40x60'' prints from 35 mm.

markbarendt · Jun 11, 2013

Noble said:
You've misunderstood the use of the word "detail" in the context of this conversation. I don't know what to say about your opinion of the timelessness of color photographs. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I think Noble, that in the grand context of 35mm photography, you are being overly specific.

DREW WILEY · Jun 12, 2013

Mark - anything allegedly "mainstream" is conceptually for those who can't think for themselves. Such stereotypes deserve to be ignored,
though in this case, I think you are completely mistaken in the first place.

markbarendt · Jun 12, 2013

DREW WILEY said:
Mark - anything allegedly "mainstream" is conceptually for those who can't think for themselves. Such stereotypes deserve to be ignored,
though in this case, I think you are completely mistaken in the first place.

If the audience/market/gallery owners understand the "timeless/classic/whatever" thought there's probably something to it.

DREW WILEY · Jun 12, 2013

Color photography has been "mainstream" in the haute gallery and museum context ever since the 70's. If anything, it's black and white work
that is considered passe nowadays and endangered, unless it's some auction setting dealing in vintage work by a handful of famous names.
But it's all just a stupid game. Do what you enjoy and do it well, and don't worry what a few half-educated idiots think, who probably can't take
or print work half as good anyway. I don't know just when I get back in the game, publicly at least, maybe in a couple more years... but I've
certainly never had anyone in a serious gallery or public venue setting discriminate between one piece or another based on whether it was color black and white. I do both. They appreciate both. The potential market or venue will vary with the individual, of course. And I don't have either time or patience for any little-league types pontificating about such matters.... they should stick to selling designer corndogs.

markbarendt · Jun 12, 2013

Yes passé is probably another word for Classic.

Noble · Jun 12, 2013

markbarendt said:
I think Noble, that in the grand context of 35mm photography, you are being overly specific.

I know you are confusing the word "detail" with "characteristic." I have never walked into a photography store and been told a film has more "detail" simply because it is color. That is a very idiosyncratic use of the word "detail." Which of course you are entailed to do. It's a free country. But that has nothing to do with this thread. When people ask me whether I am shooting color or B&W I am not going to say I am shooting the film with more "detail" to indicate I am shooting color. That would make me sound like a moron. I won't do it. Sorry.

markbarendt · Jun 12, 2013

Noble I really doubt that a fashion designer, art director, make-up artist, painter, or a mom with bad ass camera would be confused by me referring to the colors in a setting, or of a dress, or on a cheek as details, in a photo or in a studio. I.E. "That red is a great detail"

Photographers looking to figure out how they can do something, aficionados of formats larger than 35mm, and the infamous pixel peepers are typical of those who care, most of the rest of the world doesn't care, as long as the photo catches and holds their/our interest.

Sure fine detail (as you define it) with little to no grain can be a great characteristic in a photo that draws the viewer in, but so can the detail of variation in color in a portrait of a rose or Tulip. A local buddy of mine does color work where the detail is mostly about color and shape and almost never about sharp in focus edges. http://fineartamerica.com/featured/oh-yeah-robert-bridges.html

DREW WILEY · Jun 13, 2013

That's quite an informative link, Mark. It reminds me of one night when a little mouse got into my backpack and ate a whole bag of colored M&M's all by himself - maybe twice his body weight. My pack was leaning against a big log, and the next morning there were colored blotches of mouse barf up and down that entire log. I think that little rodent had more color finesse than what that link illustrates.

markbarendt · Jun 13, 2013

Well I thought about using this Dead Link Removed as an example but it didn't quite fit what I was trying to show.

Cropline · Jun 13, 2013

I'm a fine grained guy myself but realize that artistic merit of grain.This thread has made me curious of extreme 35mm enlargement.Think I will try this w/Ektar and T-max 100

Thomas Bertilsson · Jun 13, 2013

Cropline said:
I'm a fine grained guy myself but realize that artistic merit of grain.This thread has made me curious of extreme 35mm enlargement.Think I will try this w/Ektar and T-max 100

It's fun! Try it out. What constitutes 'great' photography and print quality is highly individual, and when you go through a show at a museum where they show mural prints from 35mm by Salgado and more modest enlargements from large format negatives by photographers such as Andre Kertesz, and look at anything but resolution and grain, just marveling at the material and the stories the pictures tell, you realize how insignificant the negative size is in the grand scheme of things.

I think us photographers often fall ill with the disease of criticizing ourselves based on ultimate print quality, and my experience (as an observer at museums) is that only photographers care.

markbarendt · Jun 13, 2013

Thomas Bertilsson said:
It's fun! Try it out. What constitutes 'great' photography and print quality is highly individual, and when you go through a show at a museum where they show mural prints from 35mm by Salgado and more modest enlargements from large format negatives by photographers such as Andre Kertesz, and look at anything but resolution and grain, just marveling at the material and the stories the pictures tell, you realize how insignificant the negative size is in the grand scheme of things.

I think us photographers often fall ill with the disease of criticizing ourselves based on ultimate print quality, and my experience (as an observer at museums) is that only photographers care.

Patrick Robert James · Jun 13, 2013

The only thing that matters is a great image. Everything else is noise. Non-photographers really don't care. They either connect with an image or they don't.

In other words, I agree with Thomas.

I appreciate Drew's opinions quite a bit, although he either is full of it when it comes to printing (doubt it) or he has one of the worst websites ever. I think it is the latter. I would love to see the work in the right way. His website doesn't do much for his credibility though.

From a technical perspective, if you are going to make large prints you should be worried about the sharpness of the grain and not how fine it is. Mushy grain looks pretty bad with large prints. Large sharp grain can look pretty good no matter how large the print is.

StoneNYC · Jun 14, 2013

Patrick Robert James said:
The only thing that matters is a great image. Everything else is noise. Non-photographers really don't care. They either connect with an image or they don't.

In other words, I agree with Thomas.

I appreciate Drew's opinions quite a bit, although he either is full of it when it comes to printing (doubt it) or he has one of the worst websites ever. I think it is the latter. I would love to see the work in the right way. His website doesn't do much for his credibility though.

From a technical perspective, if you are going to make large prints you should be worried about the sharpness of the grain and not how fine it is. Mushy grain looks pretty bad with large prints. Large sharp grain can look pretty good no matter how large the print is.

I like you simply because you sound like me haha, I haven't seen Drews website but if its bad I would have totally said that hahaha. My website is pretty horrible too, keep meaning to get on that...

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

StoneNYC · Jun 14, 2013

Cropline said:
I'm a fine grained guy myself but realize that artistic merit of grain.This thread has made me curious of extreme 35mm enlargement.Think I will try this w/Ektar and T-max 100

Get some tech pan...

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Noble · Jun 18, 2013

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I think us photographers often fall ill with the disease of criticizing ourselves based on ultimate print quality, and my experience (as an observer at museums) is that only photographers care.

I think if you put a 40"x60" made from a 35mm negative and one made from an 8x10 negative in front of the average person they will be able to tell them apart. If they can't then they have a medically diagnosable disease. Medical visual acuity tests are far subtler. As far as do they care I have to ask what is the audience you are aiming for. I would say in any given year 95+% of people don't step into a museum or art gallery in the United States. Those people are not the final arbiter of whether my work has made the grade or not. Their idea of photography is a noisy picture from an iphone with a cheesy Instagram filter applied heavy handedly. Even having said all that I don't know how one would ascertain merely by observing whether people care. I care and I don't announce it as I look at photographs. I usually walk through entire museums and galleries without saying a word.

When I make a print I try to at least do the easy stuff to add extra layers of depth. For some of my work shooting large format would enhance things further, but life is full of trade offs. I stick with medium format. I pick the trade offs I'm willing to live with. But that doesn't mean a large format negative won't produce a discernibly better print that people will appreciate a bit more. It may only be a 10% gain for a lot more effort. That may not be worth it to you. But it doesn't mean there is no perceivable and appreciated gain.

DREW WILEY · Jun 18, 2013

Thanks guys. I don't sell electronic images, just actual prints. A website is just a business card, and of so little tactical importance to me that
I've never upgraded it. About 1% of my work is represented there. If you want an original print of that graffiti heart image, no more Ciba avail,
so you calculate... it went for around $2500 in the mid-80's. So you can guess the inflation game.

DREW WILEY · Jun 18, 2013

... oh, and even though that was made with old school 4x5 Ektachrome 64, you could probably count the legs on an aphid crawling across it.
8x10 film on a flat plane like that would have held even more detail. There's a reason why people don't go hunting rhinos with a BB gun.

clayne · Jun 19, 2013

Enlargement size doesn't make a difference. Viewing distance does. The people who can't grok this are those whose noses are usually crammed up against the surface of the print.

StoneNYC · Jun 19, 2013

Michael R 1974 said:
Drew, how is Christopher Burkett able to still do Cibachrome?

Lots of paper stock?

Hopefully this year ill get some cibi images done, smuggling chemical to other countries to do it.. Kind of insane...

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

StoneNYC · Jun 19, 2013

clayne said:
Enlargement size doesn't make a difference. Viewing distance does. The people who can't grok this are those whose noses are usually crammed up against the surface of the print.

I don't think I will ever grok the fullness of it...

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Noble · Jun 20, 2013

clayne said:
Enlargement size doesn't make a difference. Viewing distance does. The people who can't grok this are those whose noses are usually crammed up against the surface of the print.

This was addressed earlier in the thread. Unless you have razor wire around a photograph in a museum or gallery people will invariable walk up to it. Now if something is on a bill board 100 feet in the air and you are driving by it at 55 mph then yes you are 100% correct.

DREW WILEY · Jun 20, 2013

Michael & Stone - Burkett simply stockpiled a lot of Ciba supplies. Hopefully the frozen paper will remain good for awhile. I've largely switched over to color neg work and Fuji Supergloss, which has a similar look and capacity for extreme detail. The normal technique with 35mm and 120 film was to make a precisely masked enlarged 8x10 duplicate chrome; that way the color saturation of the original would hold up to the enlargement. Burkett and I have very different masking styles due to the significant difference in the light sources in our respective colorheads.
But I'd certainly imagine people would put their noses right up to his prints too. If the detail is there, people will want to look at it every time.

Jonathan R · Jun 21, 2013

This is a crazy discussion, although I'll confess that I haven't read it all. If you go to an exhibition of Cartier Bresson's photos, what size do you expect them to be? 10 x 8? Of course not.They'll be 20 x 16, despite the famously poor negative quality. But they look terrific, because the photo itself a rich print are everything.

MattKing · Jun 21, 2013

Jonathan R said:
This is a crazy discussion, although I'll confess that I haven't read it all. If you go to an exhibition of Cartier Bresson's photos, what size do you expect them to be? 10 x 8? Of course not.They'll be 20 x 16, despite the famously poor negative quality. But they look terrific, because the photo itself a rich print are everything.

A couple of years ago I did go to a Cartier Bresson exhibition.

The prints were all original, period prints. They were printed very subtly - without the extremes of tones or contrast we tend to see now.

Most of them were about 10" x 8" - they all came from private or museum collections.

They were fascinating - not least because they drove home how different expectations are now.

40x60'' prints from 35 mm.

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency