printing or contact printing SMALL

[removed account4]

i know one of the things people LOVE about photography
is the ability to enlarge prints large, bigger than life, so
the viewer can see every tiny detail texture on tree bark in
the distance, wrinkle on someone's face ...

while i have made big enlargements and it is fun seeing prints BIG
i am more and more of a fan of small prints.
i love being able to hold a sheet of paper and look at a tiny print.
a little 4x5 contact print, a 5x7 negative reduced tiny, a 35mm negative barely
enlarged ... holding a tiny image seems more of a personal experience,
a study instead of something grand to fall into.

anyone else like small prints ?

 

[Nick Zentena]

I even like all those little 4x4 or 6x6 prints shoe boxes are full of from I guess the 1960s and before.

 

[naknak]

Yes,I do.It's less expensive but more time consuming.Besides,you can easily make mistakes and double expose if series are lost.In any case I like doing it.
Kyprianos

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I plan to do it for a while...at least until I go get an enlarger from a guy. I'm wanting to eventually try some alternative processes and, having no money for an 8x10 camera, the 4x5 will have to do. This pretty much means I'll have small prints. I'm okay with that.

 

[SuzanneR]

I love the quality of a 6x7 negative enlarged to just about 4x5 inches. I also love them around 19x20 inches! But makes for a totally different experience of the same image. Love that!

At some point, I should make some contact prints at that size, shouldn't I?

 

[Alex Hawley]

I like and make prints in the 4 inch range, 4x5, 4x6, 4x4, both enlargements and contact prints. I think there is too much emphasis on LARGE prints.

 

[Jon Shiu]

In the past few years I have been making some 4x6 inch prints from 35mm and framing to 11x14. There is something quite appealing to them versus a standard 8x10 print.

Jon

 

[Akki14]

I've done a lot of 6x6cm and 6x9cm (ish, as far as named formats) contact prints in cyanotypes and i don't find them too small. I was at the Victoria & Albert museum's Print Study room on Friday afternoon and I got to see a 6x6(cm) cyanotype there and it wasn't any worse off for not being enlarged. It had a nice, clean composition perfect for the smaller size where you don't need to squint at it. Sure it might not be so ideal for wall mounting but I rarely put anything on the wall, I tend to shuffle through stacks and piles of my tiny prints.

 

[MattKing]

5 x7 is a favorite size for me.

I only shoot roll film, so that means I'm enlarging, but not too much.

They are big enough to put in a wall frame, but small enough to put into an album.

It is also fairly inexpensive.

Matt

 

[Bill Mobbs]

I made a print for a child's locket that was about 1/2 inch square. (Cropped contact print from 35mm) Anyone made one smaller?


Bill

 

[ann]

it is interesting that you should post this today john.

i am involved in a new print exchange over on hybrid with the guide line being no smaller than 11x14 no bigger than 16x20.

am finding that i am not happy with any images that i have been testing at this size, perhaps because i have been doing so much alternative work the past few years along with polariod manipulation that it is hard to shift gears.

i agree with alex, large is a bit over done these days. i am a firm believer that the image dictates size and have rarely printed large in any medium.

 

[Sino]

I love small prints. I seem to prefer them no matter what the subject is. It must be the ability to see the whole scene/subject at once, instead of focusing in different parts of it whilst viewing it. I thought I was weird for printing mostly 13cmX18cm all the time.

-Sino.

 

[Chazzy]

I have no idea how to answer the poll question, since it doesn't define "small." Are we talking about prints under 8x10 in size?

 

[Curt]

Number 4, thought about it but don't do it at present. I always said that when larger sizes of paper and film are gone or the price is too high I will make smaller prints.

 

[Gary Holliday]

I prefer doing prints around 6.5 x 6.5 inches onto 8x8 cropped paper. It's very manageable, especially when burning and dodging. Printing very large prints requires different burning techniques. The smaller prints are suitable for most people's homes, on narrow hallways where the viewing distance is limited. It is also a whole lot cheaper. My other main size in 10x10 inches, but I don't consider that small!

 

[dphill]

I prefer 5x7 or 5x8 (8x10 in half) because I present my photos as a collection or "book" to be viewed from a sitting position. That way the viewer can take their time and let their mind wander in the direction the photos takes them.

Although I have printed as large as 11x14 (by request), I feel more resonance for the smaller sizes.

Dan

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I make 5x7 work prints when printing a negative (4x5) for the first time. I'm much more willing to experiment and try different dodging, burning, or masking options when the print hitting the garbage can is 5x7 and not 16x20.

Also, a small print held in your hands intimately draws you in.

Murray

 

[naknak]

Paper size: 13x18
Film 35mm

n

 

[JBrunner]

I am currently working on a series of 4x5 contact prints. I dig'em. I said "Yes".

 

[Uhner]

I find that well crafted small prints oftentimes have an almost gem-like quality that I really like. I also like that they invite the viewer to look at them more closely.

 

[Curt]

Some of the finest contact prints in the small range are from Paul Strand, Edward Weston and many others. When I saw the Southwest exhibition of Paul Strand I had to step up quite close to the images on the wall and it made for a more personal experience.

 

[Ian Leake]

I love the intimacy of small prints. In many ways I think they're harder to make than large ones. With a very limited area to play with your composition has to be so much tighter than for a larger print.

 

[pesphoto]

I remember going to A KErtesz show in Washington and seeing his 35mm contact print there for the first time. I had only seen them reproduced in books and they were always blown up to fit the book. A real print that tiny really makes you look and study the image more than a huge mega print.

 

[removed account4]

I have no idea how to answer the poll question, since it doesn't define "small." Are we talking about prints under 8x10 in size?

sorry chazzy

way smaller than 8x10 ... <g>

 

[papagene]

Peter Schrager had an exhibition last year at the Valley Photo Center here in Springfield. It consisted of contact prints from his 6x6 roll film camera and his 4x5. I thought they were wonderful little gems. On the opposite wall of the gallery were 40" x 40" prints by another area photoger. I preferred Peter's work (even though I was the curator).
I think in the current "Art" scene there is a loss of the intimate experience of viewing photographs. It seems that a lot of "Art" photographers have to keep up with the Modernist theory that photos need to be BIG to be good and to be able to compete with paintings, a notion that I have disagreed with for years.
I am beginning to really like the idea of 5x7 contact prints even though I can enlarge that size neg. The one on one visual conversation between the viewer and photo is really sweet.

gene