How big?

[jstraw]

I've never made prints bigger than 11x14.

My considerations (other than aesthetic) are logistical and financial. Printing larger represents a financial outlay. Potentially, in addition to larger paper, there's lager trays, easel and washer.

I've determined that my trays and washers can accommodate 12x16 and as soon as I get my hands on an easel I think I'm going to try some larger prints. I don't think I can judge my feelings about working larger and the aesthetic considerations without trying it. I don't really see myself investing in the hardware to print bigger than that.

What are your reasons for making or not making large prints?

 

[Alex Hawley]

My reasons are about the same plus two more; lack of physical space and lack of running water in the darkcloset. I'm embarking on my 7x17 experience and am currently dealing with several of these problems. However, with the narrowness of the panoramic format, I'll be able to make it work within my working space constraints.

However, anything sized for 7x17 processing has to be custom-made or else farm-boy engineered. As an example, I'm getting a 16x20 contact printing frame which is getting to be a high-dollar piece of gear. Paper cost is also up as I have to get 16x20 paper and trim it to 7x17. Not sure my trimmer can cut the long side in one cut, but a larger trimmer is another big expense.

Like you say, everything has to be larger and thus, more expensive.

 

[jmdavis]

I've never made prints bigger than 11x14.

My considerations (other than aesthetic) are logistical and financial. Printing larger represents a financial outlay. Potentially, in addition to larger paper, there's lager trays, easel and washer.

I've determined that my trays and washers can accommodate 12x16 and as soon as I get my hands on an easel I think I'm going to try some larger prints. I don't think I can judge my feelings about working larger and the aesthetic considerations without trying it. I don't really see myself investing in the hardware to print bigger than that.

What are your reasons for making or not making large prints?

I realize that its inconvenient, but how big can you print at the University. It was after printing 12x16 and 16x20 for a class that I decided I was happy with 11x14 and now 8x10 and smaller contacts.

But, my darkroom is small. I need to put the trays in racks to do 11x14 with 2 fixers and a wash running simultaneously. Also my house is small, there's really no place for me to hang large prints.


Mike

 

[jstraw]

I realize that its inconvenient, but how big can you print at the University. It was after printing 12x16 and 16x20 for a class that I decided I was happy with 11x14 and now 8x10 and smaller contacts.

But, my darkroom is small. I need to put the trays in racks to do 11x14 with 2 fixers and a wash running simultaneously. Also my house is small, there's really no place for me to hang large prints.


Mike

It's a good question. I may be able to print up to 16x20 there without spending money on anything but paper.

It's not how or where I want to work but it would give me a sense of how I like seeing my prints larger.

I'm pretty excited about trying 12x16 and producing some prints of my 6x6 stuff at 12"x12". I'm thinking about cutting up the remaindered 16x4 strips into 4x4 sheets for a series of miniature portfolio sets of my Holga images.

I'm curious about 4x5 printed at 12x15 as well.

By the way, I have to raise one tray on a rack to fit dev, water-stop, 2 fixes and holding bath in my 6' sink.

 

[jmdavis]

I
I'm pretty excited about trying 12x16 and producing some prints of my 6x6 stuff at 12"x12". I'm thinking about cutting up the remaindered 16x4 strips into 4x4 sheets for a series of miniature portfolio sets of my Holga images..

I agree that seeing the Holga stuff at 12x12 would be cool. I had an acquaintance who did a show about her grandparents in Japan in 6x6 printed 12x12. It turned out really well and made me realize how powerful the square format could be (until that time I had always shot them for either vertical or horizontal presentation on 11x14, not full frame).

Mike

 

[MattKing]

I haven't printed 16x20 in years, but I did buy a 16x20 Cibachrome processing tube when I bought the 8x10 tubes I use most regularly (no darkroom room for tray processing). For those who only have trays & space for 11x14 and smaller, the tubes might make sense for the larger size.

Matt

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I can print up to 11x14" in my little dark/bathroom easily, and 16x20" with some acrobatics, and 20x24" with print drums on a roller base as Matt suggests.

If you only occasionally print large, you can tape the paper to the easel with masking tape and trim the prints if you float mount, or overmat to cover the sloppy borders, or proudly lay bare the device and proclaim your sloppy borders to the world, however you wish.

 

[Curt]

I have the equipment, trays, easel, enlarger to make 20x40 inch prints thanks mainly to the Leedle stainless steel trays. I fancied ULF at some point but the largest print there would be an 11x14 contact print.

The size I am trying to "standardize" on is 11x14. In looking at my prints I have come to believe that they would look better at that size instead of 8x10. Maybe it's age I don't know but I like the larger size. I decided the other day to reprint some of mine in the 11x14 size since they were 120 negatives with Panatomic X and 4x5's all shot with a tripod. I was giving some thought to going back to the loading docks where I took a series and rephotographing. The wood is gone and the tin roof overhangs and replaced with concrete etc. Very different.

I like prints in 11x14 and the 12x16 doesn't look bad either. What's your mounting size going to be? Frames? I spent a lot of money on frames and boards for 8x10. Now I have to look at more purchases.

 

[Renato Tonelli]

I recently started printing 20x24 mostly from 4x5 negatives. There was some juggling going on because of space limitations: the two fixer trays were coss-stacked and other nefariousness. At first, the paper was hard to handle and I creased a couple. I've tried 12x16 and I must say that I am very happy with that size. I've printed from 35mm, MF and 4x5. 12x16 could become my favorite paper size: not as boxy as 16x20; has a nice "big print" feel and is not difficult to handle. I wish Freestyle imported Ilford Multigrade FB in 12x16. So far I've been using Kentmere and I am not complaining.

Go for it - I think it's worthwhile.

 

[david b]

I am a lucky boy. I just got a 4x5 camera and just today, I installed my new 9 foot sink. It holds five 17x21 trays with a bit of room.

Can't wait to get started.

 

[jmdavis]

I am a lucky boy. I just got a 4x5 camera and just today, I installed my new 9 foot sink. It holds five 17x21 trays with a bit of room.

Can't wait to get started.

You are indeed lucky. Congratulations on the camera and darkroom.

Mike

 

[jstraw]

I like prints in 11x14 and the 12x16 doesn't look bad either. What's your mounting size going to be? Frames? I spent a lot of money on frames and boards for 8x10. Now I have to look at more purchases.

At this stage I've held off thinking too much about how to display prints. I don't have that many that would make the cut for a show. I've basically set a standard for myself that I don't easily meet, which is fine.

If I think about it, I'd say that 16x20 mats are the minimum size I would employ for 12x12 or 12x16.

Too be honest, 11x14 mats for my 8x8 square prints would probably look cramped to me. In my dreams, my 12x12 would hang in 20x20-something mats but until I have a patron, that's probably out of the question. :rolleyes:

I'd have to believe that I could sell and be able to incorporate the cost of presentation into the price to consider the investment. I'm not even close to needing to think of such things.

 

[jeroldharter]

I have printed up to 20 x 24 and have the facilities for that. However, I think that larger than 11 x 14 is a different animal. Dodging and burning are different. For many enlarger light sources, the exposure times lengthen. the whole process is much slower, king of like stepping up to large format cameras. The issues for me are time and money. I have limited time already so using a 4x5 camera in the first place and then trying to print large is just too slow. Also, it is very expensive to mat and frame 20 x 24 inch prints. Minus the borders, you need 30 x 40 inch sheets of mat boards, etc. It can be hard to find the wall space and lighting for a print that large. Of course, I have a large supply of 20 x 24 paper that I plan to use.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What are your reasons for making or not making large prints?

The biggest print I've ever made was 20x48 inches (image area) on a piece of paper 24x54 inches: the sequence is shown on pp106-107 of Darkroom Basics ...and beyond.

Generally, though, I prefer small images, especially whole-plate image area on 8x10 inch paper off Linhof 6x7cm: exactly a 3x enlargement for 168x216mm. The biggest we normally print is 11x14 inch.

For me, a small print has a 'magic window' effect that is often lacking in bigger prints. Increasingly I suspect that there are two kinds of pictures: those that are 'content driven', and those that are 'technique driven'.

The best of the former are good at any size, even poorly printed; the best of the latter work only at certain sizes. They are not necessarily inferior to 'content driven' -- I'm not talking about technically exquisite prints of very dull subjects, poorly composed -- but they can easily be too small and still more easily be too big.

That's quite aside from the size that a picture 'wants' to be (the size at which it looks best) or needs to be (to show off important small details in an overall big contest or to conceal technical shortcomings).

Cheers,

Roger

 

[BBarlow690]

I agree with Roger, and will go a step further. Most of my pictures are pretty intimate, and I choose to have the viewer's experience with them be intimate as well. So I love 4x5 contact prints, rarely print 35mm larger than 5x7, and have never made a print larger than 8x10. Gotta be a "print sniffer" to see them well.

Just saw some of Peter Schrager's new work: 6x6 contact prints that are exquisite. I was urged a while back to contact print some 35mm, but that felt a little too forced for the subject matter, so as yet I haven't.

It gets worse: in the field, looking through the groundglass, I'm already thinking about what size the print wants to be, and so to a certain extent that drives my field picture-making decisions, including subject matter. I also define projects for myself where the print size is predetermined so that I DON'T have to think about it in the field very much. Having the decisions made in advance is curiously liberating.

 

[jstraw]

One thing that contributes to my notion of what size a photograph 'wants to be,' is that the size of the print and the size of the important detail have a great deal to do with how far from a print, hung on a wall, a viewer will naturally stand.

The smaller they are, the more physical proximity they demand. To an extent, the portion of a viewer's field of view an image will occupy is a constant. People will tend to adjust their position in order to be where they can percive all the small detail but be able to do so by moving their eyes, not their head.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Aside from the ability to produce a print of a given side, here are the other factors I consider:

Where is it being displayed?
Film format shot on
How big does it 'want to be' . Combo of subject/nature of image etc

On this last point I feel some images invite an intimate approach and should be printed small but some do work better, bigger. I dont go for the idea that all prints should be intimate as this is required to help the viewer really connect with what is being viewed. Some images look great blown up with lots of visible grain....some have to remain grainless to work. so I print from sub 10x8 up to 20x24 depending on what I think looks best, suits the image and can be displayed. With 5x4 I have not really considered going beyond 20x24 and even then 5x4 is really starting to struggle beyond 20x16 if you want that sumptuous tonality. That said, ultra fine grained films like TMax100 and Acros, Delta 100 etc all help if that is what you are after and you like the look of these films. If I had to pick one size that seems to almost universally work, it would be 11x14. I am working on being able to print up to 30-40" as I feel certain epic subjects need to be printed big and can also work as a 'magic window' assuming the original film format is big enough and the room is too. I have some projects in mind in which I will most likely be printing many of the images very big, but have not yet figured out how I am going to achieve this. Space is not a major consideration but the cost of the trays etc looks to be surprisingly high...then there is print drying...flattening...framing.

So to answer the question...all sizes. None are more right than others, but the cost certainly becomes an issue as does ones abiltiy to physically process such big prints!!! 20x24 is alsready getting to be a bit of a handful, so what 40"will be like I dont know!

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have the luxury of an complete setup and space to print 40inch x 60 inch and press the prints as well.
For my personal work I am embarking on a series of 24x36inch tri toned prints using the solarization process. This will push the limits of my darkroom and expertise.
For show work I prefer 16x20 or 20x24 inch prints over smaller prints.

My reasoning is that at the larger size I can manipulate *dodge/burn* for effect more and at the smaller sizes these manipulations become extremely difficult if not impossible.
I really like viewing a print at this size as well. *ones darkrooms habits must be very good, clean negatives, glass carriers,good optics, clean trays and an efficient work space.
Drying and finishing the prints at the larger sizes are more complicated once you push past the 11x14 print size.
Sebastio Salgados show at the George Eastman House years back consisted of a couple of hundred fibre base prints from 35mm negs.18x24inch and 24x36inch *approx*.
The larger prints completely blew away the smaller prints in quality and the smaller ones 18/24 were very good indeed.
This one show totally changed my view on format - print size and today I look into things like *where is the work going to be viewed* when determining the final size of prints, rather than can the negative handle such a large magnification .
I totally understand workers who have restrictions on work space and would make my prints to those considerations as well
David and others have mentioned Jobo and I know workers who are making 30x40 size prints in very small spaces. What is problematic here is drying and pressing.
On a side note to pressing prints.
My lab has always allowed photographers to use our press*price is two clean pieces of rag board when finished* I am sure in any area a frame shop or lab with a large hot press would be accomodating as well.

 

[jstraw]

I'll presume that people printing fibre up to a certain size are using vertical print washers. How are those of you printing 20x24 and bigger, washing your prints?

I can certainly construct a tube and trough system for processing a print to the limits of my enlarging capabilities, proper washing of such prints would mystify me.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I use 20x24 vertical washers and am designing a 40x60 vertical washer with an aquarium builder.
Large trays with holes drilled in bottom sides as well as continuous fill and dump is what I do . Very labour intensive and time consuming.
If you are using a tube washing in the tube with fill and dump.

I'll presume that people printing fibre up to a certain size are using vertical print washers. How are those of you printing 20x24 and bigger, washing your prints?

I can certainly construct a tube and trough system for processing a print to the limits of my enlarging capabilities, proper washing of such prints would mystify me.

 

[fhovie]

My proof size is generally 8x10 and a wall hanger is generally 11x14. I have trays and make 16x20 and agree that more often than not the 11x14 has a greater impact because it asks the observer to get a little closer and become more involved in the image. My newly finished darkroom supports 30"x40" prints. I have made two of them. They are really fun - of course I use only 4x5 negs for this (have been eyeballing 8x10 enlargers but will likely never go there). The huge prints say poster and the 11x14 say fine art - different idea. I think different images need different sized prints to express themselves best. 30x40 are developed in long narrow trays and the prints are rolled in and out of the solution - not exactly archival but functional.

 

[radiantdarkroom]

Well a guess there are many ways to print large. I have printed lots of 40x60 and larger B&W and Color prints largest being 42"x82". It takes more work but it becomes a zen experience and quite enjoyable. For B&W fiber I do the roll up method in a tanks that are 50"x20"x12". Hang to dry and press between Gatorboard with lots of weight. I have used Beseler Enlargers but know use a DURST 5x7 enlarger. I love seeing the black edge of 4x5 film.

For color I used a 44" roller processor that was when I was the lab tech at the pro-lab in town.

Big is awesome, but so is small.

 

[jstraw]

I just flashed on an idea for a way to wash big prints using a big PVC tube and a uniroller. I need to think it through a bit before I say more about it.

 

[fhovie]

What is so surprizing is that FP4 (4x5) - devleoped in pyrocat-p semi stand method for an hour - blown up to 30x40 is COMPLETELY grainless. I was amazed.

 

[jstraw]

I just bought this item:

http://cgi.ebay.com/UNICOLOR-UNIROL...ryZ29987QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem