Largest print size for 35mm film

MindofMel

MindofMel

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,586
Name
Mel
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all, been doing some research into getting some negs printed quite large as I have some shots I really want on my wall. :self glorification: and on forums people are saying 16x20 is the largest you can go... and I was just thinking - at exhibitions etc I've seen film shots at mahoosive sizes? what gives! :shrug:
 
Shoot on 100 film, develop in incredibly fine grain developer and wet print and you will definitely be able to gp bigger.

Scanned Ektar printed digitally is fine at 16x20, but imperfections such as camera shake and misfocus are becoming apparant at that size.
 
Surely it also depends on the viewing distance.
 
I'm going back a while - 20 or 30 years and more - but I remember people printing at 16 x 20 and getting good results. Mind you, 25 ASA and 50 ASA film was available then and they might have been using tripods, but they seemed to think that was about the limit. I suppose you could go bigger with care and if you're not worried about the grain, particularly if you're not going to be viewing the prints closely, but I know people were using 120 film for big exhibition prints in the late 60s when I started 'serious' photography.

My knowledge of film photography now is limited. I mainly use film for the pleasure of shooting the old F2, and I'd be interested to see how you get on with this.
 
Isn't the "limit" something subjective? What one person might think is too far gone could be someone else's just right?
 
It depends on viewing distance. I think your issue may be softness due to grain but if that's acceptable in these particular images then whos to say its detrimental?

ps; you can fill the back end of a bus with 6 megapixels. Image size doesn't mean a thing, quality is everything, your lens selection and scanning technique will pay a critical part
 
I reckon you can go bigger than 16x20, when I saw Don McCullin's exhibition at the IWM a few months ago I'm sure I saw larger prints that looked pretty good.
 
Interesting question and I would guess colour film is more advanced then B/W esp when you can use denoise and sharpening programs that don't work very well with B/W.
My son had this done in a lab and it's so good they must have enhanced the blow up somehow:-

Bad flash shot by me
179612c9.jpg
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Image size doesn't mean a thing, quality is everything, your lens selection and scanning technique will pay a critical part
Click to expand...



:agree:

I have many A3 and A3+ prints from digital and film that look pretty impressive because the quality was in the original shot....I am sure some could be made bigger without problem if I wished.
 
Last edited:
Asha said:
:agree:

I have many A3 and A3+ prints from digital and film that look pretty impressive because the quality was in the original shot....I am sure some could be made bigger without problem if I wished.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I've printed to A4 from 1200 x 1600 (2 MB) digital files - from my old Minolta Dimage 7i - quite easily, and I'm sure I could get to A3. I don't really know how this compares with enlarging from 35mm negatives, but I think it does make the point about starting with a quality image.
 
You can print it as big as you want. It all depends on how you want it & how much grain you can put up with
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top