A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

enlarge 35mm to 30x40



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 26th 05, 06:11 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default enlarge 35mm to 30x40

Hi

I am a color printer and I am attempting to enlarge a 35mm neg to a
30x40 c41 print. I am wondering if anyone out there has done this and
what are the results like?
Thanks

  #2  
Old January 26th 05, 08:04 AM
Graham Fountain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi

I am a color printer and I am attempting to enlarge a 35mm neg to a
30x40 c41 print. I am wondering if anyone out there has done this and
what are the results like?

I assume you mean 30x40 inches? I have enlarged enlarged Kodak Gold 100 and
Fuji Superia 100 to 24x36 inches, so a little smaller than what you are
talking, and it came it quite ok. Yes the grain was highly visible, but from
a normal viewing distance (approx 3-6 feet) it looks quite ok. The Fuji was
clearly better than the Kodak as far as grain goes. At that size the images
do look a little soft, but I have never heard a negative comment from people
that see them - seems the general public is far less demanding than I am. I
have also enlarged Sensia 100 (slide film) to 24x36 and it looked gorgeous -
still a tad soft compared to 645 negs, but noticeably better than ISO100
colour negative film.
I have enlarged 400 speed fuji superia to A2 (approx 24x16) and the results
were pretty awful.
Thanks



  #4  
Old January 27th 05, 06:28 AM
Lewis Lang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Subject: enlarge 35mm to 30x40
From: "Joseph Meehan"
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2005 6:57 AM
Message-id:

wrote:
Hi

I am a color printer and I am attempting to enlarge a 35mm neg to a
30x40 c41 print. I am wondering if anyone out there has done this and
what are the results like?
Thanks


35mm can be enlarged much large and look great. or much smaller and
look
very sad. It all depends on the quality and expectations.

Look closely at the results of a very large print next to a small print

from 35mm next the the same size prints made from a good 8x10 sheet film

camera and you will not really like the 35 very much. for the most part

however a good 35 mm image can look great 30x40 inch.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


Having had (way too much) experience at this I'll add in a few tips...

That your technique and equipment should be the best (I said best, which
doesn't always mean "most expensive") goes without saying. The best large
"mural" (40x60"?) prints I've seen have come off of a Leica M 35mm f/2
Summicron and Ektar 25 film (both now discontinued unfortunately though you can
still get the lens used) but I personally have made quite decent (read
excellent by most other people's standards) 30x40" prints off of a fixed Nikon
(16mm fisheye) lens. I have a feeling that lesser lenses, even consumer zooms,
would do well if well stopped down and mounted to a sturdy tripod and/or if
flash is used to freeze subject/camera motion. Small focusing inaccuracies,
subject and/or camera shake and other (non-intentional) defects get magnified
in larger sizes.

Viewing distance is really a such a personal thing, depending upon both the
type of subject matter, the room dimensions the print is displayed in, personal
preference and/or obsession, etc. People usually stand quite a few feet when
viewing a large 30x40" print to take it all in at one glance, but as a
photographer you (and/or your intended viewrs/others) might want to come up
much closer (up to about 10"? or so) to check out/"luxuriate in" the details as
well as to see how well the image quality itself has held up through massive
enlargement. Always have high enough standards to silence both your external
critics and more importantly, your inner critic (which counts the most, if you
can't please yourself then why do it?). But, having said this, remember, there
is a fine line between having high standards and hypercritical quality
obsessivenes - the purpose of photography (or at least one of the main ones) is
to have fun/enjoy it so don't get caught up in the perfectionist cults of fine
grainedness, ultra mega sharpness and or other technicalities. Especially with
large blow ups from 35mm, its a losing battle. Which is not to say that you
can't get great results from large blowup 35mm printing - just realise that
quality and large blow ups are at cross purposes, especially with a semi-small
format like 35mm, so you'll have to find your own balancing point as to size
print verses image quality. For me, after too many 20x30" and 30x40" prints,
that trade off between size and quality is at about 16x20" print size. Others
prefer the impact of 20x24" and larger, but quite frankly for larger prints I'd
just as soon have a lab print it for me as I am more than satisfied with 16x20"
for wall hangings and personally I don't need the hassle (and cost) in making
and framing larger sized prints. For you it might be different and there is no
reason why you have to follow my guidelines, just thought I'd mention them to
you anyways. Make up your own mind and your own tastes as to which print
size(s) is/are best for you. In any case, if your technique is good the image
and its effect should be the most important thing and your technique should at
least if not enhance the effect of the image, well at least not get in the way
of its overall impact. So what this boils down to in practical terms is. Expect
grain. Grain is not a four letter word (yes, I know its five letters but you
get my point anyway). Even the now discontinued Kodachrome 25 was "grainy"
(though not overwhelmingly so) at 30x40" and they looked fine at that size.
Some of Fuji's current films are even less gariny! than K-25 (which had an RMS
of 9 while I believe some of the current Fuji slide films are in the 7 or 8
area of RMS, an order or two of magnitude less grainy). I can't speak for
whatever C-41 film your using but too much graininess is a matter of personal
preference/what you can stand. If you can't stand grain then you might want to
think about shooting slower ISOd/finer grained films than what you are
currently shooting if you plan to do more large blow ups in the future.

Unless you have a wide angle enlarging lens (40mm or less instead of 50mm) be
prepared, even with long chimpanzee-like arms and a chain for "remote"
focusing, for stretching your arms alot ;-). If you are really cramped for
height or space you might want to consider having a wider angle enlarger (or if
you are really experimental, manual focus/manual aperture camera) lens into
your lens board. Also, with smaller apertures (f/8, f/11 and upwards) your
exposure times for the paper may run into many seconds if not minutes
(especially minutes if you plan to do some burning down of some sections. I
would constantly be on the look out for even slight focus shift/creep,
especially right before you do the exposure you should ƒ up on focus/refocus if
necessary (and don't forget to stop down again before exposing the paper! ;-))
so you end up with a print that is tack sharp instead of almost sharp. Focus
can shift during exposure too if exposures are long enough (depends on the
enlarger), you may have to almost get the image into (grain sharp) focus (with
your magnifier) and let the exposure time shift the enlarger's lens into focus,
or not. Instead of finding out in large prints and wasting paper. You might
want to check how well focus holds up by (once you've done your test strips and
gotten your density and color down pat) using 5x7" paper (or cutting a larger
sheet in 1/2s or 1/4s or whatever) and doing a "grain sharpness shift test" on
either the sky or an area of even/flat tone where grain sharpness can be easily
discerned instead of wasting 30x40" sheets of paper on this. There are places
that have horizontally mounted enlargers that project on walls (some with a
vaccum backed easel to suck the paper flat) but I believe that is out of the
scope financially/otherwise of many people unless you plan on doing lots of
huge enalargements...

Another key area to be aware of/adjust for is image flatness, both in the
enlarger's negative carrier and in the enlarger's head's perpendicularity (even
a word?) to th base board. Use levels at the four corners of both your lens
board and the paper tray/easel to make sure that each corner/side is level. On
some enlargers you might be able to adjust (w/ a screw?) the lens board's
levelness. An easel can be made more level via paper or tape as a shim should
the board it rests on be warped/tilted/etc. I prefer using a low tack black
tape (I forget the make as its been a while since I've done it) to tape down
along both the film's edges covering maybe halfway or so into the sprocket area
for flatness. I also tend to stop down (f/11? or so) to the smalles aperture
that wont give me (color) reciprocity failure/color crossover to increase the
depth of field across the area of the negative as even slightly out of
alignment elements are magnified at large sizes. All the more important a
reason to start out with a great enalrging lens that wont crap out in quality
when being stopped down and/or used at higher magnifications.

Which brings us to... the enlarger lens, of course :-). In large blow-up
photography everything is your weakest link, so make sure that your enlarger
lens is the best. Schneider Componon S 50mm f/2.8 and perhaps Rodenstock's 50mm
APO Rodagon (or other optimally corrected for large enlargements) enlarging
lenses are probably your best bets (if you can buy, beg or borrow them) as they
are/seem to be highly corrected for chromatic aberration (color fringing). The
50mm f/2.8 Nikkors I've used (in my not so humble opinion) "suck" (my technical
term) for large enlargements especially because of this defect (lateral
color/color fringing). Lateral color/chromatic aberration _with enlarging
lenses_ really becomes an especially important factor at 20x30" and larger
sizes, so whatever you can do to cut this "bugaboo" out, do it. You may need to
buy (used if possible/in good condition) or rent different enlarging lenses to
see which satisfies your quality needs/pocketbook/wallet most, but the
Schneider f/2.8 Componon S lens (in quality/price) is a good starting/ending
point unless you have the money for Leica or APO enlarging lenses in other
brands.

Make sure that there is no stray light seeping in from under doors, covered
windows, even from the enlarger's cracks/crannies, etc. Give your eyes time to
adjust (a few minutes at least) to the darkness to make sure the darkness is
absolute and not "almost darkness" that would give a low level fog to your
paper and cut down the paper's/images contrast.

Always make more than one "best"/master print, even if you just want one print
as this eliminates the time and effort/hassle needed should you want more
prints of an image in the future.

P.S. - Unless you are in love with larger sizes, think about "smaller sizes"
(like "only" 16x20" or less) as they are far less hassle to get sparkling
prints out of 35mm images the smaller you go.

P.P.S. - AOL is discontinuing its newsgroup srvice for land lines soon so I may
not be able to post for a long? while until I can download a newsreader that
will work with my ancient operating system/computer so don't be surprised if I
someday soon am not able to reply for a long while...

I wish you success, some very fine, very large print(s)... and a large bank
account ;-), you'll probably need it ;-) :-).

This post is...

© 2005 Lewis Lang

All Rights (and back aches ;-)) Reserved

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***
  #6  
Old January 27th 05, 09:59 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Gordon, I sent you a couple e-mails recently. Did you receive them?

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
  #7  
Old January 27th 05, 10:36 PM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Browne wrote:

Gordon, I sent you a couple e-mails recently. Did you receive them?

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.


Just checked, and only one message, so I sent a reply. The e-mail address
I use for news groups is heavily filtered, and I do not check it that
often. It is better to contact me through my website, in case you want a
professional answer, or something to do with a business inquiry.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

  #8  
Old January 27th 05, 11:52 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gordon Moat wrote:

Just checked, and only one message, so I sent a reply. The e-mail address
I use for news groups is heavily filtered, and I do not check it that
often. It is better to contact me through my website, in case you want a
professional answer, or something to do with a business inquiry.



Your attglobal address rejects my e-mail every time. Says it has a virus
attached (it doesn't / can't). I CC'd the same message to your other e-mail
address as well.

See below (rejected message).
Cheers,
Alan


A message (from ) was received at 27
Jan 2005 22:06:41 +0000.

The following addresses had delivery problems:


Permanent Failu Your message may contain a virus. Please contact Microsoft
Security.
Delivery last attempted at Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:11:23 -0000



Reporting-MTA: dns; prserv.net
Arrival-Date: 27 Jan 2005 22:06:41 +0000

Final-Recipient: rfc822;
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0 Your message may contain a virus. Please contact Microsoft Security.
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; Permanent Failu Other undefined Status
Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:11:23 -0000
  #9  
Old January 28th 05, 03:55 AM
Lewis Lang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Subject: enlarge 35mm to 30x40
From: "Joseph Meehan"
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2005 6:57 AM
Message-id:

wrote:
Hi

I am a color printer and I am attempting to enlarge a 35mm neg to a
30x40 c41 print. I am wondering if anyone out there has done this and
what are the results like?
Thanks


35mm can be enlarged much large and look great. or much smaller and
look
very sad. It all depends on the quality and expectations.

Look closely at the results of a very large print next to a small print

from 35mm next the the same size prints made from a good 8x10 sheet film

camera and you will not really like the 35 very much. for the most part

however a good 35 mm image can look great 30x40 inch.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


Having had (way too much) experience at this I'll add in a few tips...

That your technique and equipment should be the best (I said best, which
doesn't always mean "most expensive") goes without saying. The best large
"mural" (40x60"?) prints I've seen have come off of a Leica M 35mm f/2
Summicron and Ektar 25 film (both now discontinued unfortunately though you can
still get the lens used) but I personally have made quite decent (read
excellent by most other people's standards) 30x40" prints off of a fixed Nikon
(16mm fisheye) lens. I have a feeling that lesser lenses, even consumer zooms,
would do well if well stopped down and mounted to a sturdy tripod and/or if
flash is used to freeze subject/camera motion. Small focusing inaccuracies,
subject and/or camera shake and other (non-intentional) defects get magnified
in larger sizes.

Viewing distance is really a such a personal thing, depending upon both the
type of subject matter, the room dimensions the print is displayed in, personal
preference and/or obsession, etc. People usually stand quite a few feet when
viewing a large 30x40" print to take it all in at one glance, but as a
photographer you (and/or your intended viewrs/others) might want to come up
much closer (up to about 10"? or so) to check out/"luxuriate in" the details as
well as to see how well the image quality itself has held up through massive
enlargement. Always have high enough standards to silence both your external
critics and more importantly, your inner critic (which counts the most, if you
can't please yourself then why do it?). But, having said this, remember, there
is a fine line between having high standards and hypercritical quality
obsessivenes - the purpose of photography (or at least one of the main ones) is
to have fun/enjoy it so don't get caught up in the perfectionist cults of fine
grainedness, ultra mega sharpness and or other technicalities. Especially with
large blow ups from 35mm, its a losing battle. Which is not to say that you
can't get great results from large blowup 35mm printing - just realise that
quality and large blow ups are at cross purposes, especially with a semi-small
format like 35mm, so you'll have to find your own balancing point as to size
print verses image quality. For me, after too many 20x30" and 30x40" prints,
that trade off between size and quality is at about 16x20" print size. Others
prefer the impact of 20x24" and larger, but quite frankly for larger prints I'd
just as soon have a lab print it for me as I am more than satisfied with 16x20"
for wall hangings and personally I don't need the hassle (and cost) in making
and framing larger sized prints. For you it might be different and there is no
reason why you have to follow my guidelines, just thought I'd mention them to
you anyways. Make up your own mind and your own tastes as to which print
size(s) is/are best for you. In any case, if your technique is good the image
and its effect should be the most important thing and your technique should at
least if not enhance the effect of the image, well at least not get in the way
of its overall impact. So what this boils down to in practical terms is. Expect
grain. Grain is not a four letter word (yes, I know its five letters but you
get my point anyway). Even the now discontinued Kodachrome 25 was "grainy"
(though not overwhelmingly so) at 30x40" and they looked fine at that size.
Some of Fuji's current films are even less gariny! than K-25 (which had an RMS
of 9 while I believe some of the current Fuji slide films are in the 7 or 8
area of RMS, an order or two of magnitude less grainy). I can't speak for
whatever C-41 film your using but too much graininess is a matter of personal
preference/what you can stand. If you can't stand grain then you might want to
think about shooting slower ISOd/finer grained films than what you are
currently shooting if you plan to do more large blow ups in the future.

Unless you have a wide angle enlarging lens (40mm or less instead of 50mm) be
prepared, even with long chimpanzee-like arms and a chain for "remote"
focusing, for stretching your arms alot ;-). If you are really cramped for
height or space you might want to consider having a wider angle enlarger (or if
you are really experimental, manual focus/manual aperture camera) lens into
your lens board. Also, with smaller apertures (f/8, f/11 and upwards) your
exposure times for the paper may run into many seconds if not minutes
(especially minutes if you plan to do some burning down of some sections. I
would constantly be on the look out for even slight focus shift/creep,
especially right before you do the exposure you should ƒ up on focus/refocus if
necessary (and don't forget to stop down again before exposing the paper! ;-))
so you end up with a print that is tack sharp instead of almost sharp. Focus
can shift during exposure too if exposures are long enough (depends on the
enlarger), you may have to almost get the image into (grain sharp) focus (with
your magnifier) and let the exposure time shift the enlarger's lens into focus,
or not. Instead of finding out in large prints and wasting paper. You might
want to check how well focus holds up by (once you've done your test strips and
gotten your density and color down pat) using 5x7" paper (or cutting a larger
sheet in 1/2s or 1/4s or whatever) and doing a "grain sharpness shift test" on
either the sky or an area of even/flat tone where grain sharpness can be easily
discerned instead of wasting 30x40" sheets of paper on this. There are places
that have horizontally mounted enlargers that project on walls (some with a
vaccum backed easel to suck the paper flat) but I believe that is out of the
scope financially/otherwise of many people unless you plan on doing lots of
huge enalargements...

Another key area to be aware of/adjust for is image flatness, both in the
enlarger's negative carrier and in the enlarger's head's perpendicularity (even
a word?) to th base board. Use levels at the four corners of both your lens
board and the paper tray/easel to make sure that each corner/side is level. On
some enlargers you might be able to adjust (w/ a screw?) the lens board's
levelness. An easel can be made more level via paper or tape as a shim should
the board it rests on be warped/tilted/etc. I prefer using a low tack black
tape (I forget the make as its been a while since I've done it) to tape down
along both the film's edges covering maybe halfway or so into the sprocket area
for flatness. I also tend to stop down (f/11? or so) to the smalles aperture
that wont give me (color) reciprocity failure/color crossover to increase the
depth of field across the area of the negative as even slightly out of
alignment elements are magnified at large sizes. All the more important a
reason to start out with a great enalrging lens that wont crap out in quality
when being stopped down and/or used at higher magnifications.

Which brings us to... the enlarger lens, of course :-). In large blow-up
photography everything is your weakest link, so make sure that your enlarger
lens is the best. Schneider Componon S 50mm f/2.8 and perhaps Rodenstock's 50mm
APO Rodagon (or other optimally corrected for large enlargements) enlarging
lenses are probably your best bets (if you can buy, beg or borrow them) as they
are/seem to be highly corrected for chromatic aberration (color fringing). The
50mm f/2.8 Nikkors I've used (in my not so humble opinion) "suck" (my technical
term) for large enlargements especially because of this defect (lateral
color/color fringing). Lateral color/chromatic aberration _with enlarging
lenses_ really becomes an especially important factor at 20x30" and larger
sizes, so whatever you can do to cut this "bugaboo" out, do it. You may need to
buy (used if possible/in good condition) or rent different enlarging lenses to
see which satisfies your quality needs/pocketbook/wallet most, but the
Schneider f/2.8 Componon S lens (in quality/price) is a good starting/ending
point unless you have the money for Leica or APO enlarging lenses in other
brands.

Make sure that there is no stray light seeping in from under doors, covered
windows, even from the enlarger's cracks/crannies, etc. Give your eyes time to
adjust (a few minutes at least) to the darkness to make sure the darkness is
absolute and not "almost darkness" that would give a low level fog to your
paper and cut down the paper's/images contrast.

Always make more than one "best"/master print, even if you just want one print
as this eliminates the time and effort/hassle needed should you want more
prints of an image in the future.

P.S. - Unless you are in love with larger sizes, think about "smaller sizes"
(like "only" 16x20" or less) as they are far less hassle to get sparkling
prints out of 35mm images the smaller you go.

P.P.S. - AOL is discontinuing its newsgroup srvice for land lines soon so I may
not be able to post for a long? while until I can download a newsreader that
will work with my ancient operating system/computer so don't be surprised if I
someday soon am not able to reply for a long while...

I wish you success, some very fine, very large print(s)... and a large bank
account ;-), you'll probably need it ;-) :-).

This post is...

© 2005 Lewis Lang

All Rights (and back aches ;-)) Reserved

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***
  #10  
Old January 28th 05, 04:40 AM
William Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Lewis Lang" wrote in message - just realise that
quality and large blow ups are at cross purposes, especially with a
semi-small
format like 35mm,


In my fathers day, (40's) the 35 mm format was referred to as, "miniature".
Today it is, "semi-small". That's what 60 years does to film
photography......


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
35mm(?) slide transparency mount question. Pheasant Plucker® 35mm Photo Equipment 16 January 19th 05 11:26 PM
35mm(?) slide transparency mount question. Pheasant Plucker® 35mm Photo Equipment 0 January 15th 05 09:29 PM
35mm(?) slide transparency mount question. Pheasant Plucker® 35mm Photo Equipment 0 January 15th 05 09:29 PM
I need to transfer my digital files to 35mm slides and negatives output and other film format outputs? Chris Digital Photography 5 September 25th 04 07:43 AM
advantage of high $ 35mm optics vs. MF now lost? Bob Monaghan Medium Format Photography Equipment 30 September 12th 04 04:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.