Best way to have large prints made from 35mm film

[maxfairclough]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 hours 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 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.

 

 

That was great to read and taught me a lot, thank you.

[Iconic35mmuser]

1 hour ago, David_Manning said:

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!

David- Excellent result, very impressive. Based on everyones input, sounds like I need to do the scan myself, then send to lab with additional instructions. Appreciate your input.. Nick

[SudaliuS]

Hello everyone!
I want to buy Leica MP camera for a couple of months already. Want to touch this analog experience with film. I have Leica IIIf, but it's not exactly the same what I need.
I really wanted to master optical color printing on my own. But recently I learned that this is an incredibly complex process even for experienced printers. This raises the question: why shoot on film then, if not to print photos optically? Yes, I get good and high-quality scans from the lab with my IIIf, but I have not tried ordering them for printing using an inkjet printer.
Please tell me, how much worse is the print quality from a scan than the optical method of printing from a negative. We are talking about a size of, say, 15 cm x 20 cm

[250swb]

 

On 7/4/2025 at 7:56 PM, SudaliuS said:

Hello everyone!
I want to buy Leica MP camera for a couple of months already. Want to touch this analog experience with film. I have Leica IIIf, but it's not exactly the same what I need.
I really wanted to master optical color printing on my own. But recently I learned that this is an incredibly complex process even for experienced printers. This raises the question: why shoot on film then, if not to print photos optically? Yes, I get good and high-quality scans from the lab with my IIIf, but I have not tried ordering them for printing using an inkjet printer.
Please tell me, how much worse is the print quality from a scan than the optical method of printing from a negative. We are talking about a size of, say, 15 cm x 20 cm

It's obvious you expect a certain answer but I'm sorry to disappoint you, you won't see a difference between a scan and inkjet print and a darkroom print.

Obviously it depends on everything being done well and with as much care as a darkroom print, scanning and printing is a skill, but there s nothing to stop it embodying the inherent qualities of the negative other than using the wrong equipment or not knowing how to use the correct equipment.

Edited July 6 by 250swb

[BernardC]

On 7/4/2025 at 2:56 PM, SudaliuS said:

I really wanted to master optical color printing on my own. But recently I learned that this is an incredibly complex process even for experienced printers.

It's not that complex with the right equipment. It's certainly expensive these days, and it can be frustrating, but all you really need to do is follow a recipe.

In terms of equipment, you need a colour enlarger with a good lens, a good timer and thermometer, and some paper processing tubes. A motorized motor base is convenient but not absolutely necessary: you can roll the tubes manually in a sink.

You'll eventually want an automated processor as you become a "master", but the setup to get your first prints is surprisingly simple.

[Stuart Richardson]

I think for most, the reason to use film is for the experience using the cameras, and the inherent properties of the film itself, which are largely captured adequately by scanning. Color printing is, for most, more demanding and less fun than black and white. It must be done in complete darkness.  Without a dry to dry processing machine, the chemical side of it is demanding and invisible. For black and white there is the joy of seeing a print appearing in a tray, watching it change, having tactile involvement. Color printing doesn’t give you that. It is making minute color and time adjustments, documenting them, gathering test strips and processing them, waiting, then cross-referencing them and inputting the information and doing it precisely again. It’s not as hands on or as fun as black and white unless what I described is really your vibe. 

Additionally, color has very limited choice in paper right now. It is essentially Fuji Crystal Archive…Matte, Glossy or Lustre. That is an RC style plastic paper with a cold tone and optical brighteners. Inkjet will print on everything from washi to cotton rag to transparency films and the RC styles that mimic a c print. 

I would say that unless the whole journey is to print optically, then optical color prints are not very practical at this point. At a size of 15x20 you are not really going to see any difference other than the papers/materials. 

Edited July 7 by Stuart Richardson

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would say that optical color printing really comes into its own for large format. If you have a 4x5 or 8x10 color enlarger, you can make stunning prints because almost no scanner really gets everything out of those films. But for 35mm, a good scanner or even camera scan can get nearly all practical information out of the film. So the difference would be that, for example, a 40x50 inch print from 8x10 is only a 5x enlargement, which is essentially the same enlargement as a print you get from a minilab  with 35mm. While it is easy to find a 4000-8000dpi scan of 35mm, 4x5 or 8x10 seldom crack 2000dpi without drum scanners.  Generally, most modern films have up to about 4000-5000dpi of useable detail information, though it is not an exact number. 
Anyway, long story short: big film is the best reason to go for all analog optical prints, otherwise it is not so practical. 

Edited July 7 by Stuart Richardson

[BernardC]

12 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Color printing is, for most, more demanding and less fun than black and white. It must be done in complete darkness.  Without a dry to dry processing machine, the chemical side of it is demanding and invisible. For black and white there is the joy of seeing a print appearing in a tray, watching it change, having tactile involvement. Color printing doesn’t give you that.

On top of that, there is no point in tweaking the process with RA4, like there is with black and white. If you stray a little bit with time, temperature, chemistry, replenishment, etc., you will get crossed curves (shadows and highlights that have different colour casts), weak shadows, and potentially unstable prints. 

It's a fantastic medium when done right, and I hope that a few labs will keep offering RA4 prints, but it will become your full-time occupation (with or without pay) if you want to get really good at it.

[Stuart Richardson]

For sure. And I agree that it is not “incredibly complex”, it is just not as fun. You are dealing with chemicals that are more dangerous, the process is typically done at 38C and you can’t play with it as Bernard says. It is just something you do to get the print. Whereas black and white truly feels like you are a participant in the process (which you are). Color is honestly an analog process that feels more digital, as you kind of set the print up and then “send it to the printer” by pressing the expose button. 

[pgh]

On 7/4/2025 at 2:56 PM, SudaliuS said:

why shoot on film then, if not to print photos optically?

For me it's two things - a medium of physical capture, and an enjoyment of the process and the comparatively flawed results when compared with digital.

Of course, I make small (5x7) prints constantly of most of my select digital images and edit with those, so I am probably turning my digital into physical much more than most. 

As others have noted, the answer to shooting film is not really practical. It's more of an emotional, process oriented answer. Perhaps one about color and rendering, you still can't fake film with digital convincingly I don't think. But of course trying do to that is missing the point of either medium, and they are indeed quite different mediums.

I would agree that a good scan at the size you're talking about is going to be no worse in practical terms than an optical print. I'd also contend that larger color prints from 35mm are actually much more feasible done digitally, and while they may not look exactly the same you're liable to actually get higher quality prints more consistently (if we think of the idea of quality as holistic term - not just resolution) with a scan to inkjet print. You have a lot more control to get the image right and make sure things aside from the resolution turn out the way you want.

That's just me. While I still see a limited spot for film use, I've got no romantic notion about RA4 printing. Don't think I'll ever have one made again, haven't for over a decade. Just isn't feasible or worth it and for most not accessible either. 

Edited July 7 by pgh

[SudaliuS]

Thank you guys for your answers.
I got scans from the last film I've shoot couple of weeks ago. It's Kodak Gold 200 with Leica IIIf. Very inspired by colors and athmosphere of the images. They looks like have something live in it. And I think they not lose his charm even I print it via printer