Best way to have large prints made from 35mm film

[Iconic35mmuser]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greetings to all. I am getting back to shooting only film as, I've determined digital is not for me. Need advice on best way to have an enlargement made. Is it better to send the lab a scan or, to send the negative (I know, very "old school"). What I'm struggling with is determining what will yield best quality print, especially if enlarging to 24"X36"? Logic would tell me using the original media (the negative) will yield the best possible results. Many labs are telling me they do it from a scan these days. Can you educate me as to best way to do this; will digital technology generate a better print or, will a negative always be the ultimate?  Thanks, Nick

[Pyrogallol]

Print it yourself, in a darkroom. You then have the satisfaction of achieving something yourself.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[spydrxx]

I've had a number of prints that size and in recent years sent the lab a digital file, with excellent results. With the exception of one acrylic print, all of mine have been exhibition prints on canvas, to be viewed from 5-9 ft away. Everybody's needs, of course, will vary. These days it is hard and I've found quite expensive to get excellent quality prints from negatives. There are far fewer master printers and using a file tweaked to what I want seems to work quite well.

[malligator]

B&W or color? One specific negative or multiple?

[Anbaric]

56 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

Print it yourself, in a darkroom. You then have the satisfaction of achieving something yourself.

3 feet wide might be a bit of a challenge.

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, Iconic35mmuser said:

Greetings to all. I am getting back to shooting only film as, I've determined digital is not for me. Need advice on best way to have an enlargement made. Is it better to send the lab a scan or, to send the negative (I know, very "old school"). What I'm struggling with is determining what will yield best quality print, especially if enlarging to 24"X36"? Logic would tell me using the original media (the negative) will yield the best possible results. Many labs are telling me they do it from a scan these days. Can you educate me as to best way to do this; will digital technology generate a better print or, will a negative always be the ultimate?  Thanks, Nick

As a printer, I would say it will depend most on the quality of your scan and the quality of the lab. If you are using a consumer printing service or a run of the mill lab, and you have made a good scan, it is possible that sending them the scan will be a better, more reliable method, as you will have already presented them with your preferred processing. If you are using a master printer or a highly skilled lab, it is probable that they can do a better job than you, either because of experience (in the case of a master printer), and/or because they have superior equipment. In my experience these days, most lower end labs have lost the skills to make good scans, and a lot of photographers who are scanning a lot will make a better scan themselves. There are vanishingly few labs working with optical prints these days. The volume of clients wanting it is low, and the materials have skyrocketed, so it is a very specialized service. The vast majority of labs and printing services use scanned film as the basis, not just for inkjet, but even if they are doing c prints (they use digital c print machines like lightjets/chromiras etc).

I have been called a master printer by people who I think should know, though it is still a bit awkward to think of myself that way. I am fifteen years in doing it professionally and I specialize in the high end gallery and museum work in my country, but I know of some printers who are better than me in places like New York...most that I know of are of an older generation. I am sure there are a few like me in their thirties and forties who will graduate to being full fledged master printers in another ten years or so. We'll see. In any case, I personally prefer to get the negative, as I can generally make a better scan than my clients, but I will typically look at their files first if they send them in. If I think the file is adequate for what they want to do, I will just stick with that and tweak it as necessary. In general, if I can speak to the clients first, I ask them to scan at moderate to low contrast so they do not clip the blacks or whites, and I ask them not to sharpen. With color negative I typically ask the client to either send me their version and the neg, or to do it with them there, as there are so many different possibilities with color negative that it is hard to know what a client wants without their input. I of course have a lot of clients who just give me everything totally raw and tell me "you know better than me...just do what you think is best". Those are clearly my favorites...but I certainly do not hold it against any clients who have a very specific requirement. It just makes the job a bit tougher, though often more interesting as well. In general I prefer the client to be there, as I find I can make better prints that way. For example, they might say "I want it just like I sent it to you", while I might look at it and think, "I can make it much better". So I will do my changes and see which they prefer. Usually it is the version I recommend, or at least something in between. I obviously cannot easily do that work if the client is not there.

As for the final question, it is quite difficult to answer. To keep it simple I would say this: 1. If you have a good negative, the best version of a moderate or small print is usually the optical version. 2. If you have a bad negative, the digital version will be better. 3. If you want to print mural size, you will likely get better results out of a scan and a digital print. Optical prints have the smoothest tonality and highest sharpness in the small to moderate sizes if you do everything right. Whereas digital prints tend to enlarge best in extreme enlargements and if you have to make any major edits or tweaks of the colors or contrasts, digital has so much more control. Finally, these days if you are printing color you have so many more papers available with inkjet papers than you do with RA4 chemical prints. Want a fine art paper? Your only choose is digital. It is slightly better for B&W, but you still have a lot more flexibility with the materials if you do digital.

 

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[Iconic35mmuser]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

45 minutes ago, malligator said:

B&W or color? One specific negative or multiple?

Both; if printing from negs, would send many at a time to make it worthwhile.

[Iconic35mmuser]

54 minutes ago, spydrxx said:

I've had a number of prints that size and in recent years sent the lab a digital file, with excellent results. With the exception of one acrylic print, all of mine have been exhibition prints on canvas, to be viewed from 5-9 ft away. Everybody's needs, of course, will vary. These days it is hard and I've found quite expensive to get excellent quality prints from negatives. There are far fewer master printers and using a file tweaked to what I want seems to work quite well.

Thanks for your input, very helpful.

[Iconic35mmuser]

9 minutes ago, Anbaric said:

3 feet wide might be a bit of a challenge.

I am schooled in B&W and, could print myself if I were to set up a darkroom again however, color is a different matter. I have no experience in printing color nor would I try to at this stage in my life.

[Iconic35mmuser]

9 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

As a printer, I would say it will depend most on the quality of your scan and the quality of the lab. If you are using a consumer printing service or a run of the mill lab, and you have made a good scan, it is possible that sending them the scan will be a better, more reliable method, as you will have already presented them with your preferred processing. If you are using a master printer or a highly skilled lab, it is probable that they can do a better job than you, either because of experience (in the case of a master printer), and/or because they have superior equipment. In my experience these days, most lower end labs have lost the skills to make good scans, and a lot of photographers who are scanning a lot will make a better scan themselves. There are vanishingly few labs working with optical prints these days. The volume of clients wanting it is low, and the materials have skyrocketed, so it is a very specialized service. The vast majority of labs and printing services use scanned film as the basis, not just for inkjet, but even if they are doing c prints (they use digital c print machines like lightjets/chromiras etc).

I have been called a master printer by people who I think should know, though it is still a bit awkward to think of myself that way. I am fifteen years in doing it professionally and I specialize in the high end gallery and museum work in my country, but I know of some printers whom I consider better than me in places like New York. In any case, I personally prefer to get the negative, as I can generally make a better scan than my clients, but I will typically look at their files first if they send them in. If I think the file is adequate for what they want to do, I will just stick with that and tweak it as necessary. In general, if I can speak to the clients first, I ask them to scan at moderate to low contrast so they do not clip the blacks or whites, and I ask them not to sharpen. With color negative I typically ask the client to either send me their version and the neg, or to do it with them there, as there are so many different possibilities with color negative that it is hard to know what a client wants without their input. I of course have a lot of clients who just give me everything totally raw and tell me "you know better than me...just do what you think is best". Those are clearly my favorites...but I certainly do not hold it against any clients who have a very specific requirement. It just makes the job a bit tougher, though often more interesting as well. In general I prefer the client to be there, as I find I can make better prints that way. For example, they might say "I want it just like I sent it to you", while I might look at it and think, "I can make it much better". So I will do my changes and see which they prefer. Usually it is the version I recommend, or at least something in between. I obviously cannot easily do that work if the client is not there.

As for the final question, it is quite difficult to answer. To keep it simple I would say this: 1. If you have a good negative, the best version of a moderate or small print is usually the optical version. 2. If you have a bad negative, the digital version will be better. 3. If you want to print mural size, you will likely get better results out of a scan and a digital print. Optical prints have the smoothest tonality and highest sharpness in the small to moderate sizes if you do everything right. Whereas digital prints tend to enlarge best in extreme enlargements and if you have to make any major edits or tweaks of the colors or contrasts, digital has so much more control. Finally, these days if you are printing color you have so many more papers available with inkjet papers than you do with RA4 chemical prints. Want a fine art paper? Your only choose is digital. It is slightly better for B&W, but you still have a lot more flexibility with the materials if you do digital.

 

 

Stuart- very well written and very comprehensive-Thank You! All points well made. The last paragraph really makes a lot of sense as, I can see where a digital file would yield better results when desiring a larger print. That's a very good point. So, based on your last paragraph, what size, in your opinion, would be the cut-off for making optical prints from a good neg? Assuming anything larger you would recommend  using a scanned neg. Thanks again for your input, extremely informative.  Nick

[Michael Hiles]

I am certainly not a master printer, but generally know what I am doing. ALL B&W. The maximum size I will do myself is 16x20.

For larger prints (i.e.24x36) I have scanned negatives (usually XP2 Super) and sent the adjusted/improved file to Ilford Lab in the UK. The results have been very satisfactory. The prints look exactly like the image on my screen.

My approach is to scan the negative (max resolution), and manipulate the image with Photoshop Elements and Silver Efex pro.

My conclusion is that the quality of the final print is up to me manipulating the scan.

I have been very happy with the outcome.
 

[Iconic35mmuser]

1 hour ago, Michael Hiles said:

I am certainly not a master printer, but generally know what I am doing. ALL B&W. The maximum size I will do myself is 16x20.

For larger prints (i.e.24x36) I have scanned negatives (usually XP2 Super) and sent the adjusted/improved file to Ilford Lab in the UK. The results have been very satisfactory. The prints look exactly like the image on my screen.

My approach is to scan the negative (max resolution), and manipulate the image with Photoshop Elements and Silver Efex pro.

My conclusion is that the quality of the final print is up to me manipulating the scan.

I have been very happy with the outcome.
 

Thanks Michael, good to hear and, it makes sense. Appreciate your input.  Nick

[Stuart Richardson]

2 hours ago, Iconic35mmuser said:

Stuart- very well written and very comprehensive-Thank You! All points well made. The last paragraph really makes a lot of sense as, I can see where a digital file would yield better results when desiring a larger print. That's a very good point. So, based on your last paragraph, what size, in your opinion, would be the cut-off for making optical prints from a good neg? Assuming anything larger you would recommend  using a scanned neg. Thanks again for your input, extremely informative.  Nick

Thanks Nick. I don't think there is a hard and fast cut off point, but if I had to say, I would say it is around 20x24 inches or so...basically how big you can print in a tray and on your baseboard. It is also about the equipment that you or the lab has. With an optical print, you are dependent on every aspect of the chain for quality. You need a perfectly aligned enlarger, a superb lens designed for large enlargements, a method for holding the large paper prints completely flat, a powerful light source for the enlarger, enough chemical capacity to not exhaust during development (if only so that you get max density) or fixing, you need a more efficient method for washing and drying etc. This all gets exponentially more difficult as you increase in size. It also depends on how well your lab or printer is set up to do large prints. In my own lab, I would say 20x24 (50x60, roughly) is my max practical size for optical prints, as I do not have a mural printing setup for darkroom prints at the moment. In a lab with a dedicated mural printing setup, they can go larger. The results from large optical prints can be lovely, but they are not efficient. This means that they are either a labor of love, or very very expensive. In my experience, most artists who are not doing their own printing will typically go with inkjet or digital c prints (or even digital B&W rc/fiber prints) before optical mural prints, unless that is specifically part of their process.

By comparison, using my Epson P9500, a 100x150cm print might take less than 30 minutes to produce a tack sharp, dry to dry print with a longer archival life than a c print, a wider color gamut on a cotton rag paper. Producing a similar sized darkroom print would require a huge darkroom with a specialized horizontal enlarger and easel, at least one assistant, large amounts of chemicals, industrial ventilation and exposure times alone likely to exceed the printing time of the digital print. This of course does not include the required test strips, dodging/burning and the possibility to make a mistake and have to scrap the entire print. That is possibly an all day affair to set up and make such a massive print, even if you are experienced. With digital once your files are ready, a single person can do 10 or more prints like that in a day, with almost no failure rate while still having time to work on other jobs in between. For this reason, the commercial side has shifted primarily toward digital based workflows. 

I personally think that analog's greatest strength is in large film and small/medium prints. There is nothing in the digital world that can compete with the detail or smoothness of a modest sized print from larger film sizes. With 35mm you can make extremely beautiful 8x10s that will look better than digital prints of the same size. But it really comes in to play with 4x5 and 8x10 film. Contact prints or small enlargements from 4x5 and 8x10 are completely grain free, incredibly finely detailed, sharp without seeming sharpened and imbued with extremely fine tonality. For 4x5 and 8x10 you have to enlarge them to massive sizes before you even see grain, so they will tend to enlarge more easily than 35mm (you are magnifying a lot more, so things like film flatness and alignment are more obvious). Digital prints can come close in ideal conditions, but they cannot get there as they are ultimately limited by the resolution of the printer, whereas analog paper is limited by the resolution of the silver or the dyes embedded in the paper.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[Mr.Prime]

You’ve reminded me of the time I made a wall sized ‘print’ of my girlfriend at the time, but I tiled it using many 8x10” sheets stuck to the wall and exposed with my enlarger turned sideways. Just as you say, it took a whole darn day and that was only B&W. 

[250swb]

I'm no master printer either not having been in a darkroom for fifteen years. But there seems to be one glaring problem with sending your negative for printing, how do you communicate with the printer what you want? A great B&W or colour print is about the detail work the photographer puts into it, dodging and burning, getting the right contrast, etc. The only way a printer would know what is intended would be for the photographer to be whispering in their ear, so no matter how highbrow a wet print may sound it becomes lowbrow if all that is produced is a straight unedited version of the negative. Printing in a darkroom is about the work to perfect the image, otherwise you may as well send the negatives off to the local lab for reproduction.

So the realistic option is to produce the perfect scan/digital copy and work on that before sending it to a good quality print shop who will then be able to replicate even the tone of the print you want, warm or cool, and print in a far wider range of sizes and paper textures.  

Edited June 24, 2022 by 250swb

[Matlock]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

I'm no master printer either not having been in a darkroom for fifteen years. But there seems to be one glaring problem with sending your negative for printing, how do you communicate with the printer what you want? A great B&W or colour print is about the detail work the photographer puts into it, dodging and burning, getting the right contrast, etc. The only way a printer would know what is intended would be for the photographer to be whispering in their ear, so no matter how highbrow a wet print may sound it becomes lowbrow if all that is produced is a straight unedited version of the negative. Printing in a darkroom is about the work to perfect the image, otherwise you may as well send the negatives off to the local lab for reproduction.

So the realistic option is to produce the perfect scan/digital copy and work on that before sending it to a good quality print shop who will then be able to replicate even the tone of the print you want, warm or cool, and print in a far wider range of sizes and paper textures.  

I have to agree with all of that, I only wish I still had a darkroom, it must be about 35 years since I last had one and no room for one now.

[Stuart Richardson]

5 hours ago, 250swb said:

I'm no master printer either not having been in a darkroom for fifteen years. But there seems to be one glaring problem with sending your negative for printing, how do you communicate with the printer what you want? A great B&W or colour print is about the detail work the photographer puts into it, dodging and burning, getting the right contrast, etc. The only way a printer would know what is intended would be for the photographer to be whispering in their ear, so no matter how highbrow a wet print may sound it becomes lowbrow if all that is produced is a straight unedited version of the negative.

I would certainly agree with you for a certain kind of photographer or artist...the kind likely to find on a forum like this. One who is deeply interested in the craft of photography. I have a lot of clients who are extremely talented artists who are not interested in that at all. Henri-Cartier Bresson would be an example (unfortunately not as a client, lol, but as an artist like that). Most contemporary art is a collaboration to some degree, of the artists with technicians. I generally prefer to have the client there with me while we work on the file and do tests, but it is not always necessary, especially once you have built a relationship. In other words, when I am printing for a long time client, I am not printing to my eye, I am printing to theirs. Or at least I am adapting my eye to their taste. I have even had a client hire me as a photographer to photograph what he wanted me to photograph with a view camera. He pointed me at what he wanted to depict, and had me photograph it, process the film, scan it and print it. He had input the whole way through.

All that said, I agree with the spirit of the advice. If you cannot communicate with the printer and you have not used them before, it is a crap shoot. In that case it is better to send a scan. Another option is to send the negative AND a scan, and say that, "this scan is a reference for you...can you scan this in higher resolution and adjust it to match?". In general, the best thing to do is communicate. A good lab should be ready to do so. If they are not, then definitely just stick with your scan, or find another place.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[Huss]

I've been selling 24x36 inch prints from 35mm.  They do not require to stand back to an "appropriate" viewing distance, they are sharp up close.

1. The original negative needs to be near perfect if you want a huge enlargement.  By that I mean zero camera shake, perfect focus.  Unless your intent WAS for the image to have blur etc - which is a valid artistic choice in many cases.  But if it wasn't, the bigger you make an unintentionally unsharp print, the more that error will show.

2. I scan the film myself using a digicam - a Nikon Z7 in my case (but I have used other cameras).  This gives an image that is 8300x5500 large, which pretty much is bigger than most commercial labs offer.  Now with 60mp plus cameras you can go bigger.  I only use this camera to scan film even though I can use it to take pics - not my thing really as I am a film photographer.  To scan with a digicam I really recommend using a lens that will AF in live view.  I use a 60 Micro G lens - and it instantly focuses on the grain.  Originally I tried manual focus and it was very fiddly and time consuming.  Using AF transformed that.  Using non live view AF eg with a DSLR via the regular optical AF produces poor results as it is not accurate enough.

3. I convert the scanned RAW image with negativelabpro.com, then finish editing it in LightRoom.  It is important to have your monitor calibrated to make sure what you see on the screen is what the actual output is.  I use an X-Rite display calibrator.  This actually was the single most important tool I bought to get satisfactory prints!  Much more important than a camera, or lens etc because none of that matters if your monitor does not reflect the printed image.

4. Once the image is edited, you can uprez it if needed. LightRoom has a built in Enhance function under Photo that doubles the resolution.  I use this if I print huge, and I've examined the final printed results and it works great.  Some people claim this stuff is not good - I'd just say try it for yourself on a real print and be your own judge.

5. I send the digital file to my printer with the instructions 'auto correct off'.  Some places that is an option you check or uncheck when you submit your file.

I have very happy clientele from doing this.

[David_Manning]

For a print that size from 35mm, definitely a digital scan instead of an optical print.  That being said, your scan will be critical.

 

For myself, this is a good example... a 35mm Acros II scan, shot with an M7 and Zeiss Biogon 2/35 lens.

 

Scanned with a Canon R5 in RAW using an RF-mount Venus Laowa 100mm f2.8 APO 2:1 macro lens at f11.  The scan is 34MP.  Please look at full size...the image in the thread looks soft.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited June 24, 2022 by David_Manning

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Iconic35mmuser]

12 hours ago, 250swb said:

I'm no master printer either not having been in a darkroom for fifteen years. But there seems to be one glaring problem with sending your negative for printing, how do you communicate with the printer what you want? A great B&W or colour print is about the detail work the photographer puts into it, dodging and burning, getting the right contrast, etc. The only way a printer would know what is intended would be for the photographer to be whispering in their ear, so no matter how highbrow a wet print may sound it becomes lowbrow if all that is produced is a straight unedited version of the negative. Printing in a darkroom is about the work to perfect the image, otherwise you may as well send the negatives off to the local lab for reproduction.

So the realistic option is to produce the perfect scan/digital copy and work on that before sending it to a good quality print shop who will then be able to replicate even the tone of the print you want, warm or cool, and print in a far wider range of sizes and paper textures.  

All very good points which, I had not thought of. Thank You!