Pioneer
Mentor
I am curious. What were the common print sizes in the late 20s, early 30s, for negatives that exposed using early Leica lenses such as the collapsible Elmar 50 or Elmar 90?
I have seen some examples posted on-line but they don't give a sense for the actual print size. What could a photographer realistically expect from a print made with his negatives?
i
I have seen some examples posted on-line but they don't give a sense for the actual print size. What could a photographer realistically expect from a print made with his negatives?
i
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I have a book called "My Leica and I: Leica Amateurs show their Pictures", printed in 1937. In it, there's a bunch of short essays written by Leica users of the day. One article by a P. B. Redmayne states "Even enlargements of 20" x 16" from sections of Leica negatives show definition comparable with that given by considerable larger cameras", so I don't think they were limiting themselves to postcard sized prints then. Hell, another essay mentions going up to 28" x 40"!
Evergreen States
Pierre Saget (they/them)
I imagine it really depends on how much you can tolerate grain and unsharpness. A digital print will eventually start to show pixelation as sizes go up, but with optical enlargements it just gets grainier and fuzzier. I imagine you can print a 135 negative to billboard size because the intended viewing distance is so far away, the lack of detail isn't an issue. But a gallery exhibition print will probably have somewhat more rigorous standards. It's up to you.
Pioneer
Mentor
I have that same book and it was in fact what prompted me to ask the question. I am aware that Leica has been using books and articles to promote their cameras for a long time so that essay that mentions 28x40 caused me to really question what was considered normal back then. Even with today's films, like TMX 100, a 28x40 print is way out on the edge. Not impossible perhaps, but highly unlikely IMHO.
But though I have gone to museums to look at prints I couldn't remember what size print would have been considered museum quality for 35mm. Most of the time I haven't even thought of the original negative size. For me 8x10 is normally my limit but I am certainly not an Alfred Eisenstadt or HC Bresson.
Muggins
Junk magnet
I suspect that the size of enlargement might be dependent on how far back the viewer was expected to be stood.
My other thought is what speed emulsion would they have used? I suspect that TMX100 had it existed back then would have been seen as blisteringly fast, and grainy as hell, but I don't know when films with a set speed came on the professional market. I'm fairly sure that in the 1920s movie makers would still test each roll for speed individually before they used the test of it, though damned if I can recall where I heard that. I have a Kodak catalogue circa 1930, and the only speed gradation I remember is fast or slow, though I don't know when they first sold 35mm, maybe only after the buyout of Nagel (1934ish?).
My other thought is what speed emulsion would they have used? I suspect that TMX100 had it existed back then would have been seen as blisteringly fast, and grainy as hell, but I don't know when films with a set speed came on the professional market. I'm fairly sure that in the 1920s movie makers would still test each roll for speed individually before they used the test of it, though damned if I can recall where I heard that. I have a Kodak catalogue circa 1930, and the only speed gradation I remember is fast or slow, though I don't know when they first sold 35mm, maybe only after the buyout of Nagel (1934ish?).
Dralowid
Michael
Surely the majority of photographs were destined for photographic albums? Remember those?
Develop and print of medium format films normally resulted in contact prints which are fine for an album. This doesn't apply to 35mm where the enlarged 'enprint' was what you would have got back, from memory something like 5 x 4 or 5 x 3.t inches?
Obviously something 'special' would get treated differently.
Develop and print of medium format films normally resulted in contact prints which are fine for an album. This doesn't apply to 35mm where the enlarged 'enprint' was what you would have got back, from memory something like 5 x 4 or 5 x 3.t inches?
Obviously something 'special' would get treated differently.
Myrrys.eu
Established
I've done exhibition prints up go 30x40cm (so about 11x14inch) from 135 film, it was adox silvermax 25 and with it's own developer it has amazingly tiny grain structure and very very large dmax, made an absolute joy to print. How ever as I've gathered it's no longer available
As I've been leas to believe, earlier films were slower and most likely higher in silver content. So perhaps similar experience?
As I've been leas to believe, earlier films were slower and most likely higher in silver content. So perhaps similar experience?
Erik van Straten
Mentor
I remember that in the 1970's the largest enlarging paper sold by Agfa in shops was 50x60cm. I don't know ho much that is in inches, but it is quite large. My old wooden Leitz enlarging board goes from 6X9cm to 35X45cm. My old Büsscher drying press is 55X65cm.
Freakscene
Obscure member
50x60 is 20x24 inch.
Common ‘big‘ (ish) paper before WWII in Europe was 18x24 cm. Still a standard there. Most prints were 7x10cm. I have thousands of prints and albums bought from second hand stores in my travels in addition to some catalogues and price lists from places that did development and printing and standardisation was, well, limited.
Marty
pgk
Well-known
I think, I may be wrong, that the Depth of Field scales on Leica LTM lenses were based on a 1)' x 8" print viewd from iths diagonal length (I'd have to try to look it up to make sure). So by this yardstick the intended 'standard' print would have been 10" x 8". Not to say others weren't commonly made, especially smaller prints. Paper would most likely have been available in Imperial sizes and most are shown here: Photo print sizes - Wikipedia many with ISO references. My guess is that the majority of prints were small, enthusiasts probably printed 10" x 8" regularly and larger prints were in the distinct minority.
skahde
V for Victory!
In my grandparents albums contact-prints in 4.5 x 6 or 6 x 9 were the norm... Centimeters! But later pictures also were enlargements from 135 film in the same size. So this was the lower limit a camera at the time had to be capable of. But when I got my fingers on some negatives from a box put away in the early fifties, they could easily be enlarged to 18 x 24 cm (7x10"). The cameras were almost always some kind of a simple Agfa with a three element lens. My grandma had a simple Bilora with a meniscus-lens, which was fine for sharp and contrasty 6x4.5 on 127 film printed as contacts in B&W.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
The same essay I referenced earlier in My Leica and I states that the writer "generally work with a panchromatic film of medium speed (21º Scheiner) or a super speed film (27º Scheiner)".
As the book was published in Europe, my first assumption was that he was using European Scheiner (I had no idea there were two versions!), which this chart from 1952 gives as 8 ASA and 32 ASA respectively:
While the ASA/ISO was revised up in later years, 1952 was still the original Weston speeds, and as a long time user of Weston meters, I can confirm that 5 Weston in 1952 is definitely equivalent to 8 ISO today. So... yeah. That's slow. Too slow, really.
However, if he was using American Schneider, that puts us at 32 ISO and 125 ISO respectively - perhaps a bit more reasonable. Considering the one photo he has in the book was shot with Kodak Panatomic, a 32 ISO film, it could well be either.
Through the book, there's a lot of use of AGFA's Isopan F (40 ISO), Isopan FF (25 ISO), and Isochrom (40 ISO), and Perutz's Perpantic (about 40 ISO by today's standard.) There's also a couple of shots that used AGFA's Isopan SS, a 100 ISO film, so it was definitely possible to hit the triple digits in film speed then - but it looks like most were hovering around the 25-50 ISO mark.
Also, a side note, there's one shot taken of the Vienna Symphony orchestra using ambient light with a Telyt 200/4.5 on Isopan SS. and it is sharp. We're truly spoiled by modern film emulsions!
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Yes. Years ago (1950's? 1960's?) I read an article on this subject. To help support this idea, the author said that at the time, there was a big print of a leica photo hanging in Grand Central Terminal. The article may have been in the Leica Manual, or Leica Photography magazine.
Malcolm M
Well-known
According to Allesandro Pasi in Leica: Witness to a Century, Paul Wolff was making 30x40cm enlargements in the thirties. However, given the factual errors with which this book is riddled, I would take that information with a large pinch of salt.
For something more contemporary, Kruckenhauser, Snow Canvas (1937, English translation of German original) using a Leica “…I was able to make decent 10x8-inch enlargements…”
For something more contemporary, Kruckenhauser, Snow Canvas (1937, English translation of German original) using a Leica “…I was able to make decent 10x8-inch enlargements…”
mconnealy
Well-known
Weston, and probably many others, typically made contact prints from their large format negatives. I think that may have had a large impact on what people thought was an appropriate size for photographic prints for exhibitions.
Beemermark
Mentor
When I started printing back in the late '70's 11x14 was max. Kodak Pan ASA 32. Tripod.
Mos6502
Well-known
Since the question is about "common" sizes, the answer is 5 x 7 and 8 x 10 were the most "common" sizes for anybody doing more than putting photos into an album. Large prints were not common. Not even for exhibition or commercial purposes. Sure, they were technically possible, but then as now: wall space is limited. Read over the rules for submissions to contests and exhibitions from the 1930s, most will give a maximum size. Just for example, the Rollie-Show of the 1930s specifies a maximum mounted size not to exceed 16 x 20 inches.
sojournerphoto
Mentor
There seemed to be a rush to print big and very big as digital took hold. I’ve done some but I keep coming back to smaller prints - 9x6 inches on 10x8 paper or 7x5 from 35mm. I like the ability hold the print in hand and the intimacy that engenders. I also don’t have wall space for many large prints (though I do have one or two)
I can’t comment on the early Leica era but I’d be surprised if they made a lot of much bigger prints.
I remember the ‘quality discussions’ early in the film era, which continue as an obsession today and wonder when will people understand that there is such a thing as ‘enough’. What that is might be different for different people and different tasks, but driving that obsession primarily serves the manufacturers of new digital cameras.
Our forums illustrate that people can make great work with all sorts of new and old equipment.
I can’t comment on the early Leica era but I’d be surprised if they made a lot of much bigger prints.
I remember the ‘quality discussions’ early in the film era, which continue as an obsession today and wonder when will people understand that there is such a thing as ‘enough’. What that is might be different for different people and different tasks, but driving that obsession primarily serves the manufacturers of new digital cameras.
Our forums illustrate that people can make great work with all sorts of new and old equipment.