or 10X12. I only wish that I could use the Kodachrome 64 Pro with my Leica m cameras and lenses today.
Why use AI for film print? The whole idea with film is the film look.
The film look is still there, the AI software just keep it from getting low res/pixelated looking if I stretch it too big. Honestly though it didn’t make a big difference
Sharpness doesn’t mean anything - the world of pixel peeping is for gear heads and not photographers
Btw - great video
Thanks for the video! like @ralphtoerres13208 said, would be really interesting to see print sizes compared alongside different film stocks. I'm hoping to sell some group photo prints from music festivals, and would love to have a good comparison before giving that a shot
Thanks for the feedback! I think I'm going to work on a video like that at the beginning of next year. I'm interested to see that as well
@@doublenegative4real Right on. Definitely looking forward to more content.