Nick De Marco Posted November 13, 2011 Share #1 Posted November 13, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Spent a productive a long day in the darkroom today. Made about 15 prints in all... I don't usually wet print from 35mm film, in the past I usually do medium or large format (or Xpan prints). But today I did quite a few from 35mm negatives, black and white 400 iso film. As it's been so long since I have done that, I was pleasantly surprised that I could print up to 12x16" (with a 1/2" border) from my favourite 400 iso negs, with good results. Somehow I thought it would be too grainy for that, but not at all. I rarely think of printing larger than 12x16", mainly as it creates too many storage/display problems, but wondered what the more seasoned 35mm wet printers amongst you found generally acceptable. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 13, 2011 Posted November 13, 2011 Hi Nick De Marco, Take a look here What size prints do you make from 35mm?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
NB23 Posted November 13, 2011 Share #2 Posted November 13, 2011 Everyone that sees my 16x20 Prints from TMAX3200 or HP5@1600 can't believe how beautiful they are. Makes you wanna smash any digital camera in sight on the floor, right there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted November 13, 2011 Share #3 Posted November 13, 2011 Makes you wanna smash any digital camera in sight on the floor, right there. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted November 13, 2011 Share #4 Posted November 13, 2011 Heheeee! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
topoxforddoc Posted November 13, 2011 Share #5 Posted November 13, 2011 My standard wet print is 12x16, but I often go up to 16x20. I use a Nova 16x20 Trimate slot processor, which is a godsend. My favourite paper is Adox MCC310 and I usually use Neutol WA, but sometimes use Ilford Multigrade or Neutol PE instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted November 13, 2011 Share #6 Posted November 13, 2011 Back in college days with Panatomic-X at EI 64 I did a lot of 16x20 and 20x24, and was very pleased with the results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted November 13, 2011 Share #7 Posted November 13, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) It all depends on how far away you are standing to look at them. Print them bigger and stand further away for a large room experience, but if you want to get people looking deeply into the photograph print them smaller and they will push their nose against the picture. And to paraphrase, 'when you have them by the nose their hearts and minds will follow'. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 13, 2011 Share #8 Posted November 13, 2011 For a show preview, I had the M9 images 'floated' in digital 16x20 inch prints, presuming the viewing distance to be about three feet. It is really all about viewing distance. -- Pico - "The monitor is not a print" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mono Posted November 14, 2011 Share #9 Posted November 14, 2011 Up to 10fold. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick De Marco Posted November 14, 2011 Author Share #10 Posted November 14, 2011 'Up to 10fold' Do you mean 10 x the size of the 35mm negative? I think the nearest print size to that is 9.5 x 12 ". I made most of my 35mm prints yesterday that size but there was little doubt I could go larger - without having to stand back. As to 16x20 Prints from TMAX3200 or HP5@1600 -do these have giant golf balls in them or what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted November 14, 2011 Share #11 Posted November 14, 2011 12x16 inches (30x40cm) for hanging on walls, 10x12 inches (24x30cm) for handing around and filing in folders. The size limits are only due darkroom equipment and storage considerations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted November 14, 2011 Share #12 Posted November 14, 2011 ...standard 10x8 inches for regular viewing, then 20x24 inches for display purposes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobSkeoch Posted November 14, 2011 Share #13 Posted November 14, 2011 I did a gallery show last year of prints from an assignment in rural China. Everything was printed on 20x24 paper but the ratio isn't exact so the final prints were more like 24x16. They look pretty good and I wouldn't hesitate to go larger if I could do it. They were printed on Bromide. I've been to galleries and seen vintage prints much larger. The film wasn't near as good as todays Delta400, the lenses weren't as sharp and neither was the enlarger yet the prints still look outstanding and hang in major galleries around the world. If you're picture has impact it will look great. Of course if you're photos don't really say anything I would print them small. LOL. -Rob Skeoch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted November 14, 2011 Share #14 Posted November 14, 2011 'Up to 10fold'Do you mean 10 x the size of the 35mm negative? I think the nearest print size to that is 9.5 x 12 ". I made most of my 35mm prints yesterday that size but there was little doubt I could go larger - without having to stand back. As to 16x20 Prints from TMAX3200 or HP5@1600 -do these have giant golf balls in them or what? I print B&W to 11"x14" - they are exhibition quality. As NB23 pointed out, he can print to 16"x20" - and from ISO3200 negs with good results. Others have said that 16"x20" prints from a 35mm neg are well within reason in terms of print quality. I would expect that with ISO 400 or slower film, the quality would improve at 16"x20" or any other print size. Yes, viewing distance is a factor, and a big one. Since you usually don't know the display parameters and viewing distance once a print goes to its owner, my preference is to assume that the print will probably be displayed and viewed at around arm's length and print accordingly. Originally Posted by NB23 Makes you wanna smash any digital camera in sight on the floor, right there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bateleur Posted November 14, 2011 Share #15 Posted November 14, 2011 My limit too is 16 by 20 inch prints from 400 asa film developed in Rodinol. Although faster film provides quite acceptable results I prefer a larger negative for fast film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ismon Posted November 14, 2011 Share #16 Posted November 14, 2011 From the instructor at the Leica School in Wetzlar, I learned that viewing distance is the key. If it makes a sharp 8x10" image, then the sky is the limit. As my darkroom only had an 8 foot ceiling, I made an 8x10 foot print! It was microfilm in 1:100 Rodinal, and enlarged with a 50mm Elmaron on a Leitz projector. (Don't laugh-- that's the way they did it in Wetzlar, and the result was stunning). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted November 14, 2011 Share #17 Posted November 14, 2011 Of course the viewing distance is the Key. You'll view a 4x6 up close, a 5x7 like you would read a newspaper. An 8x10 at arm's length. A 11x14 framed on a wall. A 16x20 in a bigger room where you'll look at it from the door (as an example), and so on. All the viewing distances mentioned above make the grain look the same size, which is almost inexistent. This is why Billboards can be made from 1.6MP images and look really sharp when viewed from your car. But I personally love grain so I don't care, just as long as it's there I love it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted November 14, 2011 Share #18 Posted November 14, 2011 I only have 10x8 Ilford Multigrade paper these days, but I sometimes go up to A3 via an inkjet. Mostly I find for my purposes a 10x8 wet print or an 11.5x8.5 inkjet is satisfying. The only person I have to satisfy is myself and my victim! Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted November 15, 2011 Share #19 Posted November 15, 2011 I've had 12 x 16 color prints from Astia and they show zero grain. No B+W for ages, sorry, but 16 x 20 would be quite acceptable -- I recall Pan F @ 32 ISO in Perceptol also showed imperceptible grain. I agree that while grain can add character, for some shots -- for example, landscapes -- ultra fine grain film and careful development will maximize the potential of the best Leica lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
masjah Posted November 15, 2011 Share #20 Posted November 15, 2011 I use C41, and have 12x18 printed from Reala; the results are excellent. At that size print, I find that Superia Extra 400 isn't quite up to Reala, though the results are acceptably good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.