40x60'' prints from 35 mm.

Well maybe a trip to the east coast is in order, I would be interested if he actually made a bunch.
I did not know about the bonding failure, of carbros, are not the pigments not standard , what metallic contaminants are you referring too. I am interested as I am purchasing pigments for testing shortly and would like any heads up.

Yes , I believe so .. They are very strict on the process getting out, very , very few people know how to make them properly.

clayne said:

Did they actually patent the process?

Click to expand...

Bob - bonding has been a serious long-term issue which sometimes spoils the alleged permanence of various true pigment processes. I'm not an
expert in this field by any means, but have had some long discussions with various people who have been at the receiving end of it. It was one
of the things which led to adopting relatively coarse halftone patterns in carbon (which spoils the whole look of it for me), and which put a least
one commercialized revival of it out of business. Knowledgeable curators routinely differentiate old carbro from layered carbon by the nature
of the cracks and blisters. That's why I'm keeping my mouth shut about any new potential tweaks to process colors, just in case there is
some unlisted additive in them that might cause problems down the line. And I'm involved in way too many things as it is to make such tests
for awhile. For those who used watercolor pigments, it was often the formaldehyde preservative or metallic driers which proved to be the
culprit. Someone would choose a particular brand of pigment and it would work, but then it might get changed in some manner by the mfg.
Older process pigments tended to be contaminated with all kinds of trace things. And even today, with much pigment and dye coming from
either India or China, there are all kinds of quality control issues. Certainly not a game-changer... but it amounts to more homework.

It's turned out to be a long thread. I was only wondering what such a big print from 35mm would look like.
A lot of talk about viewing distance, surely if you had one on a wall you wouldn't only look at it from a metre or two away.
It just seams to me that from a realistic viewing distance it would look pretty crappy, regardless of subject or quality.
Of course you can print anything any size, but what's the point, apart from being able to charge more for it.
Andreas Gursky makes enormous prints, but they're from LF with great detail and print quality.
BTW, I do like Mc Curry's work, but after seeing him shoot on the streets of NY," in peoples faces" without approaching and talking to them, I'm not sure what to think.

Cheers, Wojtek.

So Wojtek, have you seen any in person? Lived or worked around a nicely printed, big, highly enlarged print for a while?

Surely, one expectation many people have for photos is lots of detail.

People even use the term photo-realistic to describe certain drawings, the stereotype is strong. So is the stereotype that insists you gotta have; big film, the best lenses, or some other magic bullet.

Doesn't make the stereotypes right or absolute.

The question in the end is subjective.

Who's work is more to your liking;

Diego Rivera or Rembrandt? (For me Diego by a wide margin)

Steve McCuury or Karsh? (For me a toss up)

Guilillaume Zuili or Ansel Adams? (For me Zuili again by a wide margin)

I too am a big fan of Mr Zuili work and style, I much prefer his work to the rocks,trees and water images that seems to be overwhelming here and on large format.


Now if he started to take on that subject matter then I may change my mind.

But I am a bit crazy myself as I only solarize film and print these days.

I gave up on big grainy enlargements once Agfachrome 1000 was discontinued. I did some unrealistic but stunning portrait work with it on, of
all things, matte Ciba, and never found any film even close to my liking afterwards. I don't care much for Diego Rivera simply because I'm tired
of all that, since my aunt worked in a very similar style and I inherited a lot of her studies for the murals (about 40 murals are on the nat'l
historic register, plus all the major museums have samples - so basically no more "social realism" for me - as much as I loved my aunt and
discussed art with her. She was still painting watercolors even on her deathbed, and every one of them was immediately sold right off the little pad for significant sums of money. I am a "rocks and trees" guy myself, who loves hauling an 8x10 up hills and thru brush, but in a much more intense sense than the postcard crowd, and have actually unnerved a few viewers by the complexity of the compositions. Think I'd
go insane without a darkroom.

Our local photography gallery has a McCurry show on, they have a bunch of the 30x40 size, darn nice.

Makes me want to buy a roll of 40" paper.

This is what happens when engineers with cameras have a discussion with artists with cameras...

But I suppose that's par for the course.

It's not about pixel/grain peeping (does the world really need one MORE just so perfect exposure of a banal landscape?) it's about content and narrative and how those factors make you feel.

Matthew Cherry said:

This is what happens when engineers with cameras have a discussion with artists with cameras...

But I suppose that's par for the course.

It's not about pixel/grain peeping (does the world really need one MORE just so perfect exposure of a banal landscape?) it's about content and narrative and how those factors make you feel.

Click to expand...

+1


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Michael R 1974 said:

What the world definitely doesn't need is more ridiculous comments like this. There is a reason APUG has more than one forum. We all know content is the purpose of making a photograph. This is an enlarging forum, about enlarging, and the technical skills and issues that go along with it.

Click to expand...

My apologies, Michael, I will do my best to refrain from such comments in the future.

However, I would like to point out that others before me most certainly made this about more than the mere technical, by discussing (to put it kindly) the aesthetic value of work that may not meet their technical standards. I am of the opinion that to divorce the technical from the aesthetic, and therefore the artistic, is a huge mistake that has gone on far too long, not only in the photographic community in general, but in photographic education in particular.

If you'll be so gracious as to indulge me for a moment...

For quite some time now, the aspiring student of photography, when deciding upon a course of education, is asked what at first seems like a simple question: "Do you want to be a commercial photographer or do you want to be an artist?"

If the answer is that you would like to be a commercial shooter (you know, a complete sell-out whore like myself) who charges folks to take photographs, then you are routed to a predominantly technical curriculum, with very little education in the arts, even, if it can be believed, the canon of art photography. If the young student says they want to be an artist, then they are sent down the path of the MFA where they get an amazing education in the arts - unfortunately, when they graduate, they don't even have the technical skills to assist a working photographer.

I see this in students all the time.

It is my contention that the pedagogy is wrong, and that this view permeates our views of photography, as evidenced by this discussion. If one views themselves solely as a technician, devoid of artistic intent, or solely as a creative with no ability to produce the work the envision, then I suppose this world view is fine. However for anyone who see themselves as both a competent craftsman and an artist, then it is as ridiculous as the tangential debate going on here.

You say we all know that content is the purpose of making a photograph, however, I'm not sure if that's true. I'm not basing this statement on this thread, or on those in this thread, merely by having spent years helping to educate other photographers. There are many who give very little thought to content and who only seem to appreciate the technical.

But then what do I know, I enjoy Avedon's work... I'm sure I (along with my clients and the galleries that represent me) am a total hack who should just keep his opinions to himself. Apparently my time would be much better spent plotting a paper curve...

Matthew Cherry said:

My apologies, Michael, I will do my best to refrain from such comments in the future.

Click to expand...

Speaking only for myself, please do not do so.

The criticism (as I read it) was just about context. Without that, APUG gets mired in long-standing tensions in *every* sub-forum. There is much to discuss/debate/argue in mechanics-vs-art. But that debate is not well suite to a forum on mechanics.

One of my quibbles with this (otherwise excellent) forum format is the lack of a way to note: following up in other sub-forum. The need comes up at least weekly, but the mechanism is not yet there.

DLawson said:

Speaking only for myself, please do not do so.

The criticism (as I read it) was just about context. Without that, APUG gets mired in long-standing tensions in *every* sub-forum. There is much to discuss/debate/argue in mechanics-vs-art. But that debate is not well suite to a forum on mechanics.

One of my quibbles with this (otherwise excellent) forum format is the lack of a way to note: following up in other sub-forum. The need comes up at least weekly, but the mechanism is not yet there.

Click to expand...

I understand completely. I wasn't being facetious, I will, in fact, do my very best to adhere more strictly to the topic at hand.

But for the life of me I wouldn't know how to do so in this case, without also having a conversation on artistic intent or aesthetics or, for that matter, what is important in a photograph.

The answer to "How large can you print from a 35mm negative?" is not, to my way of thinking at least, simply a matter of math.

It is 100% technical. Aesthetics should not enter the discussion at all.

I obsess over technical details , always have and always will, but I also am as obsessive about the aesthetics of photography.

I find that they work well together in my solarization work as I can push the boundries with process to get an image that pleases me. Because of the technical testing I know how to push the envelope and understand what is going on, which allows me to the make creative adjustments to please my eye.
Both are critical in my view, and equally worthy of discussion.

technically pushing a 35 mm negative to 40 x60 inches is technically challenging. If done well is a thing of beauty, aesthetically speaking of course.

richard ide said:

It is 100% technical. Aesthetics should not enter the discussion at all.

Click to expand...

Again, my apologies. I'm somewhat new here, however this very concept is mind boggling to me. In twenty years of image making I have never had to divorce the two before, so it is somewhat unnatural for me. In fact, I'm not sure I know how to do it. But I will do my best to adhere to the standards of the community. I'm sorry if I caused a ruckus.

Michael R 1974 said:

Apologies for being somewhat rude. It's just that you can't imagine how many times someone has posted a technical question, only to have the discussion derailed by someone eventually chiming in with the old "nothing is worse than a sharp print of a fuzzy concept" thing. It never fails. So my furstration got the better of me.

I would say I'm mostly on the same page as you, after having read your explanation.

All I'm saying is there seems to be this notion out there that an interest in the theory and science of photography necessarily precludes artistic vision - and worse, that ignorance of technical matters necessarily makes one a better artist. This kind of thinking is utter nonsense. It is also one of the reasons why there is so much bad technical information out there when it comes to photography.

So I tend to get upset when issues of substance vs technical quality are raised. It is a false dichotomy. A red herring. Substance and technique are not mutually exclusive. It is perfectly possible for a photographer to be both a creative artist and obsessive about the minutiae of the photographic process.

Click to expand...

I think we are very much in agreement. Every year I make the rounds at the large art fairs (Art Basel, The Armory Show, etc) and each year I am more and more amazed by the lack of technique when it comes to photographic print making. People can say whatever they want about the content of Robert Mapplethorpe's work, for example, but his prints were spectacular and on par with Weston, Penn and the like. So yes, content and technique should certainly support one another.

However, there is some truth to those notions, which is why I believe the pedagogy must change. One can get so mired in the technical that they fail to think creatively (or, more correctly stated, they fail to exercise their creative vision and how it fits in to the canon of photography) and one can produce work that has artistic merit while lacking technical skills.

I was originally educated as a classical musician (though my love is jazz). No one would ever hand you a violin and expect you to create art with it, without first spending years, if not decades, mastering the instrument itself. The art, comes out of mastery of craft. At the same time, it is important to expose the student of music to different kinds of music, to force them to practice improvisation (no matter how bad they may be at it at first) and to embrace genres that they might not "get" at first.

I've rambled long enough. Again, to yourself and others, I'm sorry. I'm somewhat new here and still learning the terrain.

I'm an engineering manager, so I'm all about defining a process and properly controlling it to achieve the desired output. The technical issues involving the production of a black and white print that meet the photographers pre-visualized image were defined decades ago. The steps are known. Now what to shoot is a whole other story. That's my current problem, misplaced mojo.

I can't imagine a 40x60 enlargement from a normal 35mm negative that would satisfy me technically. However, I would love to see them as they may kickstart my dormant artistic side. The Kodachrome of that green eyed Afghan girl at that enlargement would be stunning. I have projected slides (of a technical nature) where the detail was impressive at 48x72, Nikon F3 and a 55mm Micro Nikkor. I'd love to see something that size that moved me artistically.

jerry: It's all about viewing distance. Of course when one looks close at a 40x60 print they're going to see grain. Well if they break out a magnifying glass on a 5x7 they're going to see grain too.

As long as the lens is decent, the skies the limit when it comes to ultimate enlarged sized as viewing distance is proportional to it.

clayne said:

jerry: It's all about viewing distance. Of course when one looks close at a 40x60 print they're going to see grain. Well if they break out a magnifying glass on a 5x7 they're going to see grain too.

As long as the lens is decent, the skies the limit when it comes to ultimate enlarged sized as viewing distance is proportional to it.

Click to expand...

I was only wondering what it would look like, viewing distance not withstanding. Have you or anyone else here ever printed that big?
BTW, McCurry's selling them for 10k.