How big can one print MF?

[BobUK]

I am not being sarky, but what is the maximum size of photo paper available to the general public?
That would be a limiting factor to the maximum size print possible.

Magnification from a small section of the negative would be a different thing.

 

[GregY]

I am not being sarky, but what is the maximum size of photo paper available to the general public?
That would be a limiting factor to the maximum size print possible.

Magnification from a small section of the negative would be a different thing.

In sheets i've only ever seen 20x24" (that's the biggest i print in my darkroom).... B&H sells rolls of BW FB enlarging paper 42" or 48" x 32' ....65'....98' depending on the manufacturer or emulsion.

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

I routinely print my best MF prints to ±1 metre in height.
That's the fun bit.
The not-so-fun (and costly!) bit is the frame-up — often 4x the print cost.
This is from transparency film, drum-scanned, giclée printed. Neg film like PanF+ has been printed much larger by colleagues, though not in a darkroom. A critical point is to ensure everything you intend to be in focus is in fact just-so. Any faults with focusing or depth of field that cannot be immediately, accurately seen on the light table will be stark as day at very large print sizes.

 

[AnselMortensen]

How deep is a hole??

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've made four foot prints from 16mm film that I found "pleasing".

Let's talk a few numbers. With MF taking equipment, it's reasonable to assume a resolution of 70 lp/mm. For a 6x9 negative, that would get you a 10x enlargement and still get a print of 7 lp/mm, which is about the limit a human eye can resolve. That's a bigger print than most darkrooms can process.

 

[Dirb9]

I am not being sarky, but what is the maximum size of photo paper available to the general public?
That would be a limiting factor to the maximum size print possible.

Magnification from a small section of the negative would be a different thing.

As far as I know, current/fresh paper is available up to 50" wide rolls from Fuji and Ilford, Foma goes up to 42.5". Kodak Endura was available up to 72" wide but that's long gone.

Viewing distance is the main factor for large prints, billboard photos were frequently shot with 35mm cameras.

 

[pentaxuser]

It depends on how the camera was used, also. A lens that's set to its "preferred" aperture, a higher shutter speed, a tripod - all those things help make a negative appropriate for large enlargements. Kodak Gold may not be the best choice for something really huge.

Ilford claims a 35mm PanF+ negative can be enlarged to mural size.

I suppose it depends on what Ilford consider to be mural size but I'd have thought at least 4ft x6ft. That's quite a claim for 35mm even for Pan F

Just out of interest where does it say this ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Pieter12]

As far as I know, current/fresh paper is available up to 50" wide rolls from Fuji and Ilford, Foma goes up to 42.5". Kodak Endura was available up to 72" wide but that's long gone.

Viewing distance is the main factor for large prints, billboard photos were frequently shot with 35mm cameras.

I believe the OP intends to print digitally. Lots of options there on the commercial side.

 

[Don_ih]

Just out of interest where does it say this ?

Ilford says it in numerous places but is a bit vague about the format. Here they say,

And I recall somewhere or other taking that statement and turning it into a PanF 35mm negative can, with proper exposure and development, be enlarged to mural size. But I don't recall where I read that. It may have been a fantastical statement.

 

[Harry Callahan]

I think scanning is likely to be the weakest link in the chain. We're talking about an 18X enlargement to get to a 1 meter print. I've used a flatbed to print up to 16" with MF and that looked good but that's only about 7X. The OP will need a very high quality scan indeed.

What about making an analog and normal size print of the negative, scanning that print high resolution and print big from that file?

 

[JeffNunn]

Eighteen Feet by Sixty feet, if you are particularly careful, and if you can find someone willing to re-awaken the Kodak Colorama experience - which included results from 35mm!
https://www.montanusphotography.com/neil_montanus_bio/coloramas.htm
I once saw a 3 foot by 4 foot enlargement that was made from a Kodak disc negative and was exceptionally good. That was, of course, a special one-off project employed to honour a very special Kodak Canada employee, on the occasion of his retirement at age 65, after just under 50 years of service. The wizards at Rochester apparently applied every special tool they had for that one!

Those coloramas must have been mind-blowing! I'd never heard of them, fantastic!

Reminded me of Stockholm underground art - not related to photography, but also impressive. Worth a trip on to take photos.

 

[Pieter12]

What about making an analog and normal size print of the negative, scanning that print high resolution and print big from that file?

You've just added an extra step, and extra generation, an extra chance to mess things up. If the OP wants to print digitally, then a drum scan will be the best bet.

 

[loccdor]

What about making an analog and normal size print of the negative, scanning that print high resolution and print big from that file?

I've done this and it is successful to get more detail vs. a straight flatbed scan. And it only requires a small print, I was doing 5x7. Just about doubled the dpi on my setup. It does introduce some differences in the contrast curve.

 

[DREW WILEY]

RA4 color paper is readily available in 50 inch wide long rolls. But it's possible to make even much larger optical prints by splicing together such paper wallpaper style, if one has the right kind of wet mounting skills, and hasn't gone insane already.

The largest precision work I've seen was about 20 feet wide, and on a high gloss medium, the most difficult to mount of all. But that was a showcase piece commissioned by NASA with its gargantuan budget, showing the backside of the moon in extreme detail. My nephew for awhile was involved in the digital splicing of the many thousands of satellite pictures behind that; but how it was actually printed I have no idea. Otherwise, if you want to see some exceptionally skilled wallpaper splicing, go the Venetian in Vegas and crane year head upward at all the faux printed Sistine-Chapel-like murals overhead, with all the faux marble and so forth too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

One is limited by the size of available print material, limits on equipment size such as tank or tray, illumination by an enlarger, enlarger optics, and quality of the end product's appeal. On the other hand there are more mundane limits including taste and appeal.

 

[bags27]

Bay Photo, for example, could handle a very large print. They do a lot of custom work.

First, I'd get the negative professionally drummed scanned. For a print and frame the size you imagine, the extra cost of drum scanning is well worth it.

A number of labs, including Bay, do drum scanning. But there are also some photographers who make extra money scanning negatives for others. I'd bet they take a bit more care in the prep. The person doing the drum scanning does not need to be the same, of course, as the one doing the printing/framing.

 

[Hassasin]

The question is about purely subjective matter. Can’t apply a standard to the outcome even if there were one.

So imo, the answer is quite simple: print, evaluate and keep or discard.

Then again, if same print were shown to others, some would keep, others would reject, neither necessarily as result of enlargement.

Enlargement will bring changes to the outcome, some of those changes might be a welcome result. This applies to any size.

 

[koraks]

One more angle to this, apart from the question "will it hold up at large size", is the more fundamental question at what size the image makes sense to begin with. Some images work very well as small, intimate objects. Others just need to be of a certain magnitude for them to make sense. Take one of those images that works very well as a small gem, blow it up and it tends to drop dead on the floor regardless of technical quality.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

What about making an analog and normal size print of the negative, scanning that print high resolution and print big from that file?

with every exra optical process, you degrade image quality further.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

One more angle to this, apart from the question "will it hold up at large size", is the more fundamental question at what size the image makes sense to begin with. Some images work very well as small, intimate objects. Others just need to be of a certain magnitude for them to make sense. Take one of those images that works very well as a small gem, blow it up and it tends to drop dead on the floor regardless of technical quality.

wise words!

 

[loccdor]

with every extra optical process, you degrade image quality further.

Yes, although an image made through a larger number of optical steps won't necessarily have lower quality than an image made through fewer. Because not all optical steps are equal.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Ilford says it in numerous places but is a bit vague about the format. Here they say,

View attachment 392413

And I recall somewhere or other taking that statement and turning it into a PanF 35mm negative can, with proper exposure and development, be enlarged to mural size. But I don't recall where I read that. It may have been a fantastical statement.

I have seen excellent enlargements from medium format Pan F Plus processed in Perceptol developer.

 

[Petrochemist]

Back in the 80's 48 sheet billboard posters were often made from medium format shots.
I stared in one 'photoshopped' into a Tonka toy
Both the shot on myself (sitting on a kitchen stool) & the Tonka toy were taken on Hassleblad cameras IIRC.

 

[dokko]

I've done scans of 6x7 Portra 800 that were printed 240cm wide for an exhibition. Some of those were shot handheld indoors and still looked lovely.

Gold 200 has not the smoothest grain texture, but 100x100cm from a 6x6 is still going to look very good with a good scan if the Negative is properly exposed. Ektar and Pro 400F typically have a tighter structure.

Pan F will handle this with ease and would even allow for significantly bigger prints.

Ideally you'll want around 5000-6000ppi true scan quality though, so that's outside the range of an Imacon/Hasselblad scanner and even most drum scanners will struggle with this.

I have a zoomable example of 35mm Kodak Gold 200 at 11'000ppi on my website (that's around 130cm wide at 300ppi print resolution from a 35mm film shot on a point and shoot):

dokko - mammoth scans

Scan at 11000ppi, Kodak Gold 200, dokkoscan

dokkoscan.com

unfortunately no Pan F, but TMX at 4900ppi (so around 95cm wide at 300ppi print resolution):

dokko - example Mammoth scans

Scan at 4900ppi, TMX

dokkoscan.com

Scanning at this quality is quite costly though since the machines are expensive and the process is time consuming (specially the retouching). If you're interested to do a test scan feel welcome to contact me.


[edit] I just remembered that I actually shot some Gold 200 in 6x7 last year, I'll see if I can scan one and upload.

 

[Don_ih]

There's a significant difference between an art print and a billboard. You would want the resolution of a digitally printed art photo to be able to withstand normal viewing scrutiny - maybe as little as a foot or so away.

A billboard, on the other hand, is generally at ~30 ppi ....
Think Mario Bros: