ChrisBowman Posted November 16, 2014 Share #1 Posted November 16, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi, it's a pleasure to be in the forum. I am a new Leica owner. I have an M7 with a 50mm Summilux-M, lens. I have been shooting digital for the past 7 years or so and need a little brushing off getting back into film. I am excited, however. I shot with film in the late 80's early 90's so it's been a while. Q: How large can I print an image from one of my negatives? What technically determines this? Like I said, it's been a while. Thanks!!! Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 Hi ChrisBowman, Take a look here M7 Film Camera. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
TomB_tx Posted November 16, 2014 Share #2 Posted November 16, 2014 Back in 60s-70s I used to make 16x20 prints commonly. I remember Kodak used to display murals some 20 ft. wide made from 35mm Kodachrome slides. Of course, we used to project slides on 12 ft. screens. The key is that we didn't look at them from 6" away, like people do today with "100%" crops on a monitor. I like to shoot with both an M6 and M9, and while there is much more detail in large crops from the digital, even on large-screen projections I often prefer the film shots. Large film prints still look great from reasonable viewing distance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted November 17, 2014 Share #3 Posted November 17, 2014 Welcome to the forum Chris. I consider the M7 to be the best M camera, however in my opinion not as good as my Leica R system. Good Luck with your M7. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 17, 2014 Share #4 Posted November 17, 2014 How large is all about viewing distance. IMHO, 4X is max for any format I use, 8x10" negatives to 35mm. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbealnz Posted November 17, 2014 Share #5 Posted November 17, 2014 I'd second Tom's 16x20 comment, "back in the day" it was about as much as I usually went with 35mm. 6x6, maybe bigger for sure, and occasionally 35mm bigger, but the old 14x11, 16x20 as tops rings a bell with me. Films (real fine grain etc) and decent development will play a part here though, so just give it a go and see. I'm on my film revival at the moment too, exciting times I agree. Gary Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted November 17, 2014 Share #6 Posted November 17, 2014 Hi, it's a pleasure to be in the forum. I am a new Leica owner. I have an M7 with a 50mm Summilux-M, lens. I have been shooting digital for the past 7 years or so and need a little brushing off getting back into film. I am excited, however. I shot with film in the late 80's early 90's so it's been a while. Q: How large can I print an image from one of my negatives? What technically determines this? Like I said, it's been a while. Thanks!!! Chris Hey, Chris - Welcome to the forum! To answer your question, camera movement is the main cause of unsharp images. If you are using a tripod and a cable release, you will go a long way in eliminating camera movement. When shooting hand held, you want the fastest shutter speed you can get, particularly with longer lenses. A lot of people say the minimum shutter speed for sharp images is 1/focal length - as in 1/60 for a 50mm lens, 1/125 for a 90mm lens, 1/30 for a 28mm lens, etc. I have found that for film photography you need to double the above; 1/125 with a 50mm lens, 1/60 for a 28mm lens, etc. With digital, you want to increase the shutter speed by a factor of three - or more, if possible - to be certain of sharp images when shooting hand held. That would equal 1/180 with a 50mm lens, which the M240 will give you in aperture priority if your ISO is set accordingly and you are using a wide aperture. My experience has been that high ISO images where you start to see a bit of noise (or grain if you are shooting film) but have no blur due to camera movement are viable, while images that suffer from camera movement that causes blur which becomes obvious at higher magnification are pretty well useless. Another factor that will limit print size is your personal concept of what constitutes acceptable sharpness and acceptable image quality in the finished print. One person may consider a 16x20 print acceptably sharp from a given negative. Another person may think that 16x20 print looks soft and would print to 11x14 or perhaps only 8x10 from that negative. Print viewing distance also determines how large you can print and still satisfy your personal requirements for what constitutes an acceptably sharp print. Hope this helps... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted November 17, 2014 Share #7 Posted November 17, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello Chris, you can print as big or as small as you like, large prints with lots of grain can be nice, small exquisite high resolution prints that draw the viewer in are also nice, and all variations in between. It shouldn't be a competition as seems to be the case with digital photography where the reason to buy new cameras is driven by the 'how big can I print?' question. If you have a preference for how much grain is evident this will drive the choice of film and the size of the print. It isn't a set formula if you want to both get close to the image to look at detail, or stand back to look at the whole, it is what you think acceptable for yourself and the viewer. So you need to make some artistic decisions based on the type of photography you are going to do with your M7, and if a guide is needed look to similar and well known 35mm photographers and discover what their technique is (film, development, etc.) and discover what average size they print for an exhibition. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted November 17, 2014 Share #8 Posted November 17, 2014 Hello Chris, Many of today's films are capable of large enlargements of high quality under appropriate circumstances. Generally, the weakest link in terms of making larger photos is the photographer who thinks they are a better support for their camera & lens than a proper rigid lens hood, a solid tripod (not necessarily large or heavy), a large panhead or a large ballhead & an appropriate cable release. A handheld camera & lens taking a photo @ 1/125 sec will generally not produce as sharp of a photo as the same camera & lens taking the same photo @ the same 1/125 sec when they are used with the equipment described above. When we are thinking about large enlargements. We have all taken many perfectly good handheld photos at lower shutter speeds over the years. An appropriate rigid lens hood, tripod, etc as described above can often make it easier for a person to take an even better photo in many situations. Also: Once shutter speed becomes academic, or at least secondary: A photo of a scene taken @ F8 is often somewhat different than a photo of the same scene photographed @F1.4. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarsAC Posted November 18, 2014 Share #9 Posted November 18, 2014 Welcome to the forum and back to film! From my own experience: it depends. A good shot from Iso100 film can be enlarged to 12x16. With Iso 400 the grain is quite pronounced in this size, which is ok if it supports the image impression. I don't go larger than that with 35mm film. My general rule is not to enlarge by a factor larger than 10. Lars Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.