40x60'' prints from 35 mm.

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah... probably forgot where I was posting. ... and should count my blessings ... namely, be grateful Avedon didn't get his hands on a Holga.

 

[markbarendt]

Yeah... probably forgot where I was posting. ...

I have done that too.

 

[markbarendt]

A while ago I suggested to someone that talking about digital was out of line, it wasn't here.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

That comment of Kertesz, if true, would make me wonder if his attitude wasn't a large factor in his being overlooked for so many years. I do recall thinking he had a bit of a chip on his shoulder after seeing an interview a few years ago. We do know that he wasn't "accepted" by the big editors when he emigrated to the US and it curtailed his career, which begs the question, why? Maybe we have that answer.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

But damn ugly prints indeed.

I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion...

A number of years ago I saw an Avedon exhibit at the MET, his large format portraits were nothing short of stunning. While you may not like his style or approach, his work speaks for itself; Avedon was able to capture the moment and brought out emotion from his subjects unlike what most portrait photographers were doing at the time.

"Calculated and predictable", You could say the same about Ansel Adams. "Moth-eaten and obnoxiously prevalant" ? Sounds like a good description of your comments.

There was more to Avedon than being a good saleman, wikipedia has a little more insight on his "American West" :

Serious heart inflammations hindered Avedon’s health in 1974.[15] The troubling time inspired Avedon to create a compelling collection from a new perspective. In 1979, Avedon was commissioned by Mitchell A. Wilder (1913-1979), the director of the Amon Carter Museum to complete the “Western Project.”[16] Wilder envisioned the project to portray Avedon’s take on the American West. It became a turning point in Avedon’s career when he focused on everyday working class subjects such as miners soiled in their work clothes, housewives, farmers and drifters on larger-than-life prints instead of a more traditional options with famous public figures or with the openness and grandeur of the West.[17] The project itself lasted five years concluding with an exhibition and a catalogue. It allowed Avedon and his crew to photograph 762 people and expose approximately 17, 000 sheets of 8 x 10 Tri-X Pan film.[17][18] The collection identified a story within his subjects of their innermost self, a connection Avedon admits would not have happened if his new sense of mortality through severe heart conditions and aging hadn’t occurred.[15] Avedon visited and traveled through state fair rodeos, carnivals, coal mines, oil fields, slaughter houses and prisons to find the right subjects to reveal.[17] In 1994, Avedon revisited his subjects who would later on open up about the In the American West aftermath and its direct effects. Billy Mudd, who was a trucker, went long periods of time on his own away from his family. He was a depressed, disconnected and lonely man before Avedon offered him the chance to be photographed. When he saw his portrait for the first time, Mudd saw that Avedon was able to reveal Mudd’s true-self and recognized the need for change in his life. The portrait transformed Billy, and led him to quit his job and return to his family. Helen Whitney’s 1996 American Master’s Avedon: Darkness and Light documentary depicts an aging Avedon photographer identifying In the American West as his best body of work.[15] The project was embedded with Avedon’s goal to discover new dimensions within himself, from a Jewish photographer from out East who celebrated the lives of famous public figures to an aging man at one of the last chapters of his life to discovering the inner-worlds, and untold stories of his Western rural subjects. During the production period Avedon encountered problems with size availability for quality printing paper. While he experimented with platinum printing he eventually settled on Portriga Rapid, a double-weight, fiber-based gelatin silver paper manufactured by Agfa-Gevaert. Each print required meticulous work, with an average of thirty to forty manipulations. Two exhibition sets of In the American West were printed as artist proofs, one set to remain at the Carter after the exhibition there, and the other, property of the artist, to travel to the subsequent six venues. Overall, the printing took nine months: about 68, 000 square feet of paper were consumed in the process.[17]

While In the American West is one of the Avedon’s most notable works, it has often been criticized for falsifying the West through voyeuristic themes and for exploiting his subjects. Critics question why a photographer from the East who traditionally focuses on models or public figures would go out West to capture the working class members who represent hardship and suffering. They argue that Avedon's intentions are to influence and evoke condescending emotions from the audience such as pity while studying the portraits

 

[Paul Ozzello]

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.

You can get beautiful grain from many modern day black and white roll films. 'Modern' technologies such as drum scanning and archival inkjet processes like piezography are capable of producing exquisite prints - just ask Bill Brandt's nephew. While your own personal experience with Photoshop may be limited to pushing buttons removing lint and catbarf many talented photographers have mastered modern techniques to produce beautiful works of art.

 

[Bob Carnie]

In the American West project consisted of approx 17000 8 x10 negatives edited down to about 120 images for the show.

This was no minor project, even with assistants to do some of the lugging.

I am in the middle of a project , probably used 800 sheets of 4x5 and 1-2 hundred sheets of 8x10.. minor compared to his project, I believe I may end up shooting over 10,000 images but I can say from experience this is a lot of work.
I think Drew you need to walk in his shoes before you make such silly comments about his work.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes... too bad Avedon is not still alive. He could probably double the volume of Kodak's 8x10 sales popping film like that. That's less than a 1% return. I've walked many many actual miles with an 8x10, carrying it myself, and long ago figured out that sacred cows are best served up as
sacred hamburger.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The largest that I have done was 24"x36" color print from 35mm. I was happy with the results, but 40"x60", I would rather use my Hasselblad or 4"x5" Graflex or Speed Graphic instead.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thanks for the quote, Fatso. Yes, I would largely agree with the SECOND paragraph of it, and would like to see things the other directions - pictures somelike like a fish out of water fiddling around trying to invent a New York audience's stereotype of the West (which apparently anywhere a taxi cab doesn't take you - I wonder if Avedon knew how to drive?). Of course out here we have our own heritage of in-your-face
dreaded photographers too, like Dorothea Lange - but she had poetry in her blood. And I don't think Kertesz was simply jealous. He wasn't
exactly a starving artist - probably could have bought the damn museum and fired the staff if he wanted to - but I'll let the historians figure
that one out. It's all quite interesting historically regardless of our personal take.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh (postscript, as see if I can avoid so many typos this time...)... you missed my point, Fatso. I was talking about Fauxtoshop having apps to
simulate or ADD things like grain, lint, catbarf... I have no need for PS myself. I have a real darkroom, actually several of them.

 

[Noble]

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

The problem is you have many people who go to museums and look at gigantic murals painted in the Renaissance. They are used to seeing more and more detail as they approach a 10 foot by 30 foot painting. They are simply not cultured enough to realize you can't do that with handheld 35mm shots blown up to 40"X60".

 

[Roger Cole]

It isn't meaningful to discuss viewing distance without more context. If it's for display on a billboard or the side of a building 50' up, that's one thing. If it's for a gallery display can be reasonably expected to get as close as possible and expect to see more detail.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Give them detail and they'll look into it every time. That's what it's there for. It draws viewers in. If nothing's there, then the only option they
have to to back off into a "normal viewing distance" mode, which is a completely relative expression.

 

[markbarendt]

The problem is you have many people who go to museums and look at gigantic murals painted in the Renaissance. They are used to seeing more and more detail as they approach a 10 foot by 30 foot painting. They are simply not cultured enough to realize you can't do that with handheld 35mm shots blown up to 40"X60".

Not all "great" paintings have great detail, me thinks you are seriously over generalizing.

Also when did it become the audience's job to become cultured enough to look at a photo?

It isn't meaningful to discuss viewing distance without more context. If it's for display on a billboard or the side of a building 50' up, that's one thing. If it's for a gallery display can be reasonably expected to get as close as possible and expect to see more detail.

Why should they expect more detail?

To be honest on most of my photos in on way or another I try to limit detail, for example by say using B&W materials among other tools..

 

[Roger Cole]

"Why?" That seems somewhere between a meaningless question and self evident to me. It's bigger. It's going to have more detail, or at least for photography that is MY expectation and I bet most other people's as well. Why doesn't enter into it, but if you prefer making large prints with less detail, knock yourself out. Let the viewers judge.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Great detail can often be the clincher, the wow factor. A good subject and general composition are more important, but not the added spice or
butter on the bread that can often make the difference between an interesting print and a great one. If you put two identical compositions
side by side, one with intricate detail and one without, there is no contest. This has been my experience for a long time. And it's especially
case nowadays when people are accustomed to seeing fuzzy advertising displays and even nauseatingly overblown museum images. Viewers
might not be highly educated concerning this of that media, but the normal person can sure as hell quickly tell the difference in content.
But Mark - how does black and white versus color factor in this kind of discussion? Richly detailed prints can be made in this mode too,
or not so if that your choice.

 

[Noble]

Not all "great" paintings have great detail, me thinks you are seriously over generalizing.

I never said they did. Me thinks you are arguing against a strawman.

Also when did it become the audience's job to become cultured enough to look at a photo?

Sarcasm really doesn't get communicated very well over the internet. That part of my post was a joke.

 

[Noble]

To be honest on most of my photos in on way or another I try to limit detail, for example by say using B&W materials among other tools..

That's an odd way of limiting detail. B&W film tends to be finer grain and have higher resolution... perfect for recording detail.

 

[StoneNYC]

So this isn't quite as big, but if this helps give you any idea about it.

Also don't make fun, this was done as a joke and is part of a web series indie project I was a part of.

Lastly, this is totally digital, not film, but assuming the OP is either wet printing or having a high quality drum scan done and printing from scan, the results should be better than this.

A 24x30 print I have.



The pelican case is a 1510 (or 1512) for size comparison.

And these are close up cell phone images of the "grain"









I shot both with and without the stupid flash.

So even with a 21mp (which makes a 25mb RAW file which is probably 50mb TIFF if that helps at all for anyone scanning). There is great detail, so yes there will be grain but certainly not terrible grain and the detail will be there with a film print. It won't be the same as the detail of a 4x5 negative. But I'm sure the print will look nice enough for a museum/gallery, it does depend on original film too of course.

Anyway I'm not an expert, this is the largest I've ever printed, most of my X by 30 prints are from 120 and not 35mm. I haven't gone to 60 yet, but now you have challenged me haha, I think I'll make it a panoramic though, 20x60 sounds nice.



~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

Let the viewers judge.

That's the real point. Not every photo has the same audience.

 

[markbarendt]

That's an odd way of limiting detail. B&W film tends to be finer grain and have higher resolution... perfect for recording detail.

One enduring description of B&W is that it is "timeless". IMO part of the reason for that is that the detail of color is omitted.

As to "tends to be", yeah whatever.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Only half my brain agrees with you, Mark.... namely the half that I use when taking and printing black and white. But within seconds I can switch gears and think in a color mode which can be just as "timeless". I think you have a very limited perspective of what color is capable of,
perhaps based on unworthy stereotypes. I think the drawings in Lascaux about as timeless as manmade images can be. ... they used color didn't they?

 

[Noble]

That's an odd way of limiting detail. B&W film tends to be finer grain and have higher resolution... perfect for recording detail.

One enduring description of B&W is that it is "timeless". IMO part of the reason for that is that the detail of color is omitted.

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.

 

[markbarendt]

Only half my brain agrees with you, Mark.... namely the half that I use when taking and printing black and white. But within seconds I can switch gears and think in a color mode which can be just as "timeless". I think you have a very limited perspective of what color is capable of,
perhaps based on unworthy stereotypes. I think the drawings in Lascaux about as timeless as manmade images can be. ... they used color didn't they?

I did not coin the idea of timeless, classic is another word regularly used, there are other ways to say that too. These are mainstream commercial discriptions, not necessarily my sensibility or definition.