40x60'' prints from 35 mm.

[clayne]

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.

Okay so contact your 35mm prints so no one can possibly perceive any grain regardless of how close they go.

Or realize that it's up to the viewer ultimately and if they want to diminish the experience by staring at any grain then that's they're problem. It does not obviate printing at some nebulous "no visible grain" enlargement size.

 

[markbarendt]

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.

So what if the viewer can walk up to the print, doesn't mean I "need" to give them a reason to.

I have a few paintings my mom did way back when, beatiful, simple, low detail. The only thing gained by getting real close is the ability to see the brush strokes. Only a brush stroke style snob/geek would care.

Similarly I also have a nice watercolor by a local guy, fun piece, same as my mom's painting though, get close and all you see is craftwork, not the art.

Quilter's at the county fair, same game. The aficionados count stitches, the rest of the world looks at the pattern.

This theme plays out over and over and over in the visual arts, in my experience, when people move in real close they are typically trying to judge or learn the craft, many times ignoring the intent of the art itself.

I see little point in pandering to students of the medium/craft, except when at a class or seminar or similar function, they simply aren't the normal audience for my shots.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Heck ... I once spent two hours nose to nose with a Vermeer in the National Gallery, another hour nose to nose looking at Rembrandt's impasto
technique. I wasn't much interested in their famed collection of Medieval miniaturists, but then there's Van Gogh, where he seemed obsessed
of every single brushstroke ... and brush masters like Dali who could could put incredible detail on a canvas. So yeah if, it it's there....

 

[markbarendt]

Heck ... I once spent two hours nose to nose with a Vermeer in the National Gallery, another hour nose to nose looking at Rembrandt's impasto
technique. I wasn't much interested in their famed collection of Medieval miniaturists, but then there's Van Gogh, where he seemed obsessed
of every single brushstroke ... and brush masters like Dali who could could put incredible detail on a canvas. So yeah if, it it's there....

I rest my case.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, Mark... the general public who has no interest in technique will get their noses into my prints every single time. And I get right up to a
Rothko painting just like I would an Impressionist, because the technique warrants it, even though there might not be any obvious detail. Only
from someone like Mondrian or Motherwell will I back away, because I detest all the tape lines and overpainted creases. I once displayed beside Motherwell, and it's interesting how people would approach my prints and back away from his paintings. ... and it had nothing to do with the overall composition... they could take that in as well. Vermeer was almost a miniaturist, and you miss 90% if you don't get close. Rembrandt
comes alive when you see all the little impasto gold buttons of paint sparkle in his self-portrait.. even though in a book or printed reproduction the same image gives a so-so thud ... his genius was to bring you into the composition. With VanGogh you want to feel the impassioned intensity he put into every single brushstroke - something no counterfeiter has ever been able to do, no matter how analogous
the overall subject was. I have people who have owned one of my prints for decades and then will suddenly discover something new. It's
quite rewarding as a printer to embed those rich layers of content. For those who can't appreciate it ... well, they can shop at Ikea!

 

[Dinesh]

I once displayed beside Motherwell, and it's interesting how people would approach my prints and back away from his paintings. ...

You must be very important.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

It's funny. I look for grain instead of being afraid of
The more the better, and it's absolutely beautiful when you look up close.

If you know how to print what you want at the size you want there is no limitation.
The most important first is to get a good picture. Then you do whatever you feel.
You do it and you don't listen to others's opinion. It's very often a waste of time.

 

[markbarendt]

Guillaume, it is always an inspiration to me seeing your work.

 

[Roger Cole]

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.

I have been to an exhibit of CB. Print sizes ranged from considerable smaller than 8x10 printed on 8x10 paper up to perhaps 16x20. Most were probably about 11x14.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Roger,
It simply doesn't mean anything. The vast majority of small "vintage" prints were simply Press prints that were sent to magazines and newspapers and never returned.
As for HCB. There was a dedicated printer for HCB at Picto Bastille. His only job was to go to the vault, take a neg and print. Being there many times myself in the dark for my shows. I can assure you he was not making small prints. Printing the same negs for what 30+ years ? He could do it eyes closed

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Thank you Mark

 

[Noble]

Okay so contact your 35mm prints so no one can possibly perceive any grain regardless of how close they go.

Or realize that it's up to the viewer ultimately and if they want to diminish the experience by staring at any grain then that's they're problem. It does not obviate printing at some nebulous "no visible grain" enlargement size.

Not enlarging 35mm slides to 40 inches by 60 inches=contacting printing.

Are you sure there is no middle ground in there?

I would like to see which quote you are referring to that was demanding "no visible grain" or is there a fire sale on strawmen this week?

There are some really thin skinned people around here. I have seen people post on the internet that they would not enlarge a medium format negative beyond 11"x14". If you think this conversation is extreme my advice is to rip your ethernet cable out of the wall because you don't want to see what else is out there.

So what if the viewer can walk up to the print, doesn't mean I "need" to give them a reason to.

I never said you needed to. I was responding to the false statement that people don't move around and approach art. They quite obviously do. It is up to you whether you give them more to look at. I choose to most of the time just because of my workflow and my final print size preferences.

I have a few paintings my mom did way back when, beatiful, simple, low detail. The only thing gained by getting real close is the ability to see the brush strokes. Only a brush stroke style snob/geek would care.

That's probably why I was talking about Renaissance murals I've seen in museums and not your mom's paintings. You could cut an 11"x14" rectangle out of those murals, frame them, and hang them as a pieces of art in their own right. You could stand four feet away from the 11"x14" section and admire it without having to look at "brush strokes."

Why do people make these statements on the internet? I was going to museums and looking at various kinds of art long before this website existed. I had to come here to learn a) no one approaches art b) if you are standing four feet away from a detailed Renaissance mural you are a "brush stroke snob."

Sorry guys I had to do a bit of clean up. What I said was mischaracterized and some flat out false quotes were attributed to me. This business of contacting printing 35mm negatives and "brush stroke snobs" is just way too hyperbolic.

 

[markbarendt]

Why do people make these statements on the internet? I was going to museums and looking at various kinds of art long before this website existed. I had to come here to learn a) no one approaches art b) if you are standing four feet away from a detailed Renaissance mural you are a "brush stroke snob."

Sorry guys I had to do a bit of clean up. What I said was mischaracterized and some flat out false quotes were attributed to me. This business of contacting printing 35mm negatives and "brush stroke snobs" is just way too hyperbolic.

Who's spouting hyperbole now?

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.

The basic assumption of the argument you make here is that the characteristics of a step up in format size, more detail, less grain in relation to the subject, better tonality, whatever... is better and that people will appreciate prints from larger formats a bit more.

As far as I'm concerned, that assumption is nonsense.

Would Guilliaume Zuili's work be "improved" by availing himself of the characteristics of a larger format film?

IMO, absolutely not. In fact I think a step up in format might just ruin it.

The choices we make as artists using photography; of lens, film, format, lighting, filters ... simply imparts certain characteristics on the prints we are trying to get to.

None of the characteristics that our tools or materials impart on a print are intrinsically better or worse than their alternatives.

 

[Noble]

Would Guilliaume Zuili's work be "improved" by availing himself of the characteristics of a larger format film?

IMO, absolutely not. In fact I think a step up in format might just ruin it.

You obviously feel very strongly about this. So there is no point in discussing it because I don't really see you changing your mind. I will say though I would not apply or deny any technique to an entire body of work either mine or somebody else's. I look at each scene and decide individually what they do or do not need. And even after I make a print I second guess myself and ask other people their opinions. There are a dizzying number of possibilities even in the shrunken film world. There is simply no way I could allow myself to navigate this field as an absolutist. Even if I end up leaning heavily on a condensed repertoire of techniques for financial and work flow reasons that does not mean I don't think my work could benefit from other styles or materials.

 

[clayne]

What we're saying is that rationale like "35mm is only enlargeable up to x size" is absolutist!

 

[markbarendt]

Y I don't really see you changing your mind.

Why would I?

I already shoot 35mm, MF, & 4x5. I pick the tool to suit the expected result and the shooting situation. Sometimes I like grainy, sometimes smooth as a babe's butt.

You are right that there are lots of ways to do things. None are artistically better or worse than another, they are simply choices.

 

[Noble]

What we're saying is that rationale like "35mm is only enlargeable up to x size" is absolutist!

Please quote for us where I said that.

I already shoot 35mm, MF, & 4x5.

And yet you declared in no uncertain terms that every piece in one artist's entire body of work might be ruined if it were shot with a large format camera. I personally have never heard anyone make such a declaration let alone so emphatically. After something like that is said what more is there to discuss?

 

[markbarendt]

Ahh, more hyperbole.

 

[Chris Lange]

Speak for yourselves but I personally strive to get the same grain one would see in a 30x40" print from 35mm in my smaller format prints...one of my favorite photographs I've ever seen on display was by a photographer whose name I don't even know, in Finland (god knows if he was even Finnish or not), and it was a very simple portrait of a woman, maybe in her early 30s...very attractive...

Anyway, it was a 16x20" or so, maybe a 20x24 but grain was what I can only describe as sandpapery. It was articulated so well and it almost seemed like a layer of sand had been lightly spread over the entire image...I've never seen grain quite like it since. It was a very low contrast print, but the tones were beautifully distributed...just an incredible photograph...the woman's face seemed to melt into the background, much more gently than blowing out the tones on the face to match a paper white background...this was via careful dodging I suspect. Without the grain, the photograph would have seemed artificial and manufactured, the grain reminded you as a viewer that this was a real human being you were looking at.

That said, people who print no larger than 11x14 from medium format confused the heck out of me...my 30x30" prints from 6x6cm negs are enjoyable up close, and far away, that goes for both recent traditional gelatin silver prints, and the Lambda prints I had done from some color negs a couple years ago. Very sharp, very good contrast...

The harder parts of making a large print from 35mm are having a critically aligned enlarger, a good neg carrier, and holding the paper flat. As Bob Carnie can attest, keeping the paper flat is a cinch if you use a simple, yet effective magnet/brace setup, or as the more fortunate of the community, a vacuum easel. Substitute "glass" for "good" on the carrier, and that problem is easily solved if you are meticulous about keeping things clean, and if you don't have the tools to align your enlarger critically, find the nearest rental darkroom capable of making large photographic prints, and use that...the good ones will have flawlessly maintained equipment (CRC and Printspace NYC both come to mind).

The hardest thing about making large prints is handling a piece of paper inundated with chemicals in trays that are just barely big enough for it, and avoiding crinkles.

If you can avoid crinkles, go for it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I actually use different strategies, depending upon the subject. With Nikon work, I tend to choose high-speed films for spontaneity and maybe
to create a poetic description deliberatety divested of fine detail. I tend to print these quite small. At the other extreme, yesterday I was
printing a 30x40 (inch) from an 8x10 color neg where the whole point of the composition is to lead the eye into the extreme detail. The overall
composition would have certainly "worked" if it had been shot with 35mm, but it wouldn't have had that wealth or wow effect that the extreme
detail gives it. Nobody is going to view this thing just from the "normal viewing distance" unless they have vision problems. And it has nothing
to do with "pixel peeping" or attempting to sleuth technique. I print optically anyway. But in such instances, it wouldn't make much of a difference if the original was 35mm or 6x7. It would be a ball of mush at 30x40, so the grain or something else has to make the print interesting in some other respect - which can be done - but it's a whole different printing strategy. Frankly, every time someone tells me
how sharp their big print was from one of these smaller formats, I have good reason to doubt they ever have seen a sharp print in their life.
I hear this kind of nonsense all the time, esp from the digital kids.

 

[Bob Carnie]

If the grain works go for it , the image is what its all about, so sharp grain is a desired thing and pleasing.

What is not pleasing is when a negative pops in the enlarger and its not caught, areas of defocus can be disturbing.

I always like printing from prime lenses, from 35/mf I specifically like rangefinder on tripod.

Zoom lenses always freaked me out when printing , as there always seemed to be an area where the optics broke down and looked clumsy in the final print.

like flotsam said, its suppose to be there so embrace it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bob - have you ever seen Sheila Metzger's 35mm work printed on color Fresson? It would be right up your alley. An absolutely wonderful
marriage of an extremely idiosyncratic very grainy process with appropriate images. The color is unlike anything I've ever encountered in photog
before. Of course, this is a trade-secret direct-carbon process, known only to the original family and Luis Nudeau up in your part of the world,
but not quite as secret as it once was. But at least it's the kind of thing to inspire your own adventures into new territory!

 

[Bob Carnie]

Drew actually I have,
Jane Corkin gallery here in Toronto has / had some of her work displayed here.
Fressons are quite unique and as you say propriertory.
I am trying to make my prints look a bit like dye transfers that we were discussing on the other forum. I really like the physical look of these prints. I also like
the Carbro's that were made for advertising purposes of the 50/60's , GEH has a couple on display when I visited last and they were very nice.
I also was lucky enough to see 30 -40 Steven Livik tri colour gums of his ontario fair series 1980 which IMO are some of the greatest prints ever made.
He stopped in that vein of work , which always has struck me as odd.

I am not so sure Luis Nudeau knows how to make the fresson prints, I have never seen any of his work other than I own a bunch of his books which are quite informative.

Bob - have you ever seen Sheila Metzger's 35mm work printed on color Fresson? It would be right up your alley. An absolutely wonderful
marriage of an extremely idiosyncratic very grainy process with appropriate images. The color is unlike anything I've ever encountered in photog
before. Of course, this is a trade-secret direct-carbon process, known only to the original family and Luis Nudeau up in your part of the world,
but not quite as secret as it once was. But at least it's the kind of thing to inspire your own adventures into new territory!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nadeau figured it out and they went after him. They reached an agreement. He's allowed to make color Fresson prints for personal use, but
cannot benefit from the process commercially or otherwise disclose it, or they'll sue him. Monochrome Fressons are a different story - a number
of people have successfully made those. I'll agree the old ad carbros can be quite appealing, but bonding failure (blisters) and cracking are almost inherent to vintage ones (and alas, this was the achilles heel of certain commercialized quad carbon processes too). I suspect metallic contaminants in the pigments.

 

[clayne]

Did they actually patent the process?