Bringing my film toys out of retirement…

antonroland

antonroland

Inspector Gadget
Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,210
Name
Anton
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello All

Yes, I am still around…again…

I would like to discuss 35mm film with you fine folks. I have had a (snobbish?) mental block against 35 in favour of MF for some time but since I am rediscovering all my film toys I thought I’d give it a go again.

I might try wet prints again in future but for now it will be scanning.

How large can one really go with a 35 format neg?

I plan to shoot B&W neg film and hopefully colour slide but might just stick with colour slide in 120. So only B&W really.

Bulk would probably be PanF 50 and Tri-X or T-Max 400…

All inputs highly appreciated.
 
I've gone up to 16"x20" in the past, my current enlarger won't swivel to let me project onto the floor or as I once did onto the far wall of a darkroom and do a crop.
 
It depends entirely on your scanning method and your scrutiny of the print at close distance, as well as good developing to get the most out of the film.

I can print to any size from 35mm as long as the image is viewed at the correct distance to appreciate it.

A 35mm scan done on my Plustek 8100 will print to 13x19 (A3+) and bear close scrutiny. The same print from a DSLR does look sharper & more detailed, but a "normal" person (i.e. my wife) couldn't tell the difference. I have quite a few 13x19s on the walls at home from 35mm negatives.

I tend to get the best (cleanest & sharpest) results from Pan F in DD-X and Tri-X in either DD-X for clean & sharp images, or HC-110 when I want something a bit grittier.
I scan to (roughly) 2400x3600px which gives me about 190ppi at 13x19 which can show some defects up at 6" away, but at a couple of feet it looks just like any other photo on the wall.

[caveat]My eyesight is getting pretty poor up close these days so like all things, it's subjective[/caveat]
 
When i used to dabble in 35mm i was easily printing to A3+ as @Harlequin565 says
 
As Ian said, it's subjective. The largest physical print I've made from 35mm in a darkroom was 12"x16, and the greatest degree of enlargement would have been about equivalent to a 20"x16" print. The largest satisfactory to me (subjective here) I've made in a darkroom was 10"x8". This might be down to either poor printing technique or inferior lenses, but that was my limit. Note that this would have been in the 1960s, so allow for the film etc. of the time.

I have found that scanning (in my case with an Epson flatbed) has allowed me to go slightly larger than A4, which may point to poor technique in the darkroom or the enlarger lenses since we're talking about the same vintage negatives. Ctein in Post Exposure is very scathing about the quality control on enlarger lenses from the big names - most being decentred.

I'm short sighted, so I can view very close (about a handsbredth away) and my standard is based on the prints from somewhat larger negatives than 35mm. I'm aiming for medium/large format quality in a print, regardless of the negative size. Yes, I am obsessive :)
 
antonroland said:
How large can one really go with a 35 format neg?
Click to expand...
This is one of those questions that's been around since young Master Barnack first put cine film into a still camera body.

The only sensible answer is "as large as you like". At the end of the 1960s, my then boss and I did a series of employee shots for a marketing company. The full length images were made in a Nikon F onto Tri-X and printed to life size on Grade 5 paper to emphasise the grain. They were used in the company's entrance hall and apparently were in place for several years.

If you have a need for sharpness, detail (not necessarily the same thing) and wide gradation at a viewing distance of two to three feet, 20x16 might be as far as Pan F, the best Leica lenses and a very steady tripod will get you.
It all depends... :tumbleweed:
 
The maximum size is dictated by you!

There are some folk won’t go larger than 4x6 inches based on a max of 4x enlargement of the negative.

Others will accept grain etc and be content with a print in excess of 20x16.

It’s down to you.

Are you going to scrutinize the prints close up or view from a moderate distance ( several yards) ?
It makes a difference as to what you can ´get away with’

Like with most photography related topics, it’s very subjective.

As you have already temporarily dismissed 35mm for the larger mf negs, you don’t need my advice to avoid subminiature ( 35mm) format if you are looking for high IQ in prints larger than 10x8
 
The larger you print, the further back you stand when viewing it, so you can probably push it a bit further than feels comfortable
 
Cheers Everyone

Thanks for all the replies! I have confirmation of what I believed…now to burn some film so I can get some prints going…

Must say I would really not mind getting some proper chemical prints going but will scan until play money allows for getting it going.
 
I'll be interested to find out how you get on.

With regards to 35mm, one very obvious statement someone made years ago springs to mind, to the effect that miniature negatives don't have special miniature dust to offset the extra enlargement required.
 
StephenM said:
I'll be interested to find out how you get on.

With regards to 35mm, one very obvious statement someone made years ago springs to mind, to the effect that miniature negatives don't have special miniature dust to offset the extra enlargement required.
Click to expand...
It will not be a quick project but I will start burning film and send the negs to one of 2 or 3 companies for proper scanning, none of them within 500 mile away. No decent film scanning outfit in my home town I’m afraid.
 
Winslowe beat me to it. CMS 20 looks like an interesting film, I have five rolls on my desk waiting to be used but at 12-20 ISO one need to pick one's subject and day with caution. Adox say you can go to 2.5meters diagonally with this film.
It does depend however why you are wanting to shoot film. If you are looking to out resolve your digital camera then CMS 20 or Pan F type films might be your only options. If however you are looking for that authentic film grain look then other options are available of course. Of course it might just be the joy of using older kit, something I quite understand as I have a YouTube channel specifically looking at vintage cameras. The point being however you shoot you should start from the point of view of how and where you are going to use the photos. Not always possible of course and not every photo we take is for some grand plan, if fact most are not. It's worth thinking about however.
The Adox product can be widely found, I just bought some from Firstcall Photographic whom I find to be very good. In terms of scanning one of my all time retialers is MS Hobbies who have a range of scanning options including a Flextight which is about as good as they get. More importantly they know how to get the best out of them. They also develop films as well if you need dev and scan.
Most importantly, have fun.
 
Plain Nev said:
Ah, I see. Sorry I didn't realise you were quite so far away. I'd thought we might be able to recommend a few labs for you.
Click to expand...
Cheers anyway!
 
Cheers again Everyone!

I should probably explore the option of paying one of you fine folks for shipping etc.

Never heard of Adox CMS 20. Can barely get decent varieties of Ilford, Fuji and Kodak down here at the same time… And then I have to ship in from either Cape Town or Johannesburg…‍♂️

Was quite ironic for me that, on what is available 120 is actually cheaper than 35…
 
ilikebowens said:
If you are looking to out resolve your digital camera then CMS 20 or Pan F type films might be your only options.
Click to expand...
Do you think that those films can give this level of detail from a 35mm half frame? This was made on a Panasonic GM5 (M43 / AKA half frame) with a 12~32mm lens, The inset image shows the full frame...

Panasonic GM5_red 8GB 02 P1220522 copy.JPG
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Do you think that those films can give this level of detail from a 35mm half frame?
Click to expand...
Well it's not a challenge, just trying to understand the OP's motivation.
Adox do claim up to 800 lp/mm resolution which I think would exceed that of most lenses but as others have mentioned viewing from the correct distance to maintain correct perspective is also important. If I remember correctly to see the correct perspective of a 10x8 print you need to be six feet away! No one ever stood six feet away to admire a 10x8 so it is all relative.
 
I believe CMS20 is akin to the late lamented Kodak Tech Pan - basically a high contrast film that could be used pictorially with special development. Both Tech Pan and CMS20 came/come with a recommended developer. I used Rodinal 1:100 with Tech Pan.

The Kodak Black-and-White Darkroom DATAGUIDE (Kodak's capitalisation) gives sections from 13 times enlargements for all the then current films; Tech Pan was sharp and grain free. As far as I could see, the resolution was lens limited.
 
Having just seen the post made while I was typing, Tech Pan according to Kodak had a resolution of 320 lines per mm. T Max 100 was rated at 200 lpmm, Plus X 125 and Tri X 100. The publication date is 1988.

And the 800 is beyond the diffraction limits of any normal lens. The highest resolution noted (from memory, I'd need to check) was just over 2000 lpmm, achievable with monochromatic light and only on axis. This wasn't exactly a normal lens... Normally, we'd be running at around 100 lpmm tops in the real world.
 
Last edited:
ilikebowens said:
Well it's not a challenge, just trying to understand the OP's motivation.
Click to expand...
...and neither was my reply.

As I pointed out in my previous response (#7) you can enlarge a negative to any size, it just depends on what you want to achieve. I'm genuinely curious as to whether film technology has advanced to the point where it can compete with a 16MP sensor and assumed that you had experimented with the CMS 20 by now.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
...and neither was my reply.

As I pointed out in my previous response (#7) you can enlarge a negative to any size, it just depends on what you want to achieve. I'm genuinely curious as to whether film technology has advanced to the point where it can compete with a 16MP sensor and assumed that you had experimented with the CMS 20 by now.
Click to expand...
Check out the video I posted further up. You'll be quite amazed at CMS 20 I think.
 
Cheers again everyone! Some of these more technical recent responses make my head hurt a bit but I thank you for your help.

Thing is, I am not too sure I know what I really want myself but here are a few ideas as I consider my equipment and shoot efforts.

I believe I wish to get to a point where I can print around A2 at close to 300dpi.

For now I will stick with what I know and that means a good few rolls of PanF 50 and some Tri-X or TMax 400.

My Mamiya 45mm 645 lens needs some love and so 35mm it is for a while…

Cheers again Everyone!
 
antonroland said:
How large can one really go with a 35 format neg?
Click to expand...
Good to see you back Anton.

In answer to your question, it really depends how far back youre standing and also how important sharpness is to you?
 
RaglanSurf said:
Good to see you back Anton.

In answer to your question, it really depends how far back youre standing and also how important sharpness is to you?
Click to expand...
Cheers Mate!! Great to see some familiar folks…hope I am not remembered for ALL the wrong reasons

The plan is, hopefully, to be able to produce saleable prints in the A3/A2 region. Sharpness, to me at least, is quite relative and I am quite happy in the 100-150dpi region if the subject matter allows.

I will burn a dozen or so 35mm films to see if this is realistically achievable for me before I permanently relegate the 35mm format to the pleasant memories chapter…or start buying more lenses and give it horns
 
antonroland said:
I believe I wish to get to a point where I can print around A2 at close to 300dpi.
Click to expand...
That would equate to 4800x6900 which is around a 33MP sensor in digital terms. You can get that sort of resolution out of a drum scan, but given the prices, I'm not sure how practical that would be. Another alternative would be a DSLR scan setup with something like a Sony A7IV or one of the Fuji MF cameras.

My suggestion would be a test roll with "perfect" conditions: Tripod & cable release, sweetspot aperture for the lens, double and triple check the focus in camera, dev in film manufacturers recommended developer. Followed by different scanning methods and resolutions. Followed by prints at various sizes.

I "discounted" 35mm as a viable format for the wrong reasons. I picked up a roll of film, shot it, sent it to a lab (no clue what dev they used), scanned the negs myself on a flatbed (with no idea what settings to use), and thought the results were terrible.

Getting great results out of 120 film is relatively easy. 135 is a bit trickier but (in my opinion) can be as good as 120.
 
Harlequin565 said:
That would equate to 4800x6900 which is around a 33MP sensor in digital terms. You can get that sort of resolution out of a drum scan, but given the prices, I'm not sure how practical that would be. Another alternative would be a DSLR scan setup with something like a Sony A7IV or one of the Fuji MF cameras.

My suggestion would be a test roll with "perfect" conditions: Tripod & cable release, sweetspot aperture for the lens, double and triple check the focus in camera, dev in film manufacturers recommended developer. Followed by different scanning methods and resolutions. Followed by prints at various sizes.

I "discounted" 35mm as a viable format for the wrong reasons. I picked up a roll of film, shot it, sent it to a lab (no clue what dev they used), scanned the negs myself on a flatbed (with no idea what settings to use), and thought the results were terrible.

Getting great results out of 120 film is relatively easy. 135 is a bit trickier but (in my opinion) can be as good as 120.
Click to expand...

Using a GFX50S, I get files around 40MP (once aspect ratio and a removing the film border is taken into account). I can get this on both 35mm and MF. I'm using a Canon EF100mm F2.8L Macro Lens (with extn tube for 35mm), which does cover the full GFX sensor.

You can get files that size with a flatbed scanner as well, but usually you have goine beyond the physical' resolution that the scanner is capable of, and are just creating a larger file with no extra detail.

I too struggle with 35mm, we are so used to seeing crisp digital images, that 35mm often doesn't meet our expectations, but I'm finding that using low grain film stock, combined with decent lenses, and then scanning via the GFX I'm getting acceptable results. My 35mm adventures with an Epson scanner leave to lot to be desired.

I'd agree that 120 is easier especially if you are working in the digital domain for post production..

@antonroland There is a lot of experimentation to get the workflow that suits you.
 
Last edited:
Harlequin565 said:
That would equate to 4800x6900 which is around a 33MP sensor in digital terms. You can get that sort of resolution out of a drum scan, but given the prices, I'm not sure how practical that would be. Another alternative would be a DSLR scan setup with something like a Sony A7IV or one of the Fuji MF cameras.

My suggestion would be a test roll with "perfect" conditions: Tripod & cable release, sweetspot aperture for the lens, double and triple check the focus in camera, dev in film manufacturers recommended developer. Followed by different scanning methods and resolutions. Followed by prints at various sizes.

I "discounted" 35mm as a viable format for the wrong reasons. I picked up a roll of film, shot it, sent it to a lab (no clue what dev they used), scanned the negs myself on a flatbed (with no idea what settings to use), and thought the results were terrible.

Getting great results out of 120 film is relatively easy. 135 is a bit trickier but (in my opinion) can be as good as 120.
Click to expand...
Hello there…

Now I might be mistaken but IIRC my 1DsII came fairly close to A2 at 300dpi? Yes I am…just over A3…which absolutely confirms your numbers…

Your suggestion is a great one but me being me I will probably (!) throw in a few personal flavours…for one, PanF 50 and Perceptol are simply not negotiable but I believe they are a good if not ideal match?

My first film is probably still en-route for scanning but I am told that those scans will be the best quality Large scans a Fuji(?) Frontier could do and also the best trade-off between cost and quality before pulling in bigger guns like the Imacon scanners…and associated cost per frame.

Now, would I like a Heidelberg? Of course!! But it is simply not viable for every frame now if I am not going to make some money back from it.

I have made enough (4 or 5) crude attempts at scanning various film formats on a V750 with the supplied Epson carriers to know I should leave that to the adults. Sure, waiting a week or two for digitised film is not my first choice but it is what it is for now.

And so the testing is very much ongoing as play money allows and I will attempt to report back as objectively as possible on any and all lessons learned. First and foremost, however, is that I wish to have fun doing it.

Now once I have my film legs back on properly I will do more 120 too but I believe that 120 must be by far superior to 35. If I am wrong on this I will help myself to a very public and generous slice of humble pie but as I reinvent my film skills it is absolutely about having fun and IF I do manage to produce saleable works that would be the cherry-on-top.

Cheers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top