Enlargements from 4x5

[Thilo Schmid]

one item not mentioned is the 'Angle of view' or Lens focal length used for the original negative. If we were comparing 'Normal' negatives to say 'Extreme W/angle ' the the W/A lens will have much more subject matter at Infinity than say a 150mm.

How we perceive a print depends also on the ratio exposure angle / viewing angle. There are certain limits beyond which we start feeling uncomfortable. Smaller prints have a limited viewing angle, because your near sight is limited, too. So it is not primarily a matter of size, but of possible viewpoints. Larger prints do have more options.

 

[George Collier]

Just read all the answers, great bunch of thoughts. Just to add one more, or restate what others have said: When I make a print (presumably for others to see), I believe that I am trying to share, explain, show - an experience I had, when shooting, processing, evolving an image. There's an essence there in the image, for me, and the print is the way I have to communicate it. Should it be a big print, or a small one? All of the other factors may be present in that final feeling, but maybe it's that simple.

 

[photobackpacker]

Some images have an intimate feel - they just work better smaller. Some images are grandeous - Clearing Winter Storm, Half Dome, Moonrise - all of them work at all sizes but feel best when rendered on a grand scale. I am just learning that forcing everything to 11X14 or larger, just because you can, is another lesson to be learned. I need to leave the testosterone behind and allow myself to let the image tell me how big it wants to be. This was an epiphany for me and I am still working through it.

IMHO it is not the size of the negative nor the information it contains, it is the subject matter and the environment that enhances its viewing. I recently had an opportunity to view dozens of John Sexton's 16X20 prints. They are breathtaking. Then I looked at Anne Larson's (John's Wife) prints - all of them 4x5 negs printed 6x8 or there about. Her chosen subject matter was quiet and intimate still life and abstacts. They, too, were breathtaking and felt right at the smaller size. The size complimented the image.

 

[Galaxens President]

Since I've never printed on paper larger than 24x30.5cm I am probably quite biased.

When I photograph I try as often as I can to compose as if the photo should be presented in say 13x18cm (or even 650x650pixels as here on APUG). If I feel that I need to have it larger, the composition is probably too crowded or messy. Still I like venturing into pictures by exploring details later on, but thinking in a smaller format when composing may give photos that are better at attracting the first interest from the viewer.

A more experienced LF shooter can probably do this anyway, but I who am new to the huge images on the ground glass is easily distracted by the richness of detail.

And I also prefer to spend my money on more sheets film than larger sheets of paper at the practicing mode that I am still in ;-). When I look at my 24x30.5 prints I can put my nose up to the paper to examine detail, though I guess that is something that shouldn't be needed at a gallery.
Cheers,

Richard

 

[c6h6o3]

I am finding more and more what is meant by "optimum enlargement". I believe that this phrase has to do with enlargement size versus grain size.

How do you explain the beauty of a Salgado print which, at 11 x 14 or 16 x 20, contains boulder sized grain? And the prints are quite beautiful.

 

[jd callow]

Optimum enlargement has to do with enlargement size versus subject requirements. If the subject needs to be 60x80 and the image falls apart you need to reshoot it with a bigger neg or different film. I think if you make grain your enemy then you might want to consider a different mediuim.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

How do you explain the beauty of a Salgado print which, at 11 x 14 or 16 x 20, contains boulder sized grain? And the prints are quite beautiful.

His printer is rather good isn't he, and I have discussed this with people before.

In answer to the question, I would say that IMHO prints with very obvious grain or discreet grain work. I personally do not like the middle ground much of moderately grainy. His shots also have very crisp defined grain which is in keeping with the rawness of the image content. In this way the presence of grain compliments the images in many cases, but not all. Looking around 'Migrations' there were a good few miages where the distant detail (which I wanted to see more of) was obliterated by grain. However, the vast majority had no such fine detail (such as a crocodile of people meandering away to the horizon) and were more 'in your face' and graphic. I loved his work and the printing, which in the main was absolutely astonishing.


Horses for courses again.

Tom