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.
I've made four foot prints from 16mm film that I found "pleasing".
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.
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 believe the OP intends to print digitally. Lots of options there on the commercial side.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.
Just out of interest where does it say this ?
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.
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!
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.What about making an analog and normal size print of the negative, scanning that print high resolution and print big from that file?
What about making an analog and normal size print of the negative, scanning that print high resolution and print big from that file?
What about making an analog and normal size print of the negative, scanning that print high resolution and print big from that file?
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.
with every extra optical process, you degrade image quality further.
I have seen excellent enlargements from medium format Pan F Plus processed in Perceptol developer.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?