Submitting to Lens Work: 8x10s?

[ic-racer]

I was reading the submission instructions for Lens Work and it specifies 8x10 silver prints.

I don't know about you others, but to make up some 8x10 'fine prints' for submission will require me to make a bunch of mini-dodging and burning tools. In the past I only make 8x10s as work prints or proof prints. I need a bigger image (usually 16x20) to do a 'fine print' where I can really get it just right with 'intensity manipulation' and spotting etc.

This seems like a formidable task, as they seem to want at least 20 photographs. I am going to have to re-print up 20 or so of my best work, shrinking it down to fit on 8x10 paper. With some kind of asthetic border, my image is about 7.5 inches tall. To do this I have my enlarger column all the way down to the bottom. I could not even use my APO 45mm Schneider for a print this small (it was too wide). I was teetering on the edge of 'diffraction mush' at F11 with a 5 second base exposure. (I can deal with all of these technical issues, like use the 4x5 diffusor and a 100mm lens, etc) But it still seems unnatural to me to make such small prints that are not just 'work prints' or proof prints.

 

[percepts]

why don't you complain to them?

 

[Ian Grant]

Very strange, most profession publications actually prefer electronic images these days. In fact it's years since I last sent a print. (The last time I did the author of the article scanned and printed digital copies which he was going to forward to the magazine, I pointed out they'd rather have his scannned files, on CD and the final magazine reproduction was excellent. Meanwhile he'd cloned my images to stick on his wall !!!!!!! and told me that was what he was doing !

The reason for 10x8 is simple, large scanners are extremely expensive, A4 scanners are cheap.

However you should try printing small sometime, I made an exquisite hand made book a few years ago, it contained a couple of 35mm images the rest were 5x4 and no image was more than 4" wide or tall.

In reality doing it is simpler than thinking about it.

Ian

 

[ic-racer]

why don't you complain to them?

I'm not really complaining, just curious how others that submt have done so.

BTW I forgot to post the link to the guidelines: Dead Link Removed

 

[percepts]

I'm not really complaining, just curious how others that submt have done so.

BTW I forgot to post the link to the guidelines: Dead Link Removed

it says you can submit digital files with only a small number of real prints.
Just get you prints scanned and select a few to print at 11x14.

 

[Curt]

Have some scanned and then submit the 8x20's take it or leave it. If they are only to see that they exist and what the print quality is then why make them in a size you never intended in the first place. You decided to use that negative and print size so why compromise?

 

[Sportera]

I have been through the process, I had to make 23 8x10's, took me some time but it can be done. Actually I submitted as part of a group of New Orleans photographers, 23 images were chosen of mine to submit with the group. I made and submitted mutch moret than that (one reason I have not been around as much on APUG )

Take the time and knock it out.

 

[Joe Lipka]

I have prints of all sizes rejected; 5x7 contacts, 8x10 digital negatives, 8x10 enlargements. The accepted submission is panoramic in nature. (Yippee.)

Email Brooks on submission guidelines if your format does not appear to fit conveniently on a LensWork size page.