"Maximum" Print Size?

[roresteen]

This is another generic question with many possible answers, so please forgive me a head of time. :)

Given it probably depends on film/developer choice, subject matter and "quality" of light, but what is the experience of the group for maximum "reasonable" enlargement for black and white prints for the given formats if using Ilford HP5 and HC110b, or similar combination(s):

6x7
4x5
5x7
8x10
11x14

When I have something worth while printing, I would like to know what I could expect to look great (provided I did my part) at the largest print size for 5x7. Though I can accept grain in an editorial or "street" image, I probably want it minimized in a gorgeous land or cityscape. Portraits could go either way.

In addition, I am contemplating 4x5 or 6x7 for portraits, probably 6x7 for convenience and that it would yeild a 20" print just fine. I am just curious what an 8x10 and 11x14 can do - thinking about Avedon's "In The American West" and Clyde Butcher's current work in the Everglades with I think his 8x10's and 11x14's.

Thanks guys..:cool:

[John Kasaian]

I find that with an 8x10 the limitation isn't grain, its dealing with the big ass honkin' wet prints that I find problematic. Assuming you'll be using mural paper you'll be limited to 40" on your short dimension anyway.:)

[frotog]

You can get b/w mural paper in 52" wide rolls. With the right enlarging lens there is no limit no matter the size neg.

[John Kasaian]

Where are you buy 52" stuff? Does Freestyle stock it? :D

[Peter De Smidt]

I stick to 4x and under with large format.

[frotog]

Where are you buy 52" stuff? Does Freestyle stock it? :D
Hi, John,

I meant 56". Any ilford distributor should be able to special order it. It seems like just yesterday you could get it for under $400 per 98' roll but I guess yesterday was actually ten years ago.

[ROL]

When I have something worth while printing, I would like to know what I could expect to look great (provided I did my part) at the largest print size for 5x7. Though I can accept grain in an editorial or "street" image, I probably want it minimized in a gorgeous land or cityscape. Portraits could go either way.


I don't quite get what you're after here. Your above quoted statement pretty much says it all. If you're looking for absolutes, you're wasting time. In terms of enlargement, it's almost never solely about "grain", though it can be.

Given at least a 6X7cm MF negative (if indeed that's the 6X7 you refer to) of fine grained film, I find 30"X40" is quite do–able, depending on the image. With LF up to 5X7 of medium speed films (my personal limit) of around 400 ISO, I can't print any larger than 30X40 anyway, for the very reasons John has already given. Larger negatives, fine or medium grianed, IMO, have no practical value for me unless contact printed. I simply can't print them large enough to justify the increased hassle of larger camera systems. Going the other direction, there's always cropping (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/cropping-a-negative).

My maxim is that every negative (image) finds its own best size range, dependent almost solely on content and tonality. Truthfully, some MF images want to print big, while other LF want to print small. That's an artistic/aesthetic decision, not the subject of inforumed opinion.

[roresteen]

Thank you.

Obviously I speak from zero printing experience...the only way is to do it by trial and error and learn for myself. I was hoping to get input from the group and the benefit of the member's collective experience.

I appreciate your input.

[Kirk Gittings]

I stick to 4x and under with large format.

ditto.....

[Peter Yeti]

Well, you got some input, aesthetic and technical. I think that ROL is right that with MF and larger the limit isn't grain. You can print any high quality LF negative as large as paper and equipment allows. Keep in mind that a larger print means that the (reasonable) spectator will view it from a larger distance, so the effects of minute detail and grain somewhat cancels. So, it's really more the question which size would be appropriate for the image itself.

[Jan Pietrzak]

4X5 negative 4X5 platinum print, 5X7..... you got it.

Jan Pietrzak

[roresteen]

That's true, Peter. It all is relative to viewing distance as well. I will just have to get shooting, developing and eventually printing this year.

A side note, to print 5x7's would you think it a decent idea to get an 8x10 enlarger in case you want to go bigger someday or just stick with a 5x7 enlarger?

Thank you.

[turtle]

It depends on the subject an feel you are after. I have no trouble enlarging a 35mm TriX neg to 20x24 if the subject suits the grain and look I will get. Equally, there are times I will keep 5x4 to no larger than 20x16 because the image needs sumptuous tonality. There are no rules.

[rjmeyer314]

I went through this exercise with my cameras & darkroom setup. I find I can get sharp prints (ones that look razor sharp when held at the end of my nose with no loupe): for 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 and 4x5 negatives I can get sharp 20"x24" prints. For 8x10 negatives I can get sharp 30"x40" prints (I haven't tried bigger prints from my 8x10 negatives). I can't get sharp 20x24 prints from 6x9 negatives, 16x20 prints are my limit for 6x9. I haven't tried this exercise for 5x7 negatives yet.

[Lynn Jones]

When we were in the studio business shooting in 6x7, most of our prints were from 8x10 to 20x24 size, however, occasionally, if the customer could afford four or five thousand we would deliver 30x40 or 40x50 with no particular problem.

With larger formats there is no practical limit.

Lynn

[Drew Wiley]

HP5 and HC110 will indeed be a gritty combination. If you want that awful Avedon look you
could use just about anything contrasty, provided it is viewed from a distance. What are
you really after? - a print or a billboard?

[John Kasaian]

That's true, Peter. It all is relative to viewing distance as well. I will just have to get shooting, developing and eventually printing this year.

A side note, to print 5x7's would you think it a decent idea to get an 8x10 enlarger in case you want to go bigger someday or just stick with a 5x7 enlarger?

Thank you.

Durst made some fine 5x7 enlargers worth considering. I have an 8x10 Elwood in storage right now. Without room in my children's bathroom (and my dark room) it dosen't see much use these days, but Elwoods are bargains if and when you find them. These will pivot horozontally so you can go as big as the largest available wall if you wanted to. They are also old and most will need some fiddeling around with. For example. mine lost it's diffusion glass long ago.
There are 5x7 Elwoods as well. My idea of a magic bullet would be something like a Beseler 45 with an an 8x10 head---reasonably sized and well built, but rare and with the 8x10 conversion, too pricey for me :(

[Drew Wiley]

The Durst enlargers are in a class by themselves. 5X7 Dursts are fairly common, though it takes some luck to find a really clean one. They come equipped with sheave rollers on the
stand suitable for floor track, and the entire head can be quickly and accurately pivoted
for horizontal use. Making huge prints from miniscule 6x7 negs might warrant a condensor
head, which is also fairly common. With colorheads you need to do quite a bit more homework, and would need 220V for a color mural unit (runs hot). There were all kinds of
heads and accessories made for these things.

[SpeedGraphicMan]

As already mentioned you have a great many variables to consider.

Viewing distance, maximum print size you can handle in your darkroom etc.

If you have ever seen a billboard print up close you will notice the print quality is not very good.

Several years ago I made a full size duplicate of a 9 foot x 17 foot antique map for a local museum.
Unfortunately I did not have access to large format equipment at the time so I shot it in twelve sections using a Hasselblad 500 and Fuji Velvia 50.

I am happy to say that the print quality was very good... Grain is only noticable at about a three foot distance.

[premortho]

I did this backwards. I decided what size print I wanted, then got the format size to fit. In my case, I got a 5X7 so that I could make nice 10X14 prints.

[roresteen]

Thanks all, again. Great points to consider.

After looking at Clyde Butcher's work online, I have the "go big" bug if the print warrants it. The funny side story was that I was no more than 10 miles from his gallery/darkroom in 2010 and did not know of him. If I did, I probably would have stayed in Venice and offered to sweep floors to hang around!

I would imagine 16x20's and 20x24's for upscale portrait work from a 5x7 neg. Larger for a truly good landscape, 11x14's and 8x10's for run of the mill stuff.

[turtle]

Every print wants to be a certain size, but sometimes we have to deny them their desires depending on where it is to be displayed. There is no point making a 40" print to be hung in a tiny room, or a 14x11 in a gigantic foyer with bare walls. Its incredible how prints 'grow' when you take them down from the exhibition venue and bring them home!

[Peter Gomena]

I rarely print anything from any negative bigger than 11x14". I find I like my prints small and intimate. At a recent camera group meeting, almost everyone showed prints 8x10" and larger, whether inkjet or silver gelatin. All mine were about 6x6" or 6x7". Could they go bigger? Sure. Would they look and feel the same? No. To the original poster, go with the biggest format you can for the print size you're going to make. If you must go with a small format, if you are in control of your lighting and film processing, you can do amazing things with a MF negative from a 100 ISO fine-grained film. I doubt anyone looking at the final images will point at one and say "Oh, that came from a small negative."

Peter Gomena

[turtle]

I agree mostly, but although I have made 40" documentary images from 6x7 negs off Delta 100 and 400, I would not consider that approach suitable for fine art landscape work. I am happy making 24" prints off Delta 3200 in 35mm for some documentary images, but I might not be happy with 5x4" HP5+ at 16x20 for some landscape images.



..., you can do amazing things with a MF negative from a 100 ISO fine-grained film. I doubt anyone looking at the final images will point at one and say "Oh, that came from a small negative."

Peter Gomena

[Peter Gomena]

Yes, I've seen good documentary images at 16x20" from 6x4.5 on Delta 100. I'm just saying the average viewer probably will not notice a significant difference. As I said above, use the biggest format you can for the size image you're going to make. A 4x-5x enlargement would be a good stopping point for any format.

Peter Gomena

[roresteen]

I think this thread took a slightly unexpected turn...I was just asking typically, (if such a thing :) ), what the largest maximum print we would agree for any given format/film-type combo. Individual aesthetics aside, I was curious what others experience has been with traditional print making.

Thank you, though for all the input.

I get that many can get excellent results with a 4x5 making 40", 50", and even 60" prints that would be relatively sharp. I doubt I will print anything that big soon, but nice to know that a 5x7 neg should be up to the task.

[turtle]

roresteen, but that's the whole point :D Different aesthetic requirement bring different technical requirements. There is never going to be a consensus, because everyone has different opinions on both counts. Application and intended end 'look' is everything (and then there are display conditions).

Sadly there is no substitute for making some prints and forming your own opinion, but be prepared for that viewpoint to change. For example, the 10x8 test print of this (35mm, Delta 3200) image (http://www.thomasstanworth.com/album/afghanheroinnotforexport?p=1&s=UA-10634171-1#5) disappointed me, but I needed to make a 20x16 exhibition print. I was astonished at how much better it became at the larger size as the grain fully emerged and the detail broke free from the grain pattern.

[Bruce Watson]

Given it probably depends on film/developer choice, subject matter and "quality" of light, but what is the experience of the group for maximum "reasonable" enlargement for black and white prints...

Everyone has an opinion on this subject. I could give you mine, but why should you care what I think? Or anyone else for that matter. The only opinion that counts on this subject, is yours. And the only way you'll discover an answer that means anything to you is for you to buckle down and do the work. That's right, you have to make prints. You have to view prints. You have to put your prints on the wall and live with them. Do this for a while and you'll learn what your comfort levels really are. Not what someone else tells you they should be -- what they really are.

That's the only way to find out.

[lenicolas]

To answer the O.P's question "what's the largest print size for a given format"

My rule is 10x enlargment.
This means a 10x15 from 24x36, a 20x24 from 6x7, and a 40x50 from 4x5.

The grain in most films could handle much greater enlargements, but then you have to consider tonality, contrast...

Very often i would break my own rule to print double spreads (15x20) from 24x36. ;)

[roresteen]

roresteen, but that's the whole point :D Different aesthetic requirement bring different technical requirements. There is never going to be a consensus, because everyone has different opinions on both counts. Application and intended end 'look' is everything (and then there are display conditions).

Sadly there is no substitute for making some prints and forming your own opinion, but be prepared for that viewpoint to change. For example, the 10x8 test print of this (35mm, Delta 3200) image (http://www.thomasstanworth.com/album/afghanheroinnotforexport?p=1&s=UA-10634171-1#5) disappointed me, but I needed to make a 20x16 exhibition print. I was astonished at how much better it became at the larger size as the grain fully emerged and the detail broke free from the grain pattern.

Turtle - I understand what you are saying; it's just a step or two past my original technical question. The art that follows is up to the individual.

[roresteen]

Bruce - absolutely. One must do the work and I believe I have said earlier I really won't know what I like when I like it until I begin to print. (wow, too many "I's"..:) )

The point of this thread was a simple inquiry to what other's might have experienced, nothing more. I rarely follow the crowd, especially in photography. But in an area where I am completely new to, I listen and look with a trained ear and eye to advance my knowledge.

You are right, experience will be the best teacher.

[Peter Gomena]

I think Bruce Watson nailed it. You can print a billboard from 35mm if you want. It's a personal choice.

Peter Gomena