largest print possible from 35mm neg?

[mattvillano]

what would be the largest print possible from a 35mm color negative....without losing focus and quality.

 

[miamiglen]

I think 16x20, if it's a sharg neg and a fine grain film. You could also have it scanned and make an even larger digital print.

 

[mentos_007]

A4 are ok. .. it's 20x30 ... and look ok

 

[Varthlokkur]

depends on the camera and lens and type of picture and printer. but I would say 20x30 if everything is decent.

 

[Big Mike]

If you could project a 35mm slide on the moon...it would probably look OK.

The point is, you can print very large and it will look fine if you view it from a distance.

I have printed 22 x 34 photos from a 1 MP digital camera. When put on a wall and viewed from 6 feet away...it still looked OK.

 

[ksmattfish]

Of course using slower film and a tripod will help, but it is mostly just the opinion of the viewer. I see lot's of large prints that I think are blown up too big, but obviously the photographer and many viewers think they are just fine.

Also, it depends on what the viewer is used to. In school I regularly enlarged 35mm Tmax100 to 16"x20", and it looked pretty good, and I think that most folks would think the photos were fine. Since then I've been using mostly medium and large format film, and when you compare a 16"x20" from MF or LF to 35mm there is such an obvious difference, that now I only enlarge my 35mm work to 8"x12".

But that's just me, enlarge all you want as long as you think your photo still looks good.

 

[Galaxy_Stranger]

Nah, it's not just the opinion of the viewer, heheheh. Not to sound like an ass, but the grain is flat-out annoying...heh, I'm sorry - I'm a format snob. I shot Kodak portra 160 in daylight on 35 for a freind's bridals. She chose to blow up that photo to a 16x20 and it looked like GARBAGE. I can squeeze out an 11x14 out of 35, though. 120 looks better.

But, Glen is right, you can pay extra money for them to scan it and increase the image quality some.

 

[ksmattfish]

Nah, it's not just the opinion of the viewer, heheheh. Not to sound like an ass, but the grain is flat-out annoying...heh, I'm sorry - I'm a format snob.

Hey, I'm with you. I only shoot 35mm when I'm paid to do so (well, there is the Widelux, but since the neg is 6cm long it doesn't count ). But most folks happily blow their digital, 35mm, and gasp APS images up to huge sizes and love them, grain, noise, and nasty jpeg artifacts and all!

And of course, finding grain annoying is an opinion. Grain is just another aspect of the image, and excessive grain can be quite beautiful if used well. I have a big bag of Konica 3200 35mm in the freezer waiting for the right project. The grain is huge, and if shot at ISO 800, the color is fantastic. It just needs to be used for the right subject.

 

[Big Mike]

I have found that the people who would be the most bothered by grain...are the same people who spend a lot of time chatting on internet photography forums.

I know it's important to take pride in and be satisfied with your own work...but you also have to know your audience. The the reality is that 'most' people wouldn't even notice a little grain unless you shows them a direct comparison.

 

[ang]

The the reality is that 'most' people wouldn't even notice a little grain unless you shows them a direct comparison.

I have to agree with Big Mike on this point.

 

[voodoocat]

The grain doesn't really bother me... it's just the entire sharpness when it's enlarged too much that I don't like. A 35mm slide will make a good 5x7 in a magazine. Anything bigger and I think it looks like crap. I don't ever go over 11x14 with 35mm or images from my DSLR.