Print sizes: 35mm film and M43

Note: this is not another equivalence thread per say, nor a pixel peeping thread. The point is to put things in perspective for us who started photography in the digital age and who currently own micro four thirds gear.

Since experimenting with film packs on RAW editing software, I started doing research on current and discontinued film emulsions and have come across forums and websites about their recommended print sizes.

For prints viewed at acceptable viewing (standing away) distance, say, framed and put up on a gallery wall, it seems 35mm film was usually printed up to 16x20, often times depending on film speed and grain, maybe printed only up to 8x10.

Similarly, when going to micro four thirds camera review sites, the later and current generation of sensors are given up to 16x20 or 8x10 recommended print sizes (depending on sensor and high ISO settings).

Therefore, when comparing recommended print sizes between 35mm film and M43, shouldn't most of us M43 users feel satisfied (yes, it's good enough!) that we can print up to the sizes we can, which matches up well with 35mm print sizes from a past era? Originally, isn't that a major part of what photography was about, printing photos?

I guess in this digital day and age, it's less about printing (more about social sharing) so many of us have lost track of putting things in perspective and context...

Thoughts? Especially from those who print or printed 35mm films and who print from the current generation of micro four thirds cameras.

generikku said:

Note: this is not another equivalence thread per say, nor a pixel peeping thread. The point is to put things in perspective for us who started photography in the digital age and who currently own micro four thirds gear.

Since experimenting with film packs on RAW editing software, I started doing research on current and discontinued film emulsions and have come across forums and websites about their recommended print sizes.

For prints viewed at acceptable viewing (standing away) distance, say, framed and put up on a gallery wall, it seems 35mm film was usually printed up to 16x20, often times depending on film speed and grain, maybe printed only up to 8x10.

Similarly, when going to micro four thirds camera review sites, the later and current generation of sensors are given up to 16x20 or 8x10 recommended print sizes (depending on sensor and high ISO settings).

Therefore, when comparing recommended print sizes between 35mm film and M43, shouldn't most of us M43 users feel satisfied (yes, it's good enough!) that we can print up to the sizes we can, which matches up well with 35mm print sizes from a past era? Originally, isn't that a major part of what photography was about, printing photos?

I guess in this digital day and age, it's less about printing (more about social sharing) so many of us have lost track of putting things in perspective and context...

Thoughts? Especially from those who print or printed 35mm films and who print from the current generation of micro four thirds cameras.

Click to expand...

because a recommendation of 8x10 is seriously seriously off the mark. 16x20 is not even an issue. you can safely go far above that in standard condition. obviously - its a matter of viewing dsitance . theoretically you can print as large as you want given enough distance.

anyway, dont perpetutate stuff you read about print sizes, but have a try yourself

The Four Thirds standard was started by Kodak and Olympus to match the 35mm film standard. It's since achieved that and then some, the image quality is far greater, the dynamic range is far greater and the signal/noise ratio is far better with Four Thirds. Mission accomplished. Micro Four Thirds is currently about as good as 3 years prior full frame cameras.

You could stop tomorrow and never buy another camera. The thing is this, each time a new camera body comes out we get an opportunity to buy a new film plate (sensor) with all of the latest technology so there is really no reason to have even a 5 year old digital camera anymore.

Yes, m4/3 prints can certainly be the same size as from 35mm film.

I didn't realize Kodak had a hand in starting the Four Thirds standard. Cheers. It stands to reason that for them at that time, prints were the end goal of the whole photography process (before this obsession with pixel peeping being the goal in and of itself).

b0k3h said:

because a recommendation of 8x10 is seriously seriously off the mark. 16x20 is not even an issue. you can safely go far above that in standard condition. obviously - its a matter of viewing dsitance . theoretically you can print as large as you want given enough distance.

anyway, dont perpetutate stuff you read about print sizes, but have a try yourself

Click to expand...

It almost feels like you've missed the point. But I'll bite.

I've printed up to 8x10 size from an older generation Nikon APS-C and even from smartphone pictures that I've put up in cafes and a couple group shows. Those were from much smaller and noisier JPEGs than what current M43 cameras produce. So I have tried.

I've also actually printed a couple black & white prints up to 8x10 during high school yearbook class, but that was many years ago, before I really knew anything about photography.

So, I've printed from film and from JPEGs up to 8x10 and haven't really been able to tell the difference from normal viewing distance.

How about you? Have you actually printed 16x20 from film? From a micro four thirds camera? What max sizes have you printed?

Others with more experience may see it differently, but I have reached the same conclusion: yes, m43 is the new 35mm film. It's that good (or limited) from the perspective of the new medium format, digital full frame.

Ulric, thanks for your reply. Curious, what is the largest you've printed from an M43 camera for something on a wall?

I have always been very sceptical about maximum print sizes. It all depends on the viewing distance and how fussy you are.

In the past I used commercial printing services (not the most expensive ones) and it wasn't difficult to see the difference between even a 7"x5" print from 35mm and one from 6x7cm medium format. The medium format print was noticeably sharper. However, both made excellent prints at that size.

I have a couple of old 24"x36" colour prints from 35mm fine-grain film (I think probably Ektar 25) hanging on the wall and they look acceptably sharp from a distance. From very close, they are very blurred. It all depends on how closely you want to look at them.

Comparison with digital prints - I agree with Hitherto, MFT is definitely better than 35mm, probably also better than medium format in the overall appearance of the print.

generikku said:

b0k3h said:

because a recommendation of 8x10 is seriously seriously off the mark. 16x20 is not even an issue. you can safely go far above that in standard condition. obviously - its a matter of viewing dsitance . theoretically you can print as large as you want given enough distance.

anyway, dont perpetutate stuff you read about print sizes, but have a try yourself

Click to expand...

It almost feels like you've missed the point. But I'll bite.

I've printed up to 8x10 size from an older generation Nikon APS-C and even from smartphone pictures that I've put up in cafes and a couple group shows. Those were from much smaller and noisier JPEGs than what current M43 cameras produce. So I have tried.

I've also actually printed a couple black & white prints up to 8x10 during high school yearbook class, but that was many years ago, before I really knew anything about photography.

So, I've printed from film and from JPEGs up to 8x10 and haven't really been able to tell the difference from normal viewing distance.

How about you? Have you actually printed 16x20 from film? From a micro four thirds camera? What max sizes have you printed?

Click to expand...

this is 13x19", coming from a 4MP crop from my 16MP m43 sensor


this is 24x36" or there abouts, from the same camera. there are more details than is apparent, taken with a smartphone and resized twice


and theres another canvas thats 30" on the short side, that i couldve printed larger if i had known how it would look

generikku said:

Ulric, thanks for your reply. Curious, what is the largest you've printed from an M43 camera for something on a wall?

Click to expand...

40x60 cm, so that should be something like 16x24".

generikku said:

I didn't realize Kodak had a hand in starting the Four Thirds standard. Cheers. It stands to reason that for them at that time, prints were the end goal of the whole photography process (before this obsession with pixel peeping being the goal in and of itself).

Click to expand...

Kodak at the time had the best sensors available. Olympus had the wear with all to build a camera standard based on the 4:3 standard inherited by the now defunct TV standard when everyone else was going 16:9 or 16:10. It was meant to mimic the traditional film frame and standard though the size of the area covering the photo electrons in a 4/3 inch video camera tube.



Of course by now none of this is really meaningful. Micro Four Thirds performs about as well as a Canon 5D, and we're a long way down that path, Sony and Panasonic took over making the sensors and Kodak is no longer in business and the standard is no longer the same one that was started in the mid part of the 2000s between Kodak and Olympus.

How large you print is really dependent on lots of things. With the high resolution mode their is enough information to print somewhere in the order of 30x20inch prints at 300dpi, the point at which you won't be able at see dots if you printed an image on a broadsheet/tabloid printing press today. You could drop that by half and still not really see any difference and double the size from about 3feet away, typical viewing distance.

Beyond that? It really depends, how far away do you want to hang it and how easy is it to get close enough to see the difference. Some of those advertisements you see around you on the streets are printed as low as 32dpi.

It just depends how close you intend to get to the print. I've got the original of this which is a 60megapixel image. It would come up ok as large as you can effectively afford to pay someone to print it on a canvas. I've resized it for web purposes. The original pixel count is below on my Flickr account. It just depends. Does anyone have a spare $100 to give me to print this at 30x20?

I must be coming crazy as this thread (just one hour old) is like many other to me, that I could swear I have read from paragraph to paragraph few weeks ago and from same posters. How so? I even know what is being written next before I read it. Are people copying their started (or others) messages and posting as new?
As I am as well sure that I answered to the thread in first place week or two ago!

Back from old man writing...

Yes, there are no limits with MFT as was with small format (kleinformat) and that might be reason why so many DSLR owner is asswacked by 35MM sensors vs MFT when they think that you don't get large good quality prints with 1/4 size sensor as you would be limited to same print sizes as with film.

Now look around! (I mean, look around where ever you are and what space there is for your prints?)

I do 30" prints as max (might sometimes to fill one old frame of 150cm long edge) by ordering from local store.
And it is amazing quality even from close looping (I mean taking a magnifying glass and looking the print).

My E-M1 with 12-40 is larger than OM1 with any primes were, it is same size as OM1 with 35-135mm zoom. And yet it is capable make 3-4x bigger prints than common film and beats slide too!

Isn't it amazing?

My printing habits has not changed (other than I don't do prints myself anymore, I love to but can't) in last 40-50 years and neither has anyone elses as we live in same size houses that are designed for our own intimate preferences by architects. Meaning same size walls, floor areas, room designs. Many kleinformat owner must live in a mansion or airplane hangar because they need the capability make larger prints than 40-60". Right? (Isn't that the consensus here being the limit?)

My newest portfolio case was 105cm by long edge. To transport 6-8 large images on boards. Architects has even larger ones that can be twice the size. How big are owned by others? Many say that best digital image viewing size is a iPad mini 2 retina. That is 8" or something. As you can pass it around and have all details that matrers without zooming. Do people agree on that? Physical size huge, digital size small.
No need for bigger sensor! MFT is just perfect for the job!

Olympus made the standard following 110 format basee their research and analysis of most common camera serrings. Kodak was the sensor manufacturer and gave their input of the most common print sizes and qualities that were required by professionals.

Together Oly and Kidak made a perfect digital format that was capable to produce prints that filled even nichest nitpicker quality requirements. They succeeded in it.

There is no reasons to buy different bodies for newer sensor than the original Oly FT with superior lenses. 5Mpix bodies are capable to deliver the prints.
Why we buy newer bodies is not because sensors but because digital technology. We have functions like Live View or focus bracketing. Sensor is the least needed update in digital cameras. But it gets for stupid reasons the driver seat while it belongs to trunk when it comes priorities to buy a camera.

Thanks!This really does put things in perspective.

Mk82 said:

I must be coming crazy as this thread (just one hour old) is like many other to me, that I could swear I have read from paragraph to paragraph few weeks ago and from same posters. How so? I even know what is being written next before I read it. Are people copying their started (or others) messages and posting as new?
As I am as well sure that I answered to the thread in first place week or two ago!

Click to expand...

LOL. Well, this is the first time I've posted on this topic, as I've said, I started doing research on popular film emulsions and started to put things in perspective. I want to start getting prints made (I haven't printed in years) so some of these questions are for me to make educated decisions on print sizes from my own pictures.

Also, since I am really enjoying film simulations from say, RAWTherapee HALD CLUT, it made me want to do research on a dying medium as many of those products are no longer being produced and all I have left are digital approximations...

Cheers! I don't crop much and want to make some large prints (largest previously were 8x10 inches) so I'll try some of mine at that size in the near future. Where I currently live, we use centimeters here too, haha.

traveler_101 said:

Others with more experience may see it differently, but I have reached the same conclusion: yes, m43 is the new 35mm film. It's that good (or limited) from the perspective of the new medium format, digital full frame.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is the conclusion I was hinting at. Sure, if all I do (well, did) was keep digital records, then yes, noise and pixels are easy to obsess about. But I want to start printing to put up prints in local galleries, etc. and for my wall or to give to friends. The recent RAW processing I've been doing using RAWTherapee's film simulation HALD CLUT has really made me look into different types of film and has actually led to me wanting to print more of my photos, hence this post.

So you claiming the sensor got smaller hence name MICRO fourthirds? The format standard still stands as were.

Same TTL
Same sensor (format)
Same mount (just smaller)
Same file format structures
Same idea for digital (corrections and processing)

Only the mount got smaller and mirror was removed to make smaller cameras.

And it was based to 110 film, not to video recorder tubes or anything that. 4:3 ratio was chosen not because television or displays but because it gives best cropping capabilities in darkroom.
Do you know why 6x7 was the king and not the 6x4.5 (kleinformat of medium formats) The 5:4 ratio was preferred as you got all kind crop without problems. You could zoom with your feet to get shorter side filled if wanted to do 1:1 or simply got a 6x6 to make life easier.

4:3 is most pleasing one and easiest to use for final print. And you anyway crop for wanted ratios why since start FT offered all kinds ratios for jpg in camera when you have just one or two in canikon.