35mm enlarging - who is passionate about it?

Totally agree with this,,, the Leica rf or Contax G2 were my favourite cameras for 35mm work..
I tend to like 35mm prints around 16 x20 size, allows for more manipulation and still is not too much magnification to show issues.

Gerald C Koch said:

I find that I get better results with a 35mm range finder such as the Voigtlander Bessa than with an SLR, less camera shake.

Click to expand...

Man, I wish I could afford a Leica rangefinder sometimes. They are so nice, especially at slow shutter speeds...

However, I tried out a Leica M4-P a year ago; I had it for about five months with a 50mm Summicron, a 50mm Summitar, and a 90mm Summicron. While it was amazing, I am still a bit disappointed that I can't really see a difference in picture quality compared to my Pentax SLR and lenses. No difference at all, basically. I print negatives made with either, side by side, and I have to look up which comes from which camera to be able to tell.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't still want a Leica. They are such lovely works of art in themselves, handle with such precision, and are just pure joy to use. I also like the prospect of using the older uncoated lenses for portraiture, opening up the shadows a bit, gaining some film speed.
I salivate at the prospect of owning and using one of those little beauties.

Thomas, the V35 enlarger is very good, but if you ever have the opportunity to get a DeVere enlarger, either a 4x5 or an 8x10, go for it.

You will find virtually no difference between any format, providing you have an array of appropriate lenses.

With a properly aligned DeVere enlarger, the enlarging world is your oyster!

I love 35mm and 4x5, I have tried medium format and have worked with medium format using the best equipment money could buy. Within reason 35mm is a handheld format whilst 4x5 is a tripod format for me.

If you are after speed printing with a very high quality output, then the V35 is close to perfection, as I'm sure you are now realising.

The standard of print I achieve with both of my preferred formats is nearly identical, has been for years now. Like 2F I make the print size based on content, not format, I print postcard stock through to 12x16 on both formats, with virtually equal results.

Mick.

I'm enjoying this thread. There was an amazing technology explosion in 35mm in the '70's and 80's. Lenses, cameras (systems?), film, chemistry, and enlargers. I think those two decades were the golden age for 35mm, and maybe just because I graduated from HS in'73 and was there. Today we have a couple decades worth of "evaluation" to steer us in the direction that yields RESULTS. It's not that we are Re-inventing the wheel, we are Re-discovering the wheel. I think a simple, small, light camera like the Olympus OM-2, or the Pentax K family would sell very well today (just as it did 30 years ago.). I'm printing with a 23C II, and I'd like something a little more refined sometimes, but that will come (hello e-bay). Thanks for this discussion.

I'm enjoying this thread too. I got hold of a complete (except for the lens) Focomat 1c and was stunned how much better my prints seemed to be, once I set up the autofocus for my 50mm Rodagon. I also have a Valoy II that I got cheap because i always wanted one. If you have the opportunity to get a Leitz enlarger, go for it. I prefer the condenser units for 35mm, but that's just me.

Mick Fagan said:

Thomas, the V35 enlarger is very good, but if you ever have the opportunity to get a DeVere enlarger, either a 4x5 or an 8x10, go for it.

You will find virtually no difference between any format, providing you have an array of appropriate lenses.

With a properly aligned DeVere enlarger, the enlarging world is your oyster!

I love 35mm and 4x5, I have tried medium format and have worked with medium format using the best equipment money could buy. Within reason 35mm is a handheld format whilst 4x5 is a tripod format for me.

If you are after speed printing with a very high quality output, then the V35 is close to perfection, as I'm sure you are now realising.

The standard of print I achieve with both of my preferred formats is nearly identical, has been for years now. Like 2F I make the print size based on content, not format, I print postcard stock through to 12x16 on both formats, with virtually equal results.

Mick.

Click to expand...

Mick,

You brought up a really fantastic point. All while I've been enjoying reaping the benefits of using the Letiz enlarger, it never occurred to me that there might be something even better than that out there. Please excuse me while I take that in for a while...

You have my attention, Mick. How do you feel that the DeVere improves your prints? I'm really interested to know.

If I continue using the Leitz for a few years, I might be able to save up for a DeVere in the meantime. Seriously, I am all for pushing boundaries farther and farther out, discovering new ways of making better prints.

- Thomas

I think there are several things that make 35mm special: the aspect ratio, the grain and the convenient size of the equipment which favours handheld use. The small negative size requires a high degree of precision, not least in the darkroom.

Sometimes I have tried to use glassless carriers for 35mm, but it is impossible to keep the entire image in focus. Blurry grain on enlargements from 35mm negatives is extremely distracting. I use a Dunco enlarger with a glass carrier, and I don't think I will ever put an 35mm negative in the glassless carrier again.

Speaking of DeVere enlargers, I used Advena enlargers at university and they are very similar to DeVere. The great thing about them is the simplicity in operation, they are just a joy to use.

Trond

Thomas Bertilsson said:

2F / 2F - I think we're on the same page. But it seems you may have a bit more control of the 35mm medium.

I guess what I mean is that with 35mm everything is magnified quite a bit more. Vibration shows up more, both when the film is in the camera and when it's in the enlarger, alignment issues become more apparent, enlarging lens quality makes a big difference at 16x or above, dust particles are twice as much enlarged, etc
To me it's that scale that makes it more difficult and time-consuming. A 16x print to make a 16x20 from 35mm is, in my opinion, more difficult to make a great print from, than one from 120, which would be more like 9x or so, half the enlargement factor.

Click to expand...

Yes, I see what you mean, for sure. My comments related more to technical issues while shooting being passed on to the paper. In that area, I don't see larger formats really offering a ton more of an advantage.

But for one, spotting is easier when there is grain!

And for two, most of those problems that 35mm can magnify can be rectified by really dialing in your enlarger carefully, and doing so will improve all your prints, not just the small format ones. Even my low-end B-22, which has prehistoric alignment capabilities (loosen screws and move negative stage by hand, then tighten screws), improved drastically by using a simple six-inch level on the negative stage to match a yard-long level on the easel. I loaded a grainy Delta 3200 negative to check alignment and tweak things, turning a few screws, probably about 15 or 20 minutes' work. (A nicer enlarger would align more easily and hold alignment longer.) I also took steps to solidify the kind of rickety column design a bit better and make sure that the focus was not slipping at all. Basically, a CLA on the enlarger. It goes a loooong way, but it is something many people (if not most) completely neglect.

Another thing that helped was starting to hold down my prints with double sided tape, in lieu of a vacuum easel (which I am trying to build).

My favorite trick for scratches is the nose oil method. It really works some insane wonders, even with small negs and a condenser head.

i love printing and using a 35mm film as well ( even 1/2 frame )
but my biggest drawback is the glass and being stuck with only film to expose
if i could get the same images with the small lenses and on film
that i get with my other formats ( film, paper glass )
i have i wouldn't ever use the larger formats ..
but unfortunately my hands are tied because of what i have decided to do...
i have a certain way i process my film that requires a contact print
or something like a 4 minute enlargement ( 35mm ) exposure even barely enlarged onto 5x7 paper ...
i like small prints too, but a half or full 35mm contact print is a bit small for me

puptent said:

I'm enjoying this thread. There was an amazing technology explosion in 35mm in the '70's and 80's. Lenses, cameras (systems?), film, chemistry, and enlargers. I think those two decades were the golden age for 35mm, and maybe just because I graduated from HS in'73 and was there. Today we have a couple decades worth of "evaluation" to steer us in the direction that yields RESULTS. It's not that we are Re-inventing the wheel, we are Re-discovering the wheel. I think a simple, small, light camera like the Olympus OM-2, or the Pentax K family would sell very well today (just as it did 30 years ago.). I'm printing with a 23C II, and I'd like something a little more refined sometimes, but that will come (hello e-bay). Thanks for this discussion.

Click to expand...

Go for it, is all I can say. But a Beseler 23C is already a very good enlarger. Keep cranking out prints, buy lots of paper...

waynecrider said:

Timely thread as I am just getting back into printing and 35mm at that. I'm shooting a K1000 (the lenses are amazing) but would love to pickup a KX. My other shooting camera is an A1 with slide film. I've been following Focomat prices for quite awhile now but could never justify the expense; Maybe one day. I got rid of my 4x5 Omega quite awhile back and picked up a Chromega B Dichroic to use instead. About 2-3 years ago I went back to 35mm shooting having gotten tired of the bigger gear bags, especially when flying, and don't miss MF/LF at all. I traded the Hassy for a M3 but want some Leica glass to go with it now so I'm living cheap.

This weekend I went thru "all" my image files looking for frames to print. Geez I must be a couple thousand pics towards being worth my salt according to Ansel. What crap. Many were FP4+, HP5+ or TX in either Xtol or Diafine. Overall I think I got the best negs out of the few times I used Delta in Xtol. Right now I'm looking for a cheap paper to practice on and a better one for final prints.

If you want to get up a best 35mm print competition btw I'm in.

Click to expand...

Good for you for getting what you want. I'm not into competition a whole lot, and 'best' is a word I try very hard to avoid, but I love to share with others. Even though I am in the business of selling prints, I also trade sometimes.
Perhaps a 35mm print trade of 11x14 size or something would be fun some time?

Zathras said:

I'm enjoying this thread too. I got hold of a complete (except for the lens) Focomat 1c and was stunned how much better my prints seemed to be, once I set up the autofocus for my 50mm Rodagon. I also have a Valoy II that I got cheap because i always wanted one. If you have the opportunity to get a Leitz enlarger, go for it. I prefer the condenser units for 35mm, but that's just me.

Click to expand...

I have never tried the older Leitz enlargers, but I understand they are every bit as good as a newer one, and if you love condenser enlargers, well then an older one is clearly superior!
Have fun printing!

Trond said:

I think there are several things that make 35mm special: the aspect ratio, the grain and the convenient size of the equipment which favours handheld use. The small negative size requires a high degree of precision, not least in the darkroom.

Sometimes I have tried to use glassless carriers for 35mm, but it is impossible to keep the entire image in focus. Blurry grain on enlargements from 35mm negatives is extremely distracting. I use a Dunco enlarger with a glass carrier, and I don't think I will ever put an 35mm negative in the glassless carrier again.

Speaking of DeVere enlargers, I used Advena enlargers at university and they are very similar to DeVere. The great thing about them is the simplicity in operation, they are just a joy to use.

Trond

Click to expand...

Trond,

Thanks for sharing your account! I'm happy to hear that you too are enthusiastic about 35mm enlarging.
About the glass carriers - the glassless ones for the Focomat seem to hold the negatives very flat, once the holder is properly secured in the enlarger. But curiosity got the best of me, so I bought one of the 'new in box' double glass ones that someone sold here a few days ago, and I'm waiting to give it a go.
I am always suspicious when I use the last frame on a strip of film, since it's held only by the very corners on one side. The prints are sharp all the way, but I wonder if it can be even sharper!

Happy printing!

2F/2F said:

But for one, spotting is easier when there is grain!

Click to expand...

Oh my goodness, yes. The large prints I make from Delta 3200 / Rodinal negs I could probably spot with Crayons...

2F/2F said:

And for two, most of those problems that 35mm can magnify can be rectified by really dialing in your enlarger carefully, and doing so will improve all your prints, not just the small format ones.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I think the people that designed and built Omegas must have thought they could get second careers as experts in aligning the enlargers they built. The hardware really isn't very good quality, and I work on that sucker almost every month, trying to keep it aligned. It's a lot of work. When properly set up, it's not a bad enlarger. But I salivate at the idea of owning a Durst 138 or a DeVere.

2F/2F said:

My favorite trick for scratches is the nose oil method. It really works some insane wonders, even with small negs and a condenser head.

Click to expand...

I have never dared doing it as of yet. I'm afraid I won't get the neg clean again afterward. I usually just use compressed air to blow the dust off, and usually that gives me even 11x14 and 16x20 prints that I don't have to spot at all.

Keep enjoying those small negs. It seems as though you really like using the format, which I think is great.

Thomas
I own Omega condensor enlarger, durst and deverre diffusion.
Using the same Apo Lenses on all three.
I have to say that for certain work,, documentary, harder scenes, I definately prefer the omega condensor, the prints are crisper.
When portaits, are concerned or when the scene dictates a softer look I go to the diffusion enlargers.
Maybe its me , but I do see the difference within these three brands of enlarger or better said two types of light output and at least 50 % of my work personal and for clients is on a condensor enlarger.
Without a doubt the most pleasing enlarger to work on is my deveere 515.
It is so solid, the drop table is beauty to use and the focus system is without a doubt the best I have ever worked on. Split printing with dichroic is a breeze so for fun, ease of use its the Deveere, for crispness sharpness its the omega condensor, and for wall murals it is the flip top Durst 8x10 which can work vertically or horizontally with a flip of the switch.
Bob

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Oh my goodness, yes. The large prints I make from Delta 3200 / Rodinal negs I could probably spot with Crayons...


Absolutely. I think the people that designed and built Omegas must have thought they could get second careers as experts in aligning the enlargers they built. The hardware really isn't very good quality, and I work on that sucker almost every month, trying to keep it aligned. It's a lot of work. When properly set up, it's not a bad enlarger. But I salivate at the idea of owning a Durst 138 or a DeVere.

I have never dared doing it as of yet. I'm afraid I won't get the neg clean again afterward. I usually just use compressed air to blow the dust off, and usually that gives me even 11x14 and 16x20 prints that I don't have to spot at all.

Keep enjoying those small negs. It seems as though you really like using the format, which I think is great.

Click to expand...

Bob Carnie said:

Thomas
I own Omega condensor enlarger, durst and deverre diffusion.
Using the same Apo Lenses on all three.
I have to say that for certain work,, documentary, harder scenes, I definately prefer the omega condensor, the prints are crisper.
When portaits, are concerned or when the scene dictates a softer look I go to the diffusion enlargers.
Maybe its me , but I do see the difference within these three brands of enlarger or better said two types of light output and at least 50 % of my work personal and for clients is on a condensor enlarger.
Without a doubt the most pleasing enlarger to work on is my deveere 515.
It is so solid, the drop table is beauty to use and the focus system is without a doubt the best I have ever worked on. Split printing with dichroic is a breeze so for fun, ease of use its the Deveere, for crispness sharpness its the omega condensor, and for wall murals it is the flip top Durst 8x10 which can work vertically or horizontally with a flip of the switch.
Bob

Click to expand...

Bob,

Thanks for chiming in. I'm glad you like your Omega enlargers so much. I respect your opinion a lot, as you know, so I will not claim anything that makes what you say seem wrong. I have seen your prints first-hand, and know that your level of skill and experience is well beyond my own.

My Omega enlarger may be a lemon, for all I know, but no matter how I align it, I just can't get the same quality print from it as I can from the Leitz. I have tried, after our last discussion about light output, to make the Omega work better for 35mm. Glass neg carrier, properly aligned, same lens, yada yada, and I still can't get the same 'oomph' from the Omega. It has to do with tonality, especially fine differences in the highlights, where the Leitz just seems to do better. The Leitz also gives me more shadow detail than the Omega, even if I increase the contrast to match that of the Omega. And I get dust and specks showing up that don't show up with the Leitz. Go figure...
I may have to work more with the Omega to make it great, but even so, it's a pain in the neck to work with compared to the Leitz...

This is a great thread, so thanks to the participants. I probably should pay close attention here as I'm saving for a Rolleiflex that I really don't need.

I've been quite happy with 35mm printing on A Besseler23 up to about 10" on the long side using FP4 and HP5+, but haven't liked the results as much when I go beyond that size.

The Rolleiflex is of interest for the negative size of course, the square format which I have no experience with, and the waist level shooting. To get the ball rolling I bought a Holga to make sure the square suits me before continuing. We'll see. In the meantime I'm really happy with the results I'm getting with 35mm.

This thread has me interested in researching glass carriers for the Besseler. My negatives are certainly not flat in there.

I have an archive of carefully created 35mm black and white negatives that I will go back and print one day. I occasionally shot 4x5 in the past but only have a few dozen vintage 4x5 negs.

I had two prints side by side on my wall for many years, one a 35mm print from Brooks Range in Alaska, another a 4x5 print from Dinkey Creek in California. Seeing them side by side for many years, the general feeling set in that I should have been shooting 4x5 all along.

So after striving to make 35mm that looks like 4x5 for many years I decided to plunge into large format. I am very pleased with the results and only regret that I didn't do this many years ago.

Along with the jump, I took a multi-year journey to improve my processes. It was a journey I would recommend for anyone interested. For printing, I replaced the condensers on my Omega D2 with Omegalite diffusion source.

I took a break a couple summers ago and took 35mm the way I used to.

Under the microscope, I cannot distinguish the Little Sur negative from vintage Panatomix-X of the same river. My style has remained surprisingly consistent. So one amazing outcome of the experiment: Pictures I took 30 years ago could go into my current portfolio.

I posted two examples in the galleries, both recent works on 11x14, Bear Creek from 4x5 TMY-2 and Little Sur from 35mm Panatomic-X.

My overall impression is, when everything falls into place, 35mm can hold up very well to 11x14. With 4x5 things fall into place a lot more often.

That's a great way to put it. I have some 11x14 prints from 35mm with wonderful fine grain, smooth and sharp results that honestly leave little left to want. If I could get such prints from 35mm whenever I wanted to, I might not shoot anything else. However, I'd be lying if I said I can make such prints from 35mm whenever I want to. Many of my negatives just don't have the perfect exposure, cleanliness, and development it takes to work at that enlargement ratio.

I've also made some 4x5 negatives I won't print over 5x7, but when it comes to large prints I'd say things fall into place more often with larger formats (if you can get the shot in the first place).

I print both 35mm and 6x6. (Is 4x5 in my future? Who can tell?) But I never print anything larger than 8x10. Cost is a factor, but also practicality. That being said, I find that the size of a camera required to make a 35mm shot usually leads to more freedom for taking the types of shots I want. I don't enlarge shots that don't mean anything to me.

As this thread grows, it becomes blatantly apparent that personal taste is a very big reason to why some people prefer a big negative compared to a smaller one.

It seems that for some, 8x10 is the largest they will print from 35mm negatives, and simply don't like what they get beyond that. That is perfectly fine, and a representation of their tastes and feelings of what constitutes a fine print. I cannot argue with someone's opinion, because I don't believe that there are absolutes in this craft. There are good and bad ways of doing things, but no 'best'.

For me, though, the thread is not really about the ultimate picture quality regardless of format. It is more about how surprisingly good 35mm can be if applied correctly. And it's becoming obvious that to some that is less than others. It's all good. I'm so happy to find that so many people are still motivated by the 35mm format, and that it can be a real source of enjoyment.

I would strongly encourage those that haven't, go scoot back to my post #6 - (there was a url link here which no longer exists) - and read the hyperlinked article.
The hard numbers of resolution printed in that article is part of what tipped me over into trying 35mm 'for real', and give it a real benefit of my doubts about the format in general. In the months it took me to get deeper into the nooks and crannies of 35mm, I learned so much about myself and my abilities, and eventually I could see in my own prints what I didn't believe would be possible.
I have 9x12" prints from TMax 400 where I have to get my nose right up against the surface of the print to see any grain at all, where I see qualities in the finished print that looks confusingly like an enlargement from a 4x5 original. There are some small differences in how one tone of gray flows into another; it would be pointless to say that 35mm is equal to 4x5 in terms of quality, but it is shocking to me just how close it is in terms of final print quality, and that's the point I'm trying to get across. 35mm can be so good that the small gains in quality compared to 120 may simply not be justified, even 4x5 if you compare something like Tri-X sheets to 35mm TMax 100. What we do with that information is up to each of us to decide.

It may not even be the film format that helps us decide, it could well be what lenses are available to us. There is such a slew of lenses with interesting characteristics for sheet film shooters, for example. Old magic lantern lenses, for example, petzvals, soft focus lenses of all kinds, etc. For 35mm that selection would be different, and may well be a deciding factor in what we decide to shoot. For myself, I just like to continue using what I already have. My Pentax 35mm cameras are not exactly exotic. But they work just fine, and give me prints that many don't believe are from 35mm negatives. That's more than good enough, and I am so happy to have come to that point, because I love using 35mm cameras, both hand held and on a tripod.

I wonder if I am a total geek sometimes, and I should just go on making more pictures instead, and stop thinking so damned much about the process...

I generally print 24 x 30 cm regardless of format, simply because it is a convenient size to hold in the hand. The is no maximum size for prints from 35mm in my view. Larger formats have in general better tonality, less grain and higher resolution. But the visible grain structure and sometimes harsher tonality is also a valuable quality of 35mm (dependant on film, technique, etc), which can look really good on large prints. Also, I think these, perhaps less polished, qualities suits the more spontaneous nature of many 35mm photographs.

Trond

Let me add that the word "quality" is used in different ways. I wouldn't say that a 4x5" is of higher quality compared to 35mm. The different formats has specific traits which can be exploited by the photographer to make high quality photographs. Sometimes 35mm is just right.

Trond

Thomas.

I own both a Pentax K-1000 and Pentax 645. Were I forced to choose which camera to use permanently it would be the K-1000 hands down. I purchased the 645 nearly three years ago and after making enlargements from the negatives, quickly realized that I prefer enlargements from my 35mm negatives.

I love the flaws, imperfections, and mystery/grittiness that my 35mm negatives display when enlarged. The enlargements from my medium format negatives lack these qualities to my still learning photographer eyes. They are too sharp, crisp, and precise for style of photography.

Let me make it clear, I am mainly a documentary photographer, and to my eyes, the 35mm negative fits my style of photography perfectly, so my view is a bit biased to say the least. Also, I have not used the 645 much, (over two years since last use), and have not figured out how to bend the negatives (development and printing) to my taste as I have with 35mm, which is as another bias. Do not get me wrong, I love my 645, but feel that it is better suited for portraits, fashion, or long exposures. Were they my areas of focus, I without a doubt would use it more often.

It is rather ironic that you created this post. Last week I was printing with my teacher and told her that it is time that I begin using the 645 more frequently. My main squabble was that I like the look of 35mm enlargements better, but we decided that the time has come that I use the 645 more often. I am printing a couple of projects at the moment, so we decided that after finishing them, I will begin a project using only the 645, (portraits or fashion more than likely).

Maybe it is my lack of experience with this format that is heavily influencing my decision. I plan on having lot's of fun finding out soon as I called my camera repair man to have the 645 cleaned this past Sunday.

Thank you for an interesting post! I have always wondered if there are any other APUG'ers who felt the same as I about 35mm enlargements.

Jamusu.

jamusu said:

Thomas.

I own both a Pentax K-1000 and Pentax 645. Were I forced to choose which camera to use permanently it would be the K-1000 hands down. I purchased the 645 nearly three years ago and after making enlargements from the negatives, quickly realized that I prefer enlargements from my 35mm negatives.

I love the flaws, imperfections, and mystery/grittiness that my 35mm negatives display when enlarged. The enlargements from my medium format negatives lack these qualities to my still learning photographer eyes. They are too sharp, crisp, and precise for style of photography.

Let me make it clear, I am mainly a documentary photographer, and to my eyes, the 35mm negative fits my style of photography perfectly, so my view is a bit biased to say the least. Also, I have not used the 645 much, (over two years since last use), and have not figured out how to bend the negatives (development and printing) to my taste as I have with 35mm, which is as another bias. Do not get me wrong, I love my 645, but feel that it is better suited for portraits, fashion, or long exposures. Were they my areas of focus, I without a doubt would use it more often.

It is rather ironic that you created this post. Last week I was printing with my teacher and told her that it is time that I begin using the 645 more frequently. My main squabble was that I like the look of 35mm enlargements better, but we decided that the time has come that I use the 645 more often. I am printing a couple of projects at the moment, so we decided that after finishing them, I will begin a project using only the 645, (portraits or fashion more than likely).

Maybe it is my lack of experience with this format that is heavily influencing my decision. I plan on having lot's of fun finding out soon as I called my camera repair man to have the 645 cleaned this past Sunday.

Thank you for an interesting post! I have always wondered if there are any other APUG'ers who felt the same as I about 35mm enlargements.

Jamusu.

Click to expand...

Jamusu,

It sounds as though you have a rich photography life using the tools you use. I love to see the good feeling people have when they put their energy into something, and in return they get something they are happy with and proud of.

It's good to broaden our horizons a little bit, so maybe using the 645 camera will help you see things in a different way. Please just don't use a different camera for any other reason than for wanting to, and believing it can actually help you...
In my mind there are many ways we can make pictures, but in the end it's all about the pictures, and I never saw the 35mm format as a limitation to any of the recognized photographers that used it, such as Friedlander, Salgado, Bresson, etc.

When I worked at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, I gained a real appreciation for Bresson. I was there when he passed away, and the curator at the time, the dear departed Ted Hartwell, honored his memory with a special display of some of the prints in the museum's collection. Believe me when I say that I wasn't exactly thinking about cameras when I looked at those prints. It was the very last thing on my mind. All I can do is to stand there and look at the pictures, in awe.