Large Format Developing - Architectural Photograph

[Isabella]

Hi. I'm a tecnology writer for the The Post-Standard in Syracuse, NY. I'm doing a piece on large format digital photography. While I was interviewing people I was told that before digital came along large photography developing was a long and laborious process. I was told that because the labor was so expensive, photographers would ship the photo to Third World countries like India to be enlarged by hand on mylar. Does anyone know the history on this and would care to elaborate? What is the process then and what is the process now? Thank you in advance.

Sincerely,
Isabella Kanjanapangka

[Paul Butzi]

Are we discussing 'large format photography' as in 'photography where large prints are made', or 'photography using cameras which use relatively large pieces of film to produce large negatives/transparencies'?

[Andre Noble]

Isabella,

Architectural photography is/was done on large format cameras which use negative sizes typically 4x5 inches and sometimes 8x10 inches large . (There are more esoteric sizes such as 6x7 cm and 6x9cm and 5x7 inches 11x14 inches). The process was no more laborious than normal 35mm black and white film processing. Many professional labs in the U.S. elsewhere in the developed world routinely processed these sheet sizes. Many labs still do today. Large format sheet film was never something that you could take to your local pharmacy and have back by next Wednesday, i don't believe.

There may be some truth to the tale of outsourcing to India, but my guess is that was arare exception. Ther are true experts here who'll tell you more.

[Andre Noble]

What I am trying to say in a polite way is if the only thing you write about traditional film large format photography is,

"The labor [of printing the sheet film negatives] was so expensive, photographers would ship the photo to Third World countries like India to be enlarged by hand on mylar."

then your career as a technology writer may be short :->

[Alex Hawley]

Is this a troll or is it serious? If its serious, then your premise is highly flawed and your research is wholly inadequate. I process large format photographs in a very small room in my house, enjoy doing, and haven't broken a sweat yet.

[Andre Noble]

Alex, did you google her name before asking that? Come on now.

[Alex Hawley]

No Andre I didn't until you mentioned it. OK, she's legitimate, but my comment still stands. Flawed premise, inadequate reasearch. Just reading through this website would have dispelled her premise.

[Oren Grad]

Isabella -
Making fairly large prints in a traditional darkroom - using an enlarger to project the image from a negative or transparency on to a sheet of photographic printing paper - is not inherently very difficult. The limiting factor is that when you get to very large paper sizes - say, larger than 20x24" - the chemical trays or processing machines involved get large, heavy and unwieldy. A few adventurous souls used to do it anyway.

These days, large, professional-grade inkjet printers make it easier to print mural-sized prints. The picture may still be taken with a traditional film camera, however, with the original negative or transparency scanned to convert the image to digital form prior to computer processing of the image and output via inkjet printer.

If you want your article to be accurate, it sounds like you'll need to do some additional homework on photographic processes before writing it. Your question comes across as a bit garbled, suggesting that you didn't quite understand what your sources told you.

Good luck...

[Oren Grad]

A minor clarification - my point was not that it's next to impossible to make mural-sized prints on traditional photographic paper, only that for practical purposes it usually requires large, expensive, commercial-grade equipment to do it. Although you wouldn't find such equipment in a home or small studio darkroom, you would find it in a commercial photography lab, and it's not exotic by any means.

[dan nguyen]

"I was told that because the labor was so expensive, photographers would ship the photo to Third World countries like India to be enlarged by hand on mylar"....

WHO told you that?.... go back and check your source again.... or do some research on the subject...

PLEASE