How big?

[jstraw]

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.

good to know. my main 4x5 combination is FP4+ in 510-Pyro for 50 minutes.

 

[Daniel_OB]

If customer say “I want 20x24” print” what is a choice?

Large things make, in general, “bigger” impact on our perception (e.g. Old Egyptian architecture). So this comes to esthetic side.

Larger print means larger mat which means larger frame with larger glass, and so profit is much larger. So this is profit side, for somehow we have and stomach and banks around the neck.

If I hang 8x10 family portrait on the wall and a large sofa is in front, many will wish to remove the sofa and come close to see the photograph. If even 11x14 is above a large fireplace it is just lost. The photograph size has to be in harmony with surroundings and viewing distance….

In some galleries and museums there is viewing distance restriction, and small details on small print will not be noticed, ….

If a print will be viewing from hand, viewer adjusts distance by instinct, and in this case when 11x14 and smaller are in play I would give vote to 5x7 or 8x10 with average size of details.

Also professional photographer must have and professional equipment. I have all sizes of washers and trays, all formats of cameras, and use accordingly. Many things in my darkroom I make myself, like different washers for different print size. Ac Bob C. said drying and keep flat larger prints is problematic, and whole process is time consuming, but also and highly rewarding. If you shoot just for pleasure or to show that you can make a photograph I just do not see any reason to go above 11x14. Even if you intend to sell your work as work of art, who will pay you for large print? If you guess your large prints can find customers you better start making it.

www.Leica-R.com

 

[Paul Howell]

Although I can do a 20X24 print if needed I usally have a lab print anything larger than 16X20. But when I dont have time to send out to a lab I use a print drum and wash in a plastic play pool. A print drum takes a lot less space than a set of trays, uses less chemistry, but I found working with FB paper once wet the paper is quite prone to bending in a drum.

 

[jstraw]

If my tube scheme works out, I won't handle the paper at all between the time It's first put into the tube and when it's taken out to dry. It will be in the tube for dev>water-stop>fix1>fix2>rinse>tone>hca>wash. I really only need the Uniroller for washing.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

I think the best print format without a doubt is 9 feet by 6 feet

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[jstraw]

When can we look for the next run of 9'x6' MGIV, Simon?

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear JStraw

Item number 1769542 MGIVRC 44M 142 cm x 60 m - has to be rolls I am afraid as sheet boxes would be a tad big......!

With Kind Regards

Simon.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear JStraw

... has to be rolls I am afraid as sheet boxes would be a tad big......!

With Kind Regards

Simon.

Dear Simon,

Excuses, excuses...

Cheers,

R.

 

[keithwms]

Let me go against [some of] the grain a bit and just say that to my eye, nothing beats a contact print, even if it's quite small. I even saw some 6x12 cm contacts that really impressed me. I find that I am caring less and less for big enlargements as I progress. Granted, I could be limited by my enlarging skill or my equipment... but I think Weston was on to something. Less can definitely be more. A year or two ago I was literally planning to paint one of my walls with emulsion and go nuts, now I truly don't have any interest beyond 11x14 or so.

I guess that the more I progress, the more sensitive I become to minor flaws in my prints, so then I just don't feel quite so motivated to push for ultralarge prints.

 

[fhovie]

I am an AZO kinda guy .... guess that makes me obsolete doesn't it? I don't think I'll be doing in camera negs larger than 8x10 though. My walls have a lot of nice 8x10 contact prints .. including alt process prints. They are awesome. Some images are great in that mode .. as well as some images are great in 6 feet by 9 feet. I just don't have the room or inclination to go over 30" wide though. It is a lot like wrestling with an octopus working with that paper .. Ilford paper of course.

 

[dancqu]

In my dreams, my 12x12 would hang in 20x20-something mats ...

The larger the mat the fewer the prints will hang. The
ridiculous amount of surround some use is hurting sales.
I favor same size backer then frame. A narrow surround
of backer and window then frame will also appeal. Dan

 

[jstraw]

The larger the mat the fewer the prints will hang. The
ridiculous amount of surround some use is hurting sales.
I favor same size backer then frame. A narrow surround
of backer and window then frame will also appeal. Dan

You might think 4" of surround is ridiculous. I don't.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

...The huge prints say poster and the 11x14 say fine art ....

I know what you mean but when a 10x8 neg is enlagred rather than a 5x4 you are getting the same tonality at 28" as a 5x4 neg at 14" and that is delicious and helps prevent images degrading into that poster quality look. Of course the subject matter has to be right and the room big enough! I think it totally depends on the subject as some images irrepective of neg size and detail should never be enlarged like. Some scream out for it though! I have hardly used my 10x8 because shortly after getting it I went overseas, but wont forget what my first test 10x8 section of a 40" print looked like.....like half a 20x16 off 5x4 in fact! I was still gobsmacked to see that the numbers held up and other factors did no conspire to prevent this being so. I personally like images that have a sense of space to be printed bigger than those that do not. Sometimes with intimate prints you lose that sense of vastness. An image in my gallery (Harvest Capella) when printed at 20x16 has everyone commenting that it would be great twice that size. The neg wont go that far so it stays at 20x16.

 

[dancqu]

My reasons are about the same plus two more;
lack of physical space and lack of running water
in the darkcloset.

A few years ago when wading back into darkroom work
I soon saw I was very space limited. I opted for the single
tray processing method and incorporated one-shot chemistry
with that. Where I'd have been crowded doing 8x10s I can
now do 16x20s. As of now I'm putting some polish on
single tray processing through the wash. All in all
not so different than using a single tube and
one-shot chemistry. Dan

 

[goros]

Well, I have to explain how my darkroom is. It is a bathroom converted, temporarily, into a darkroom that has to be reverted into a bathroom once the printing sesion is over. The developing trays are leaning on the bathtub bottom, more precisely on the bathtub flat bottom surface. This limits to trays that can accomodate 8"x10" paper. And that is the size of my enlargements.

I'm planing to get 12"x16" Nova processor and washer, but the investment is quite substantial for the amount of technology they have.

Cheers

 

[Roger Hicks]

... the investment is quite substantial for the amount of technology they have.

Cheers

...but not for the amount of labour involved in building one.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[goros]

...but not for the amount of labour involved in building one.

...and the idea, the design, the guts to make and sell it in a market that is getting smaller and smaller.

Really, that's what we are paying for. And they deserve it, but it's a lot of money.

Cheers

 

[Harry Lime]

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.

I like your line of thought. I try to match the print size to the photo.

Some pictures just don't work big, while other really come to life at larger sizes.

I have one negative that just doesn't look right if it's printed any larger than 8x10 and I am not talking about the technical aspects. It's a matter of content.

Last year I saw a stunning vintage shot of Hemmingway (from the waist up), blown up to slightly larger than life size. It was jaw dropping and the size just gave it such a presence. Really quite impressive. It also cost $40,000...

 

[goros]

As jstraw says, the way the pictures are going to be displayed also matters. I don't hang my pictures but kept them in boxes, usually all about the same theme. Then the viewer tosses (is this the right word?) the pictures one by one. A print larger than 8"x10" would be difficult to handle.

My reason for the Nova processor and washer is more about free space than print size.

Cheers

 

[laverdure]

90% of my prints lately are from 35mm enlarged to ~4x5. It's easy, it's cheap, I like it, and I can line up 5-7 5x7 trays if I want to no problem. Also, there is something about large prints that makes me uneasy. Certainly not to say that they can't be done well, but I do feel that many draw more attention to themselves than, perhaps, they ought. For their own sakes as well as for my own delicate sensibilities.

Other than that I am lazy, and my gear is all old and poorly aligned, and my technique is sloppy, and I like it that way, so.

 

[Chazzy]

It was after printing 12x16 and 16x20 for a class that I decided I was happy with 11x14 and now 8x10 and smaller contacts.

I don't believe that I've seen much 12x16 paper for sale. Where is it available? Or are you cutting down another size?

 

[jstraw]

I don't believe that I've seen much 12x16 paper for sale. Where is it available? Or are you cutting down another size?

Freestyle has Kentmere and Foma in 12x16. I'll be buying the Kentmere as it's currently my paper of choice already.

What really motivates this is that as someone that has always printed small and believed in it, aesthetically, I want to test my beliefs by printing larger. I've never done it so any talk about my preference for printing smaller is just that, talk. I want to make decisions about how big my prints 'want to be' on more than what may be a rationalization for avoiding the expense and/or difficulty of printing larger.

 

[catem]

I used to print 9.5 x 12 pretty much as standard, and enlarge to 12 x 16 if I wanted something bigger.

In my present darkroom I can print comfortably up to 16 x 20 - but recently I've been preferring to print, in general, smaller, either 10 x 8 with wide borders, or postcard size - with the very occasional 16 x 20.

I like to have the option to print big - really I'd like to print bigger but am very lazy about organising a different set-up, and also am mostly enjoying printing smaller just now.

 

[Vaughn]

Back in the days when I was enlarging 4x5's (okay, not that long ago -- 1992) I was taking them to 1x20. TMax100 in D-76 or HC-110. Grain did not enter into the image.

I really enjoyed working that size...burning (I did little dodging) was almost Zen-like, with some prints taking 15 or 20 minutes of burning. I felt like I was sculpting with light. Printing sessions on one neg might last 8 to 12 hours (work print to several final prints). I had lots of space (university darkroom), worked when there were no students around.

I matted them too small (20x24), then said "Damn the cost!" and finally switched to 24x28.

I like the way the print could be enjoyed at 4' to 20' away, yet one can go put one's nose on the glass and enjoy the details.

I now do 8x10 pt/pd and carbon prints...and also enjoy the intimate connection one has with the small, hand-holdable print.

To make use of my 20x24 frames I have printed silver prints at 12x16. Nice, but I feel they are an awkward in-the-middle sort of size. Too big to get intimate with, and too small to enjoy from across the room. But in a smaller room where one cannot get more than 10' to 15' feet away from the prints, it is a good size.

vaughn

 

[Steve Smith]

I don't believe that I've seen much 12x16 paper for sale. Where is it available? Or are you cutting down another size?

I have loads of it. It must be more popular here.

It is my favourite paper size now.



Steve.