Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 80 of 80

Thread: 4x5 vs 8x10 print quality

  1. #71

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,094

    4x5 vs 8x10 print quality

    Dave,

    So, perhaps it was 7 inches they were looking at. But almost everyone went right up to them. I think that there is a lot of misleading information out there, like no one can really tell the difference if you print at 180 vs 360 or more - it exceeds the printer's capaability to render it (someone actually said this to me). I have found this simply not true.

    I want to make prints that are great at any distance. If someone else doesn't, well, ok. That's just my preference.

    Lenny
    EigerStudios
    Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing

  2. #72
    tim atherton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1998
    Posts
    3,697

    4x5 vs 8x10 print quality

    "Burtynsky makes his own (“traditional” chromogenic) prints. He is the
    owner of a commercial lab in Toronto (nearing twenty years now- his “day
    job” before he was an art star) and, naturally, is very critical about
    print quality. "

    And digital chromogenic prints via Chromira

    "Ed Burtynskys images are commonly "classified" as industrial photography, not fine art. If you want to justify it as "quality fine art", then put your wallet where your mouth is and buy it, then hang it on your living room wall next to a Robert Bateman. Now lets see if your wife will appreciate it, and how many positive comments you will get from your friends. LOL. Tell them "art is in the eye of the beholder (Dave Moeller)", as if that will justify for poor taste. "

    The National Gallery doesn't usually exhibit industiral photogoraphy?

    The Batemean produces "art" to match your sofa.

    My definition of fine art fits in line with the
    Heritage dictionary definition..... photos of flowers, children story
    telling (Trisha Romance), animal images (Robert Bateman), grand landscape
    (Ansel), seascapes (Phillip Plisson), portaits (Karsh), etc., are not what
    I call a narrow view of fine art. These are artists producing things of
    beauty! There is NOT a single image that I can remember by any present or
    past artist whose fine art images include junkyards in the background (or
    foreground).

    Sounds more liek a definition of kitsch than art? By that definition a lot of Goya's work wouldn't pass the test - nor Picassos
    You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn

    www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog

  3. #73

    4x5 vs 8x10 print quality

    On the topic of asthetics that this thread has raised, Vancamper clearly has no contemporary aesthetic thought behind his definition of art... the rigidity of holding onto a definition of what is good in a world of subjectivity, clearly shows how small his level of thinking is. Art does not have a clear definition. Adams and the like he refers to are examples of photographers who's work that was strictly aesthetically pleasing in their time and I won't go into a discussion on formalism. Most museums that have interest in contemporary work would dismiss it by today’s standards beyond its historical & technical value, as it is lacking any significant subtext that is relevant to the world we live in today, beyond beauty. If you want to be in a bubble and pretend everything is OK, then dismiss anything that might provoke some thought, but art is meant to make us think... not placate us. For example, at this point in our history, impressionism (which was radical in its time), can be found on the side of a Kleenex box... is that art relevant now beyond it's place in history? Posters, please learn your art/photo history before spouting off and trying to smash your opinions down our throats. Be it Misrach, Shore, Burtynsky, Gursky or a myriad of other important contemporary artists who are using photography as a medium for its aesthetic resonance and its ability to be a social barometer of our time, it sounds to me like there is a lot of non-thinking when it comes to these general definitions of art... you don't have to like it, but at least engage it. To say Burtynsky is not an artist of the highest order; not only technically, compositionally, through use of color palette and perspective.... but in his use of the medium itself to comment on our society, is an irresponsible view of an artist you have not looked at close enough to have a real opinion past the surface of the print. Like it or not, you can not deny his commitment to a singular idea which he has worked towards for the last 20 years as he has developed a cohesive body of work and that is why thoughtful people who engage contemporary photography see the value in his work and how it relates to us on a global level... not many of us can hit that mark.

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    192

    4x5 vs 8x10 print quality

    Misrach, Shore, Burtynsky, Gursky

    Burtynsky is the odd one out of those three. Chances are his work won't be remembered in 50 years time in the same way as theirs is.

    His work is good and his images are often quite beautiful, but his concepts are often fuzzy. His championing of the eco-cause is really little more than an opportunistic after the fact justification of why he has done much of his work, which is overly didactic at time. Large sections of his work isn't that much different from what you see in National Geographic, it is just printed bigger. Burtynsky's work actually has much in common with his fellow Canadian Polidori. Both are essentially industrial/architectural photographers who flirt with art photography (very successfully it must be said, in market terms - but never let it be said that Burtynksy doesn't have a first class marketing machine). But the work of both of them lacks the depth, individually and uniqueness of the other three listed above.

    with regards to:

    not only technically,
    compositionally, through use of color palette and perspective.... but in
    his use of the medium itself to comment on our society


    Each one of the other three you list does all of those far better and much more convincingly and with greater originality (as an example, I have a magazine from 20 years or so ago which has photogorahs made with a large format camera of the marble quarries of Carrera which are not only strikingly similar to Burtynksy's later ones, but in many way more successful.

  5. #75

    4x5 vs 8x10 print quality

    If you don't know the difference in 'fine art' and junk, please come into my many galleries & buy something.

  6. #76

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    4,589

    4x5 vs 8x10 print quality

    Tim, Walker Evans produced several superb "fine art" images with junkyards included.
    Wilhelm (Sarasota)

  7. #77
    tim atherton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1998
    Posts
    3,697

    4x5 vs 8x10 print quality

    Bill, that was a quote from "Mr Kitsch" somewhere above - but the italics thingies didn't work right:

    My definition of fine art fits in line with the Heritage dictionary definition..... photos of flowers, children story telling (Trisha Romance), animal images (Robert Bateman), grand landscape (Ansel), seascapes (Phillip Plisson), portaits (Karsh), etc., are not what I call a narrow view of fine art. These are artists producing things of beauty! There is NOT a single image that I can remember by any present or past artist whose fine art images include junkyards in the background (or foreground). is twee Mr Kitsch, not me - I like junkyards.... :-)

    (have you looked up "Trisha Romance" - whoa - gag me with as spoon - saccharine overload)
    You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn

    www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog

  8. #78

    4x5 vs 8x10 print quality

    <<"If you don't know the difference in 'fine art' and junk, please come into my many galleries & buy something"--Thomas Kinkade>>

    Please let us all know where your galleries are Mr. Kinkade as I googled you but could find none? I was searching in NYC, Los Angeles, Paris and London, as I would assume this is where you must be located to keep your finger on the pulse of contemporary art, as you are clearly a large and respected gallery owner with many locations. Also, please let us know who you show so we can all educate ourselves as to who is current... a web link would be nice as well to one of your galleries and/or maybe you can post a list/samples of your current artists work (who do not make "junk") and where you have placed their work, i.e. which museum collections your artists are in... MOMA, Gugenheim, Louve, Tate, etc or manybe the upcoming Venice Bienial? Then we can all decide which pieces we might want to buy before they start to skyrocket. If you can convince me, maybe I will auction one of my junky Burtynsky's as they are now going for over $15k+ and then reinvest in some quality art from you.

  9. #79

    4x5 vs 8x10 print quality

    (have you looked up "Trisha Romance" - whoa - gag me with as spoon - saccharine overload) --tim atherton

    I am cleaning my keyboard now, as I projectile vomited when I opened the web site... but maybe I should take a closer look, as that was just a visceral reaction.

  10. #80

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Joaquin Valley, California
    Posts
    9,599

    4x5 vs 8x10 print quality

    Its like this: 4x5s make itty bitty contact prints. That is why there is 8x10. If you're not contact printing or making really huge enlargements, why bother(unless you've got poor vision and need the large gg, or maybe lugging an 8x10 is part of your exercise routine?)

    Of course, you can always make a small fortune with shooting color in an 8x10----just start out with a large fortune!;-)

    A Ferrarri and a Hummer will both take you to the store, but going to the Safeway for milk and bread isn't want either vehicle was built for. I think the same analogy applies when comparing 4x5 vs. 8x10. I have an 8x10 enlarger but I find that I seldom make enlargements from 8x10 anymore, but I shoot my 8x10 far more than any other camera I own.
    "I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White

Similar Threads

  1. My Print Quality 10 Years Ago
    By Andrew O'Neill in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 31-Aug-2005, 02:52
  2. More on print quality, techniques and esthetics
    By Henry Ambrose in forum On Photography
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 26-Apr-2005, 13:38
  3. BW inkjet print quality
    By Tom Westbrook in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 11-Jan-2005, 13:40
  4. Compare type 52, 54, and 55 print quality
    By Jeff_1630 in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 8-Dec-2003, 09:59
  5. Print Quality Via 4X5 transparency /Scanned/Photoshop/Digital Printed
    By Al Cherman in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 4-Feb-2002, 16:30

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •