Learning to love printing smaller again ....

[Larry Bullis]

...started printing REALLY large color prints .. well, ok, I let the computer and the Epson print them Anyhow, the point is I went even larger. Part of that was I was never a very good color darkroom printer so I jumped into the digital color world for awhile....

I was a really good color printer (I might still be but I'll never know), worked as a custom printer making 30x40's, made prints on 20x24 paper with 1" borders of my own work in my own lab... but I prefer making Epson color prints now. It is far better, really, and much more versatile. C color had problems that were beyond the value of the effort it took to make it work just right. Tri-masking was practiced by a few crazies. We used to tell people that they could have any color look just the way they wanted it, but just one. The other colors might look funny. Since a lot of it was food, color was critical. I like color negatives scanned and printed on the Epson, because you can fix all of that much more easily.

However, I prefer black and white on real silver paper made in the darkroom.

I have my reasons for making small prints.

So you have big prints on the wall. Someday, you'll get tired of them and want to replace them with others. What are you going to do with the ones you take down? Who has room to store a lot of big prints?

In one day of printing I can make a bunch of prints. A week of printing big ones would swamp me. I have no idea what I'd do with them.

I can't print enough big prints to satisfy my own need to print, either, because the materials compete with other essential needs - like food, health care, housing, fuel.

I love to look at photographs. That's the main reason I print anyway. Small ones are as good for that, for me, as large ones, and the fact that I can look at more of them makes the small ones much more attractive.

What are you going to do with those big prints that don't fit on your walls? Sell them? Who has room to display them, or has the money right now to buy them? Not in the current economic climate! People will still buy art, but the art needs to be affordable, and, preferably, not take up too much space. Current conditions are forcing more people into smaller spaces. In the region of around $100 + or - is practical right now, as are smaller pieces. Yes, there are people who will spend a lot more, but do you know them? Even if you do, and you can sell prints, you will have to deal with a surplus. How do you feel about throwing your work away?

Smaller prints can satisfy all those criteria. I used to make 2x3's. Not a bad idea at all, but it is challenging in the graphic sense! They can look fantastic, especially displayed to their best advantage (as someone has mentioned). 5x7's! Fantastic size. With small prints, you just need to make the image simple enough that it attracts the eye - or hand someone the matted print so they have to look at it. That takes real visual skills. It's a challenge. Harder to make a small print draw the viewer, by far, than a big one that one can't help looking at.

If you live in a 4000 square foot house, you can make your prints fairly big. If you live in a 25,000 square foot house, you can make them REALLY big. If you have buyers who are secure in their expensive homes, well, go for it.

Just been perusing if this is because I'm getting older (will be 43 next Sunday)
...

Happy birthday. You are one and a half years older than my oldest daughter. I suspect that your real reasons are much more practical, and have little to do with your age. Are you being honest with yourself about why you are making the choices that you are making? I could be wrong. Maybe only idealistic factors are at work here - but am I out of line to doubt it?

Now, at 67, I already have much too much stuff, and things like the inadequacy of social security and other retirement income enter the picture in a very compelling way.

I still love to make photographs, love to print, love to look at them. For me, 8 or 9 x 12 inches on 11x14 paper is just right, but if I want to sell, 6x9 on 8x10 paper does the job.

 

[5stringdeath]

Happy birthday. You are one and a half years older than my oldest daughter. I suspect that your real reasons are much more practical, and have little to do with your age. Are you being honest with yourself about why you are making the choices that you are making? I could be wrong. Maybe only idealistic factors are at work here - but am I out of line to doubt it?

Its all idealistic .. I mean I can still afford to print big, have access to a nice facility that makes printing big easier (good workflow), have time, have storage space, etc etc. So its not about the How .. all about the Why

Quite honestly I know exactly what its about, I just don't want to get into it here And really it doesn't matter because I've arrived where I need to be and am producing a lot again.

But thanks for making me feel young

 

[fschifano]

The thing that struck me most about this conversation is how many people consider 11x14 to be small. For me, that's already on the large side. Small is 5x7 or less. Medium is 8x10 or 8 1/2x11.

 

[photoncatcher]

I love the look of a 5x7 print on an 8x10 matt, or even maybe a little bigger. I agree with the intimacy of the size. I also love to see people actually studying the smaller print. Some times really large prints only get a pasing glance.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I remember seeing a show of Andre Kertzse years ago at Columbia College in Chicago of every day people reading. They're all beautiful 8x10 prints. The exhibition made the viewer get closer to the print. They all had a precious quality because of their size. I print mostly 8x10 in my darkroom and I love the size. It's great to hold in my hand to view. Bigger is not always better.

Those were big prints for Kertesz! Get a copy of the
book, Kertesz: The Early Years, and be amazed by the
tiny prints he ordinarily made. He was contact-printing
35mm negatives -- I've seen some of them exhibited in
museums and they are stunning.

I think printing big is a reflex that one overcomes with
age. (Kertesz nothwithstanding.) I am printing now on
5x7 most of the time, with the images no bigger than
4x4 inches -- often smaller. Apart from aesthetic
preference, it simplifies life in my darkcloset.

 

[MattKing]

11"x14" prints are small enough to fit in the Rubbermaid plastic bin that slides under the bed, so 11"x14" is as large as I normally print.

11"x14" is also large enough to look good on the wall from across the dining table, so I'm happy with that.

Otherwise, an 8"x10" print is easy to transport, and looks good in the frames that line our hall, so that is a good normal size.

I wouldn't mind it if there were more choices available in 8.5"x11".

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I go the 8x10 or 11x14 myself.

Jeff

 

[5stringdeath]

I appreciate all this discussion. Its the exact opposite of the .edu spatter I'm surrounded by most of my day (yes I work/teach at an art school, higher ed) and I also have left over baggage from my days in grad school getting my MFA, even though that was over 10 years ago.

Taught an Intro to B&W class this semester, and I tell you, there is nothing better for the soul than watching students discovering film process / darkroom printing for the first time. It resparks my sense of amazement -- and as the semester progressed, and they began to print better, I saw some really beautiful small images on 8x10 paper hanging on the walls for our critiques. I tell them often that I learn as much from them as they do from me.

And I've learned a lot from this thread too, so thanks.

 

[David Brown]

I may go the opposite way. I've always printed mostly on 8x10 paper due to cost and the size of my darkroom. In recent years, I was collaborating with other photographers on a joint project and we ended up with a few exhibitions. I went to 11x14 paper (images actually 9x9, 9x11, 9x12, etc) framed in 16x20 frames to match what everybody else was doing. They worked, but the larger prints were much more trouble.

Still, I liked them. I have enough medium format negatives that can stand more enlargement and I am now building a darkroom that will allow me to make prints on 16x20 paper easily (all relative). My plan is to pick 10-12 negatives and print a "portfolio" on 16x20. Beyond that, I will decide later.

I agree with others about storage. Unless you're selling these things, what do you do with them eventually? :confused:

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Remember, it's not the size of the print, but the content and the craftsmanship of the print. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy large prints sometimes, but I have to stand back to view the picture. Kertesz's prints are just beautiful because of their size. Anything bigger won't work.

 

[removed account4]

this summer i will be showing 3 prints (and be a guest juror) at a gallery seven in maynard massachusetts.
the show is called "The Elegant Miniature" .... i LOVE small images ... much more intimate and interesting sometimes
than something so big you fall into it ...

 

[paulie]

a3 for 10x8 negs, usually a salt process or a good matt fibre paper
a5 for 4x5 negs, albumen and salt, van dyke
i half a a5 for 6x9 negs

keeps things minimalistic

i like big prints but only if the originate from big negatives 1-1 ratio contact prints. inkjets are just too easy and show little artistic/ ability for my visual taste, but i know the kids like them. lol

 

[rst]

Small images invite me to cross a border and get me involved more easily. Big prints often tell me "Stay away!"

My usual paper size for normal printing is 9.5x12 and the image on it anything smaller than that. 8x10 on 9.5x12 works good for me. I rarely go bigger and the 9.5x12 paper usually gets trimmed down a bit.

4x5" kallitypes on 8x10" paper look to good to go bigger.

Cheers
Ruediger

 

[Kirk Keyes]

11x14 is the happy medium.

I totally agree.

I find small prints too precious. Being a large format shooter, I find it hard to see detail in small prints, and I like detail.

 

[naugastyle]

I don't think of 11x14 as very large in the general sense, and have digitally printed color scans of 35mm at 16x24 for an exhibition and thought they looked beautiful.

However, in the specific-to-me sense, 11x14 is big to make in the darkroom, slightly nerve-wracking, and something I don't expect to do often. I really like 5x7s, and often make them the finished product rather than just work prints. Even if the finished product goes into a box, because hell if I've got space to display all the prints I make.

If you live in a 4000 square foot house, you can make your prints fairly big. If you live in a 25,000 square foot house, you can make them REALLY big.

I live in a 600sqft apartment. There's barely room for all the boxes of 5x7s, and those 16x24s? Wrapped up and leaning against a wall.

This preference for small prints means I lean more towards shooting color and scanning with my MF cameras. Because even 8x10 barely feels like an enlargement, but I don't really need to print/own all those 8x10s, and unless I have a purpose for them I'm not going to print them as 11x14s. I've made 5x7s from MF but then felt like...why did I do that? I know that's just my weird feelings about it, though...

 

[Larry Bullis]

I think pretty much all the preferential issues have been addressed, and there has been at least one allusion to what is probably most important in a practical sense. Some of us make images for ourselves, others make them for various purposes, and probably a lot of us make them both for ourselves and for other reasons. So, aside from just personal preference, what is the image going to be used for? Since I've been blessed/cursed with a multiple career, as a fine artist, hired gun, speculator, lab tech, and academic, each of these roles has its own multitude of possibilities and requirements.

A lot of my work was for publication in magazines and just required 8x10's made for reproduction; the prepress took care of the size and I didn't have to worry about it. When shooting for clients, it would depend on what the client wants, or what I think I can sell them. I made a lot of color 20x24's of architecture on spec because I could sell them to construction execs who'd turn around and gift them to architects.

As for "my own work", this might surprise you. Suppose a gallery director called you up, and said "So and so had to cancel, and we need a show for October. Would you want to have the space for the month?" This actually happened. My question was: "How many lineal feet?" Answer: "100". So, I went down to look at the space, designed the layout of the show, and then, knowing what I wanted the show to look like, integrated that with a project I'd been wanting to do. Then I shot the images and printed the show. It consisted of 20x24 color, mostly pinhole or simple lens images, interspersed with several groups of two very straightforward documentary lens images, 11x14 bw's. It was like two shows talking to each other, maybe even having an argument.

An example from history: When Steichen produced "The Family of Man" he laid out the show on the walls of MOMA in the same way that the art staff at LIFE might have done it. He hard mounted the prints, all made to particular sizes that he specified, ranging from tiny to huge, and trimmed them on a table saw. The walls were all bare, and the prints had no mattes. He grouped some, isolated others.

This is certainly backward to the way most people work (even myself, most of the time). It is a more "designerly" kind of idea. An analog might be the practical consideration of buying the frame first, then making the print to fit it. You know what frames cost, and that standard sizes often can be had for drastically lower cost than custom, so from a practical point of view, this makes a lot of sense. It's easy to drop $1000 or more for frames. In fact, it's hard not to. If you think from the end point and work back to the beginning, it can work much better in some ways.

To sum up: Regardless of preference, it may be important to consider the ultimate function the print is to perform.

 

[michaelbsc]

.... the practical consideration of buying the frame first, then making the print to fit it. You know what frames cost, and that standard sizes often can be had for drastically lower cost than custom, so from a practical point of view, this makes a lot of sense....

Being a hobby photographer this is exactly how I always work, without exception.

My wife collects frames like they were valuable somehow, and whenever we want to give someone a photograph I make it fit one of the frames we have on hand. Sometimes it is a 5x7, 8x10, or 11x14 matted in a larger frame, and sometimes it's just a stark 5x7, 8x10 or 11x14 in simple frame with no mat. Whatever works for the subject.

Since I've don't sell photos I must absorb the cost on my own as part of the cost of the gift. So inexpensive frames and matting are my norm. Some are just nice frames she occasionally finds at a Dollar General or some place like that, and others are old frames that come from junk shops. A few are nice frames that are standard size from regular retail outlets. None are custom.

MB

 

[dpurdy]

Practical... I buy paper in 11x14 stock and cut it down to 7x8.5 inches. That allows me to print 6.5x6.5 twice on one 11x14 sheet and I get test strips. Generally 11x14 costs exactly twice per sheet as 8x10 so doing it my way I get 100 sheets of paper at the same price as a 100 sheets of 8x10 only I get test strips for free. I think it is a good size. But not what I would call small. Small is 5x5 and down.
Dennis

 

[Rick A]

I dont care what "standard" frame sizes are. I have a frame shop cut all my mats for my preferred sizes. I print full frame for the format I shoot, the only true 8"x10" I print is for my 4x5's. I print 8"x8" for my 6x6 negs and 6"x9" for my 35mm shots. I almost never frame anything, I just display the matted art. If I do buy frames, I get the cheapest "pre-matted" ones I can find(usually $5 at Rite Aid) and print to fit. My wife usually specs those so she can hand them out as gifts.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Practical... I buy paper in 11x14 stock and cut it down to 7x8.5 inches. That allows me to print 6.5x6.5 twice on one 11x14 sheet and I get test strips. Generally 11x14 costs exactly twice per sheet as 8x10 so doing it my way I get 100 sheets of paper at the same price as a 100 sheets of 8x10 only I get test strips for free. I think it is a good size. But not what I would call small. Small is 5x5 and down.
Dennis

Funny: I've been doing the same thing with 8x10
paper -- cut it into 5x6 sheets, and use the excess
for test strips. Works for me.

 

[R gould]

For a while now I have printed small,I shoot 6x6 and 35mm and normally print full frame on 9.5x12, mounted and matted in 20x16, and everyone that sees them think they are great,I love the idea of people getting drawn into a smaller print, they have to get close to see them properly,Richard

 

[Larry Bullis]

Practical... I buy paper in 11x14 stock and cut it down to 7x8.5 inches. That allows me to print 6.5x6.5 twice on one 11x14 sheet and I get test strips. Generally 11x14 costs exactly twice per sheet as 8x10 so doing it my way I get 100 sheets of paper at the same price as a 100 sheets of 8x10 only I get test strips for free. I think it is a good size. But not what I would call small. Small is 5x5 and down.
Dennis

A long time ago I printed at a big color lab in San Francisco. The guy who ran it saved money by having the printers cut 14" pieces from 11" rolls. I guess he must have saved money even though he had a way of opening printroom doors suddenly without knocking to make sure his printers were actually working. From time to time, paper was exposed.

What a jerk.

 

[JMcLaug351]

On the matter of print size look at the masters. Edward Weston never owned an enlarger, he made 8x10 contact prints. Ansel Adams made larger prints usually 16X20 from 8X10 negatives. And one of Fred Piker's quotes from his news letters "don't sell them by the square yard". Subject matter does determne what size a print might be. Ansel Adams photographed mountains and vista of huge expansion but he kept the quality high by making big negatves. So the 16X20's had "quality". I've shot and printed many subjects with different formats and an 8x10 print from a 6x7cm negative looks ever so much bigger than the same size print from a 35 mm negatve.
JOHN
Bigger isn't always better.

 

[clayne]

85% of my prints are on 5x7. Another 10% on 8x10, and maybe the rest on 11x14. I prefer smaller prints that save on hassle and allow hand-sharing. I usually take a box of prints with me on the plane when flying international - most typically because where I'm flying hosts the subjects of said prints. It's good to share back with them many months later.

Funny: I've been doing the same thing with 8x10
paper -- cut it into 5x6 sheets, and use the excess
for test strips. Works for me.

I also do this. I did half-assedly compare price/sqin of common papers I use and found 11x14 to be the most economical for cutting down to 5x7. However I think I forgot to take into account loss to test strips. Either way, it's great to see 50 11x14s turn into 200 5x7s. ;-)