# maximum print size?



## earthmanbuck

(Not sure if this is the right sub-forum to be posting this in, so I apologize if it isn't.)

I was just wondering, what are the approximate print size limits that can be made from both colour negatives and slide transparencies? I've read that slide film holds picture quality a little better when blowing an image up, but there still must be a point where it's not really feasible, right? Also, is there any major difference between B&W and colour/slide films when enlarging? How about cross-processed slides vs. regular slides?

This isn't an urgent matter, I'm just kinda curious in case I do want something blown up one day and I thought you folks who know your darkroom stuff  might be able to give me an idea based on your experience.


----------



## CCericola

I would think it would depend on the size and speed of the negative. I never enlarged 35mm larger than 11x14 (iso 100) and 20x30 for 120 film ( iso160). However, we would shoot 120 film when we needed photos for cloth banners that would be installed on the side of buildings and some billboards.


----------



## ann

I have made 16x20 prints from 35mm negatives, but with a very fine grain film.

the viewing distance, subject matter, skill of the printer all come into play.

A well exposed 35mm negative can make 11x14's.

Can't address color as i don't shoot color.


----------



## earthmanbuck

Thanks for the replies! I don't imagine I'd want to go any bigger than 11x14 anyway, so it's good to hear that that can be done.


----------



## Robert_Maxey

earthmanbuck said:


> (Not sure if this is the right sub-forum to be posting this in, so I apologize if it isn't.)
> 
> I was just wondering, what are the approximate print size limits that can be made from both colour negatives and slide transparencies? I've read that slide film holds picture quality a little better when blowing an image up, but there still must be a point where it's not really feasible, right? Also, is there any major difference between B&W and colour/slide films when enlarging? How about cross-processed slides vs. regular slides?
> 
> This isn't an urgent matter, I'm just kinda curious in case I do want something blown up one day and I thought you folks who know your darkroom stuff  might be able to give me an idea based on your experience.



Depends. Kodak once made an 18 foot tall by 60 foot wide Colorama from a Kodachrome slide. Few labs, if any, are capable of those sizes, likely. At least not cheaply. 

If the black and white is made on fast film you can be limited by the objectionable grain. Sharpness is also a factor. A slow film like the old Panatomic X processed in diluted Microdol X will give you a great negative for large prints.


----------



## dxqcanada

I depends on the image ... I have a 16x20 print from a 200 ASA film, which was printed to that size to accentuate the "imperfections" ... it's a very nice foggy grainy unsaturated scene. 

A direct print from a slide holds a lot of detail ... but few print that way (not sure if they even make the paper and process still).


----------



## Helen B

dxqcanada said:


> A direct print from a slide holds a lot of detail ... but few print that way (not sure if they even make the paper and process still).



Sadly Ilfochrome/Cibachrome has been discontinued. It seems that labs who made pre-orders before 30th November 2011 will be able to have supply until June 2013. It's still one of the most archival processes for colour prints because it is a dye destruction process instead of a dye generation process. I still have Cibachromes that I made 40 years ago, and they are in great condition.

As far as maximum print dimensions from 35 mm go, the answer is "it depends". Some of the first rock/ice climbing and mountaineering images I sold in the early 70's were shot on 35 mm Tri-X, often pushed for contrast and grittiness. They became poster-sized adverts for an equipment manufacturer and were mostly printed at about 3 ft x 4 ft. The sharp grittiness suited the subjects.

Earlier than that, when I was still using the cheapest enlarger and lens there was (a Gnome Cadet), I was very disappointed with big enlargements from 35 mm - but that was a problem with the lens. That is a key issue with big enlargements - use good lenses, if necessary those made for high enlargement factors, like the Componon-HM or Apo-Componon-HM. These are relatively cheap on eBay. I find that it isn't the film's graininess that is the issue, but the way in which the graininess is rendered. I have plenty of 2 ft x 3 ft enlargements from Kodachrome 64 slides and they look very detailed, without any distracting graininess.

A similar issue exists with digitally printed images - I strongly believe that you need to scan at more than 4000 spi (real spi, not manufacturer's marketing fantasy spi) to get the best enlargements. 8000 spi is good - you are trying to get graininess that is a true representation of the film, not grain aliasing or imitation. 8000 spi will get you an excellent 20x to 30x enlargement, maybe even 40x.

It helps to start out with a high quality image - any problems like defocus or shake that are imperceptible at low magnification can become obvious at high magnification. This is also partly affected by the common practice of printing larger images with a little more contrast than smaller images.  

Best,
Helen


----------



## dxqcanada

Helen B said:


> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> 
> A direct print from a slide holds a lot of detail ... but few print that way (not sure if they even make the paper and process still).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly Ilfochrome/Cibachrome has been discontinued...
Click to expand...


Ah, I forgot about Cibachrome ... I was actually thinking about Dye Transfer Printing.


----------



## Robert_Maxey

dxqcanada said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> 
> A direct print from a slide holds a lot of detail ... but few print that way (not sure if they even make the paper and process still).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly Ilfochrome/Cibachrome has been discontinued...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, I forgot about Cibachrome ... I was actually thinking about Dye Tranfer Printing.
Click to expand...


I remember when Cibachrome arrived at out shop. We ran a few immediate tests and I was amazed at how good the results were. Simple processing and amazing results. When we closed, I snagged a bunch of sample enlargements. About all I disliked was the glossy surface. Very easy to damage.

Have any of you every fooled with Illfochrome micrographic stock? The speed is less than 1 ASA, but when used properly, WOW, the sharpness is amazing.


----------

