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 would get it done since I cannot possibly handle that size of printing.
You might squeeze a decent 16X20 inch print out of 6X7 cm Pan F,
35mm Tri-X and a Rodagon-G will deliver (properly) sharp granularity at 40x (and reveal in merciless detail that D-76 was and is very, very difficult to beat qualitatively and quantitatively). People are worrying themselves silly over the ability to resolve image information, when the sharp transmittance of film characteristics (granularity etc) matters rather more in terms of perception of the image quality out beyond 10-15x.
Anyway, what is a "mural"?
No need for Pan F, FP4 in Perceptol are the right candidates, too.
Those coloramas must have been mind-blowing! I'd never heard of them, fantastic!
People aren't as bothered about granularity (if it is well transmitted) than most amateur-oriented texts demand their readers doctrinally genuflect to. In fact, they often expect good, sharp grain.
+1Let'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.
You might squeeze a decent 16X20 inch print out of 6X7 cm Pan F
I believe the question was "can" rather than "should."A question is whether a print is worthy of being made. I have some 32"x40" prints made from 35mm negatives. They were printing in a professional commercial darkroom with much higher quality than I could do myself, however only a small number of negatives can be print to that size because some compositions enlarger that much seem to "fall apart" and do not print well.
I believe the question was "can" rather than "should."
I'll be a bit technical here: I'll assume those were 30-sheet posters, viewed from street level at least 20 feet away. In the 90's, I was the art director for a couple of 30x40" posters that would be displayed where they could be seen at eye level and close distance. It was a studio shoot and I was shocked when the photographer told me he intended to use 35mm Kodachrome 64. I had expected at least medium format. But he was a well-know photographer and I respected his experience and opinion. The posters ended up winning awards.In the mid 70s I and another freelancers did shoots for billboards for the local market. The add agency was in San Francisco but the work was for the Sacramento area, FM and AM radio, a local beer that still being made. I shot with 4X5, both color and black and white, the black and white film was Plus X white, don't recall the color film, it as negative emulsion the printer wanted. The other freelancer used a 6X9 back on a Horseman, at street level I could not see any differences in quality between my 4X5 and other guys' 6X9. Prior to our contracts the printer wanted 8X10.
How large is this negative?
I'll be a bit technical here: I'll assume those were 30-sheet posters, viewed from street level at least 20 feet away. In the 90's, I was the art director for a couple of 30x40" posters that would be displayed where they could be seen at eye level and close distance. It was a studio shoot and I was shocked when the photographer told me he intended to use 35mm Kodachrome 64. I had expected at least medium format. But he was a well-know photographer and I respected his experience and opinion. The posters ended up winning awards.
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?