Learning to love printing smaller again ....

[5stringdeath]

Recently I've been shooting a lot with my Bronica (6x4.5) and I also still shoot a lot of 35mm (always have.) Years back, for a number of reasons that I won't go into here, I was always trying to print as large as possible ... which in general meant the better part of a 16x20 sheet of paper.

Then (and excuse this part APUG'ers, but its relevant) I got my Canon 5D and 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.

Now, I'm shooting B&W film almost exclusively again. However, I'm finding myself really enjoying printing small. I started buying 11x14 paper but now think I can probably enjoy printing on 8x10. There is something really nice about the intimate small print. Shooting the 6x4.5 (at least as much as I am) is pretty new to me too, and while it seems to my brain contradictory to print a larger negative smaller than what I used to most 35mm, I'm finding it quite beautiful. I think if I had the patience for a 4x5 camera I'd probably just contact print. I just can't get away from hand held shooting though.

Just been perusing if this is because I'm getting older (will be 43 next Sunday) or if its a mental revolt against the megapixel / print size mentality that surrounds me. In the end I don't think it matters much, because all I know is I'm having more fun shooting / printing now than I have in a few years. I also have a new love of warm tone papers

 

[Wade D]

I used to think bigger was better also. Now most of my framed work on the walls is 11x14 or 8x10. I shoot 35mm, 2 1/4 & 4x5 all hand held. My Speed Graphic makes hand holding easy for 4x5. I do need a tripod for the old Crown View though.

 

[ricksplace]

I seldom print anything bigger than 8X10 any more.

 

[IloveTLRs]

In college we did A4 size? I think. Since starting again I've been printing at 12 x 16cm (4 3/4 x 6 1/2) or 13 x 18cm (5 1/8 x 7 1/8) since starting again. 12 x 16cm is especially good for half-frame negatives or diptychs

 

[bsdunek]

I too like 8X10s and even 5X7s. Matted and framed they make nice, intimate pictures. Everybody can't hang big prints everywhere in their house. I tell people mine are something you'd hang in the bedroom, office, place on your desk, etc.

 

[darkosaric]

Lately I love to print small on big paper. For example I take 24x30cm paper and print 15x22.5 cm, or 10x15 cm on 18x24 cm paper.
There was some link on an article and big discussion here on apug about intimacy of small print that you hold in your hand. Can't find link right now...

 

[fschifano]

I completely understand. I'm starting to develop a real fondness for prints no larger than 5x7 in. from 35mm negatives when the subject matter permits. I find that if the composition is simple, with emphasis on a single subject, the format works beautifully.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

smaller is the new black!

 

[VaryaV]

I went to a gallery show a few years ago and the painting that affected me most was a tiny Corot, so small and delicate, it draws the viewer to be very close and intimate with it. Across the room was an enormous painting that took up the whole wall. Good yes, but in order to get the full feel you need to stand way back. I have never forgotten that little Corot. Because of that, I print small, 5x7. I like the viewer to hold them in their hands and become intimate (hopefully) with the work. I know galleries like the bigger is better mentality, but for me it only works with minimalism.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

It's not the years (only 40, here). I have never printed larger than 8x10 yet. And probably won't until my rich uncle comes off the purse strings and buys my wife and I a big enough place to have a dedicated darkroom with more space.

But I too have been mulling over the idea of going smaller on the sheet. I always include the full negative as seldom is there anything that HAS to be copped out so it's already smaller than 8x10 to begin with.

Oh, and Happy Birthday in advance.

 

[Hexavalent]

Being frugal (aka cheap) , I've always done smaller prints, rarely larger than 8 x10. I find that matting/framing makes a HUGE difference in the appeal of smaller prints.

 

[5stringdeath]

It's not the years (only 40, here). I have never printed larger than 8x10 yet. And probably won't until my rich uncle comes off the purse strings and buys my wife and I a big enough place to have a dedicated darkroom with more space.

But I too have been mulling over the idea of going smaller on the sheet. I always include the full negative as seldom is there anything that HAS to be copped out so it's already smaller than 8x10 to begin with.

Oh, and Happy Birthday in advance.

Thanks!

Yes, I've never cropped my images. I used to only print full frame (black box and everything) but now favor clean edges. So I guess technically I do crop 2mm per side, but ....

 

[pantelis51]

I love small prints too. I always print on 13X18 paper and some times on 20X25. Small prints also doesnt suffer so much by scratches and dust

 

[Tim Gray]

While I haven't really explored big printing yet, I'm always amazed on the digital forums people constantly talking about printing 30x40, 20x30, etc. Who the heck has that much room on their walls? I'd much rather have a nice set of 8x10s, 11x14s, and smaller prints. Maybe one or two larger ones to complement, but that's it.

 

[fschifano]

Hey Tim, why are you surprised at this? Have you seen the gear these guys walk around with? The lenses look like artillery barrels. The cameras look like oversized monsters on steroids all to house a teeny tiny little sensor. Lest we not cast aspersions only upon the digerati, the same can be said for many, many 35 mm SLR photographers in earlier times. Monster prints, monster lenses, and monster cameras; they all seem to be part of the same "bigger is better" mindset. I can't begin to tell you how many very large and very bad prints I've seen that would have been perfect little jewels in a smaller size. I've long felt that 11 x 14 is the outside limit for a print from a 35 mm negative. Once past that, the image breaks down too much. I'm not saying that a larger print from a small negative is impossible. I am saying that it takes a lot very exacting care, and a little bit of luck, to make a good one.

 

[Les]

For me the smaller print 8x10 or 11x14 is more intimate. It is about holding the print at or just inside arms length and perusing the details in the print, the subject matter, scanning with the eyes across the print and feeling what the other photographer or myself intended to capture. When a print is very large it almost requires some body movement to take in the whole thing and I for one seem to absorb less of the image. When I was a kid, my dad helped me build my first darkroom and all I could make with my little trays were 5x7s and I remember carrying them around, looking at them and showing friends what I had printed. They were unmounted but they were part of an experience. Today my prints are 8x10 mounted on 11x14 and 11x14s mounted 16x20 but it is the 8x10s on 11x14 that I go back to more often, because I can easily hold them in front of me. I find the same thing true when I visit photo galleries and museums. It is good to read that I am not the only one that prefers the smaller print.

 

[papagene]

...
In the end I don't think it matters much, because all I know is I'm having more fun shooting / printing now than I have in a few years. I also have a new love of warm tone papers

I think this statement of yours sums it up quite nicely. And I too like printing on 8x10 & 11x14 paper.

And Happy Birthday you young whipper-snapper!

 

[Rick A]

I love the intimacy that 5x7 and 8x10 afford. I remember looking at a showing of E.Westons 8x10's at a gallery, and they (the prints)demanded you get in close to really see what was exposing itself to the viewer. That was back around 90 or 91, and I havent printed anything over 8x10 since.

 

[ciocc]

I know it's a cliche, but "it's all relative". 8x10 small? That is a big print as far as I'm concerned. I print 3.75X5 on 5x7 paper! Now that's small.

 

[nickandre]

11x14 is the happy medium.

 

[brian steinberger]

I really depends what you're doing with the finished photograph. If you're going to frame and hang on a wall in your home 11x14 is a nice size. 8x10 can work as well, and as mentioned, with a large mount a smaller print can be very appealing. But if holding prints in hand or sharing 11x14 is rather large, 8x10 and even 5x7 work better.

Plus some images just scream to be printed a smaller size and vice-versa, and it can take actually printing an image on 11x14 paper only to realize "wow this just doesn't work this large." I know I've been there.

 

[michaelbsc]

I know it's a cliche, but "it's all relative". 8x10 small? That is a big print as far as I'm concerned. I print 3.75X5 on 5x7 paper! Now that's small.

Nah, I don't think that's small. I do a lot of things on 5x7 paper.

I also have an old Saunders easel that lets you load an 8x10 sheet and print the "cut out" pictures like old school pictures. It's got a little door and slide dohickeys.

I've done a few family projects making a collage on a single sheet like that. It's really a lot of work to do, but people love it. And as far as my own work goes, if my family and friends like it, then that good enough. Adams and Weston are in no danger at all that my artistic reputation may usurp them.

MB

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

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.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

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.

 

[Larry Bullis]

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.

I have the book. It's one of the favorites in my library. Wonderful.