40x60'' prints from 35 mm.

[NB23]

This is a funny discussion. The Human eye is the worst resolver at about 2-3MP. Then there's CA, distortion and all that stuff going on in our eyes that's corrected by our brain.
Then there's viewing distance: A 5x7 looks fine at 1 foot distance but at 2 feet distance, a 8x10 is its equivalent. A 40x60 at about 10-15 feet is the equivalent of a 5x7.

My 20x24 prints look brilliant on a wall. My 8x10s look like schmuck on a wall. It's ALL in the viewing distance. Remember, the human eye is not a telescope and its resolving power is terrible. It's all about equivalencies. And what kind of moron would judge a 40x60 at a foot distance?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...] And what kind of moron would judge a 40x60 at a foot distance?

Plenty do just that, I'm afraid. Then they step back and rant and sneer about "this poor quality photograph!". We appear to not all be living in an enlightened equilibrium.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That "normal viewing distance" mantra is a simply an excuse for sloppy work. I often make big print, and people put their noses right into them.
That's what they do when you give them that choice. They discover details, and that's part of the richness of the print that just keeps giving
over time. A totally different thing than merely grabbing your attention real fast ... which is the objective of advertising photography and, alas,
much that claim to be art these days. If you want a rich big print, you need a big camera, preferably an 8x10. I love 35mm photography too.
But making a big print from a negative the size of a postage stamp is about equivalent to creating gang graffitti with an aerosol can. It's all
basically a wad of fuzz.

 

[markbarendt]

That "normal viewing distance" mantra is a simply an excuse for sloppy work.

And looking for the grain with one's nose a couple inches from a big print might as well be called craft snobbery or large format elitism.

Don't get me wrong here, I like and shoot medium and large format, but if the viewer has to do the equivalent of pixel peeping to decide if a print is good or bad, then IMO the viewer has missed the point of the photo or the photographer is doing a school project, so to speak.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

And looking for the grain with one's nose a couple inches from a big print might as well be called craft snobbery or large format elitism.

I don't understand that either. Either a photograph is good, or it isn't. Subjective, I know. We all appreciate different things about photographs, and personally I'm very disinterested in the 'ultimate print quality'. I'm interested in 'good enough to carry a good photograph'.

In my world there is nothing wrong at all with mural prints from small negatives.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Mark - It's got nuthin' whatsoever to do with elitism or looking for grain. I'm talking about a viewing public who often knows exactly zero about
the technical aspect of the craft. You give them a rich print and, if not immediately, over time they start appreciating the nuances and details.
And that has been exactly my experience for decades. They do put their noses right up to them. A big print from small format can be quite
effective, but it has to accomplish this with a different strategy set. Most of the time, what I see are simply "wannabee" prints, blown up big
simply because inkjet now makes it so easy technically. Most people have no idea of what a "good" print looks like - they're used to advertising displays and web images. Subjective indeed, just like food. ... but junk food is far more prolific than good food.

 

[markbarendt]

Drew, being a photographer I have done my fair share of hunting for the technical flaws in my prints and in ones done by others. It can be a good schooling to see a large print done by Karsh from an 8x10, raises the bar a bit for most of us. I enjoy big McCurry prints too.

Two completely different animals and sets of expectations.

Unlike you though over time for a photo to keep good standing with me, it needs to impress me from across the room. After the initial close look, I rarely get close, I want to enjoy it as I walk by doing my chores or from where I'm sitting.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Mark - It's got nuthin' whatsoever to do with elitism or looking for grain. I'm talking about a viewing public who often knows exactly zero about
the technical aspect of the craft. You give them a rich print and, if not immediately, over time they start appreciating the nuances and details.
And that has been exactly my experience for decades. They do put their noses right up to them. A big print from small format can be quite
effective, but it has to accomplish this with a different strategy set. Most of the time, what I see are simply "wannabee" prints, blown up big
simply because inkjet now makes it so easy technically. Most people have no idea of what a "good" print looks like - they're used to advertising displays and web images. Subjective indeed, just like food. ... but junk food is far more prolific than good food.

Drew,

I do think we owe it to ourselves to be happy with the output we generate, and that it is an important criteria. Again, that's personal and subjective. When I print I do work very hard to come up with a print that is convincing, in whatever scale I choose (or as it rarely happens, how the customer wants it). Whatever comes out of my darkroom is the very best I could manage with what I've accumulated in knowledge over the time I have been a darkroom printer. I hate fast food, and I prefer photographs that tell me something, make me feel something, or make me think - preferably well printed, but that is #2 on my list.

But at the same time I try very hard to not let the camera that I used to take the picture constitute a limitation on how big I print. There are a lot of important and meaningful photographs that could never be captured with an 8x10 camera, but where 35mm was basically the only choice. I think we owe it to ourselves to consider also those pictures for whatever size print there is demand for, unless we feel we should pass it up for some sort of artistic reason (nothing wrong with that). Looking at Salgado or McCurry, I doubt selling murals of their 35mm b&w neg or Kodakchrome film has done their reputation any harm.

Wouldn't it be cool to have a 5x7 camera that handles like a Leica?

 

[Paul Ozzello]

That "normal viewing distance" mantra is a simply an excuse for sloppy work. I often make big print, and people put their noses right into them.
That's what they do when you give them that choice. They discover details, and that's part of the richness of the print that just keeps giving
over time. A totally different thing than merely grabbing your attention real fast ... which is the objective of advertising photography and, alas,
much that claim to be art these days. If you want a rich big print, you need a big camera, preferably an 8x10. I love 35mm photography too.
But making a big print from a negative the size of a postage stamp is about equivalent to creating gang graffitti with an aerosol can. It's all
basically a wad of fuzz.

You don't need a big camera to make large prints. When did we all start assuming visible grain is a bad thing ? Grain is often very beautiful and adds to the richness of a print.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No. Because having to slow down and put a view camera on a tripod forces you into a totally different mode of visualization. When I want fast response, I simply reach for my Nikon. My brother did use a 4x5 Technika handheld quite a bit, but for different commercial objectives than on a tripod, back when this kind of practice was commonplace. Most of the big museum & airport installations etc I see wildly blown up make me
nauseated. It was Avedon that started that trend way back when (he had the predictably pretentious mind of an advertising photographer). And now that we're in the Pop art redux mode (courtesy of Fauxtoshop & inkjet), it's become a plague. Something else besides size has to
make it happen - the color or form or message has to warrant it. That is rarely the case. Big just to be big is pointless. I guess if someone
just wants a big loud photograph above the sofa cause they can't afford a painting ....

 

[semi-ambivalent]

No. Because having to slow down and put a view camera on a tripod forces you into a totally different mode of visualization.

I've noticed having 36 exposures at hand rather than 3600 will do that too.

s-a

 

[DREW WILEY]

Try having one exposure on hand. A sniper given a single bullet is far more likely to hit the bullseye than some Sad Sack with a machine gun.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What you call "a lot of hooey" and "test strips" would probably be an epiphany if you ever saw them. I have never taken a photograph of a
brick wall.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Avedon made his In the American West Series with an 8x10. His prints were then on fibre paper. I think he hit the nail on the head with that series.
I think he is one of the Great American Photographers.

No. Because having to slow down and put a view camera on a tripod forces you into a totally different mode of visualization. When I want fast response, I simply reach for my Nikon. My brother did use a 4x5 Technika handheld quite a bit, but for different commercial objectives than on a tripod, back when this kind of practice was commonplace. Most of the big museum & airport installations etc I see wildly blown up make me
nauseated. It was Avedon that started that trend way back when (he had the predictably pretentious mind of an advertising photographer). And now that we're in the Pop art redux mode (courtesy of Fauxtoshop & inkjet), it's become a plague. Something else besides size has to
make it happen - the color or form or message has to warrant it. That is rarely the case. Big just to be big is pointless. I guess if someone
just wants a big loud photograph above the sofa cause they can't afford a painting ....

 

[DREW WILEY]

Avedon should have stayed in neurotic NYC with his fashionista friends. His American West series was utterly corny and had no affinity for his subject matter, which he treated like just another advertising commodity. I completely agree with Kertesz in classifying him as a Zero. Smart-yes, but in gaming the system.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

I think he is one of the Great American Photographers.

+1

 

[Bob Carnie]

Well the first time Drew that I think you are completely full of it.

Generally you have great perspective but I fully disagree with you and Kertez.

Avedon should have stayed in neurotic NYC with his fashionista friends. His American West series was utterly corny and had no affinity for his subject matter, which he treated like just another advertising commodity. I completely agree with Kertesz in classifying him as a Zero. Smart-yes, but in gaming the system.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I also think you should get inside more as that West Coast sunshine must be baking your brain.

 

[markbarendt]

Try having one exposure on hand. A sniper given a single bullet is far more likely to hit the bullseye than some Sad Sack with a machine gun.

Come on drew, lets be a bit more fair.

How about 1 exposure per print wanted.

How about a trip to the boat drags where we want a series of 24 prints of the first 3 seconds of the drag race?

And just to be captain obvious for a moment, mirror slap and recoil are slightly different in magnitude, the former has little effect on aim while the latter is arguably a big reason machine gunners find it tougher to hit bulls-eyes , the other big reason being lack off precise aiming apparatus.

 

[DREW WILEY]

West Coast sunshine???, Bob... I'm sitting here truly on the West Coast with my office heaters on full blast. It's even cooler and more windy at
home, where it's in the 50's on a typical summer afternoon. Microclimates. Just fifteen miles away over the ridge it might be fifty degrees hotter.
I have a seminar with a varnish mfg from Michigan in a couple of days where I have to explain this microclimate scenario. They just think Canada versus Florida... But Avedon, Mr soot and chalk nontonality in person... wish someone would have put a brahma rodeo bull between that
stupid white backdrop he used and his 8x10 (which should have had a red bellows). Same with Mr Avedon ... he was just looking for
specimens, and had no concept of all the myriad "microclimates" of culture he passed thru. Only a New Yorker would think that everything
past a New Jersey recycling dump is the "West".

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Drew, where do you get the Kertesz/Avedon/Zero comment?

 

[NB23]

You don't need a big camera to make large prints. When did we all start assuming visible grain is a bad thing ? Grain is often very beautiful and adds to the richness of a print.

I agree. I love grain.

But get back emough (let's say 15 feet for a 40x60 print) and you just can't see the grain anymore. It magically disappeared

 

[DREW WILEY]

Patrick - the Kertesz comment is rather famous. It was related to him being offered a one-man show at at major NYC museum, which he refused
because they had shown Avedon first, whom he termed an "advertising photographer" and called a "zero". You might want to check some
Kertesz bio. He had absolute contempt for Avedon's photog. I just find his work calculated, predictable, and obnoxiously prevelant, even though at this point in history it should be moth-eaten. I feel the same way about Warhol, and about the basic current mass invasion of instant
"gotcha" advertising-style photography. For all I know Avedon could have been a real nice guy. But his marketing personna certainly made
him look like a jerk - wearing out their sitters until they were exhausted and then tripping the shutter in an off moment and calling this
"revealing their inner soul" - and then getting another batch of sitters to fall for the same trick! He must have been a great salesman!
But damn ugly prints indeed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Fatso & kindred spirits: Grain is one thing, beautiful grain another. I gave up on that line of thinking when Agfachrome 1000 was discontinued.
Talk about lovely grain! It was avail in 120 film too. But at a certain level of magnification, grain becomes mush, and then you have to back
way off to view things coherently. Now people just hit the pseudo-grain simulation button, fingerprint & lint app, sratchmark app, catbarf app,
whatever.

 

[Dinesh]

Avedon should have stayed in neurotic NYC with his fashionista friends. His American West series was utterly corny and had no affinity for his subject matter, which he treated like just another advertising commodity. I completely agree with Kertesz in classifying him as a Zero. Smart-yes, but in gaming the system.

It's nice to see that you have brought your charming personality over from the L.F.F.