# Getting desperate.  How do I get a 35mm Negative enlarged to a 16x20?



## keith204 (Aug 23, 2008)

I recently began to like B&W film.  I would like to shoot more, but absolutely won't if I can't get any bigger pictures!

Problem: no decent labs within 2 hours.

Solution?  Mayyyybe a film scanner?  Scan the prints high-res and send them off to Smugmug, etc?  An acquaintance recently told me that he has some sort of film scanner that was able to use to get a 40"x40" out of a 35mm and it looked decent.  This seems extreme.

All I want is the ability to make at least 16x20's from my B&W negatives.  

Will a film scanner do the trick?  How should I go about this!?

Please help!


----------



## KD5NRH (Aug 23, 2008)

A 4800dpi scan would just barely give you 16x20@300dpi, so that's doable with fairly inexpensive equipment.  The problem with a flatbed will be getting a clean and perfectly focused scan at that res.  A dedicated film scanner can do it, or you can look at a flatbed and a good quality fluid mounting kit to keep the negs perfectly flat and allow you to make tiny adjustments in the height above the scanner glass for focus.

I haven't really printed anything over 8x10 from mine, (Epson 4490) since I only have a Canon Pixma 2600 printer (8.5" width is all it can handle) so you'll have to find someone else to get suggestions on which scanner to use.

While we're on the subject of bigger prints, has anyone ever tried to trick the Pixma series drivers into using longer paper?   I was thinking about cutting down some 11x13 to 8.5x13 and using it to print 8x12s.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Aug 23, 2008)

I'd actually see if I can mail them to a lab who can do high-res scans.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 23, 2008)

Darkroom equipment is cheap and plentiful now... buy yourself a medium size Durst or Omega enlarger, a few trays, timer, print-washer and do it yourself. 16x20 is pretty ambitious from a 35mm negative... unless you're shooting 50ASA or lower (and even then...) you're going to have some serious grain to deal with.


----------



## dinodan (Aug 23, 2008)

I used to do 35mm 16x20s, but only with Kodachrome 25 or Panatomic-X (B&W), which of course have not been available for some time now, regrettably.


----------



## keith204 (Aug 23, 2008)

so, you're telling me in this thread that film is supposed to be much better than my 40Ds as far as IQ.  

BUT, now everyone's saying that I actually can't get even a decent 16x20 out of a 35mm frame?


----------



## Alpha (Aug 23, 2008)

I would have an 8x10 printed, see how it looks. If you think you could go 4 times larger, mail it off to a lab that can do the 16x20.


----------



## usayit (Aug 23, 2008)

16x20 is certainly possible with 35mm depending... but IMO, the easiest would   be through a traditional darkroom rather than a scan then print.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 23, 2008)

I would never print a 16x20 from a scanned 35mm frame unless it was a drum scan. And I would only do that for color.


----------



## keith204 (Aug 23, 2008)

Makes sense, thanks for explaining.  I will limit my film shooting to 8x10s or smaller probably.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 23, 2008)

You can print 16x20, I just wouldn't do it from a scan unless you're prepared to shell out some cash for a drum scan. And I would spot check a smaller print first.


----------



## keith204 (Aug 23, 2008)

Alpha said:


> You can print 16x20, I just wouldn't do it from a scan unless you're prepared to shell out some cash for a drum scan. And I would spot check a smaller print first.



ok, thanks.  So, when my local lab says "16x20's a little big for our negative scanners" does that mean that all they're doing is scanning them?


----------



## Alpha (Aug 23, 2008)

Yes. Have them scan the image at 8x10, 300dpi and print it. If you think you can go 4 times bigger, then send the neg off to a lab somewhere that prints with an enlarger, and have them make the 16x20.


----------



## KD5NRH (Aug 24, 2008)

Another thing to check would be if there's a studio nearby that has been around for a while; some still have and use a darkroom, and would do this for the right price as long as it's not in direct competition with them.


----------



## Smilemon (Aug 24, 2008)

Dude, just buy some darkroom equipment. Usually high schools or University are more than happy to sell their older equipment to kids for the cheap. I got a really nice Omega diffuser enlarger, tank and reel, grain focuser, easel, and safe light, for 40 bucks. I picked up the trays, chemicals, paper, timer, and thermometer for about 120 more. All in all a nice darkroom only put me back 180 bucks. You can get a dark bag to roll your film in if you have a hard time getting it super dark, and then you can usually get by with printing in your bathroom. Your biggest expense will probably be the 16 by 20 paper, I bet a box of that will cost you more than your enlarger.


----------



## KD5NRH (Aug 24, 2008)

Smilemon said:


> Your biggest expense will probably be the 16 by 20 paper, I bet a box of that will cost you more than your enlarger.



Therein lies the problem; unless you're planning to do a lot of darkroom printing, it's a major expense to get the gear and get yourself to the point where you're ready to risk a sheet of 16x20.

I'd agree that if you do a good bit of 8x10 and larger prints from film, you'll get your money's worth out of the darkroom pretty quickly, but if it's just something you do once every few months, it's better to find someone who is already set up and experienced to do it for you.


----------



## Helen B (Aug 24, 2008)

I used to print a lot of B&W 16x20 prints from 35 mm negs in the darkroom. The graininess is what it is - as long as the enlarger lens does a decent job. Film graininess isn't like pixellated or oversmoothed digital images. Lenses that can make a reasonable 8x10 print  may not be able to make a sharp 16x20. The enlarger needs to be moderately sturdy as well, so there is no softening from movement. I'd say that DIY traditional printing is the easiest way of getting decent B&W 16x20 prints without major expense. You can also use fibre-based paper quite easily.

I never printed borderless 16x20s - they would be more like 12x18. That's only a 12x enlargement, which is within the range of good quality standard enlarging lenses intended for 35 mm (ie you don't need a high magnification enlarging lens).

Now that I print digitally most of the time, my normal print size from 35 mm is roughly 14 x 21 (on 17x22 paper). That is a 14x enlargement. This corresponds to an unresampled 4000 ppi (some use 'spi') scan printed at 288 ppi - a sweet spot for many Epson printers. As long as the scan is a good one - ie the true scanner resolution is close to 4000 ppi - I am likely to be happy with the print.

That's the problem with consumer flatbeds - they may produce files with pixel dimensions corresponding to 4800 pixels per inch, but their optics and mechanics aren't really capable of that degree of precision. Even the better Epsons and Microteks are only really capable of about 2000 ppi at best.

I don't think that a 300 ppi 8x10 will give you a good indication of what a 16x20 will look like, unless it is made from a quarter of the neg.

If printing via an online printer, look for one that uses real B&W paper rather than colour paper. This is another topic we can discuss.

Best,
Helen


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 24, 2008)

keith204 said:


> so, you're telling me in this thread that film is supposed to be much better than my 40Ds as far as IQ.
> 
> BUT, now everyone's saying that I actually can't get even a decent 16x20 out of a 35mm frame?



It's a b*tch isn't it?  When everyone is saying one thing, and your eyes are obviously telling you another.    I say as long as you don't have a history of hallucinations or serious vision problems trust your own eyes.  

I did my own processing and printing in my darkroom for a decade, and gave up on 35mm film for most prints larger than 8"x12" long before I tried digital.  There's nothing wrong with grain, if that's a flavor you like.  If you like bigger prints from film that look clean you're going to want to try medium or large format.


----------



## Hawaii Five-O (Aug 24, 2008)

they were talking about medium and large format film in that thread, which is better than digital .


----------



## keith204 (Aug 24, 2008)

C677T said:


> they were talking about medium and large format film in that thread, which is better than digital .



Not the whole post:



			
				HelenB said:
			
		

> I wish that my 12 megapixel D3 was capable of recording as much detail as I can get from the best current 35 mm films, and that it had the same dynamic range.




Thanks for the responses.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Aug 24, 2008)

silly people today thing all photos are viewed from 2 inchs away

If you are think about continuing to shoot film you may want to thing about getting a film scanner. A top of the line 35mm only scanner goes for under $600


----------



## keith204 (Aug 24, 2008)

Jeff Canes said:


> silly people today thing all photos are viewed from 2 inchs away
> 
> If you are think about continuing to shoot film you may want to thing about getting a film scanner. A top of the line 35mm only scanner goes for under $600



Do you have any examples of a decent film scanner?

Yes, I would like to continue shooting B&W film quite a bit more, as long as the negatives afterword will actually be useful to some extent.


----------



## keith204 (Aug 25, 2008)

So, taking a step back...with shooting film, what good would a Canon 8800F do me?  What potential does that have?

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Canon-CanoScan-Negative-Scanner-2168B002/dp/B000V2QCQI[/ame]


----------



## Hawaii Five-O (Aug 25, 2008)

well if you have the money you would be better off with the epson v700,  although it is the around the same price as the dedicated negative scanners that the other recommended. A dark room would be best like someone said. Better yet would be to take a  B&W course at your community college and use their equipment plus you would get critiques and learn more about film

You realize though that   a 16x20 matted photo takes up quite a bit of room. Matting  usually adds 2 1/2 to 3 inches extra on all sides of the picture. So the final size not including a frame is 22" x26".

Even a matted 11" x 14" is a good sized picture to hang on a wall


----------



## Smilemon (Aug 25, 2008)

A film scanner would be nice to have, but its cheaper to get some dark room equipment and learn the skills. Having a darkroom is so much fun, and people are always willing to take you more seriously as a photographer if you have some dark room equipment, its totally a status symbol.


----------



## keith204 (Aug 25, 2008)

Smilemon said:


> A film scanner would be nice to have, but its cheaper to get some dark room equipment and learn the skills. Having a darkroom is so much fun, and people are always willing to take you more seriously as a photographer if you have some dark room equipment, its totally a status symbol.


 
dark room equip is cheaper than a film scanner?


----------



## Hawaii Five-O (Aug 26, 2008)

Smilemon said:


> A film scanner would be nice to have, but its cheaper to get some dark room equipment and learn the skills. Having a darkroom is so much fun, and people are always willing to take you more seriously as a photographer if you have some dark room equipment, its totally a status symbol.



 Yeah I would really like to set up a little darkroom myself, but I don't have the space, I like your idea of buying used college equipment, you sure got a deal!!  

latey I have been developing my own B&W, and scan them into my computer with my epson V500 so I can look at them. But if I want them printed I'll have to send the negative away.

Printing pictures in a darkroom is one of the coolest things ever!! You stick a white piece of paper in the developer and a few seconds later and, pooft the picture appears.


----------

