Nana, you do exquisite work
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nana Sousa Dias
Printable View
Nana, you do exquisite work
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nana Sousa Dias
I am a musician, too. What instrument do you play?Quote:
Originally Posted by mandoman7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings
Thank You, Kirk.
A couple fresh from the developer. I've finally set down to start developing the negatives that have piled up. The first is aspens from this fall with a red filter on Ilford Delta 100. The second is from last May in the Maze District of Canyonlands on TMX.
I had to dig rather deep in the history to bring this thread back on. And it has taken me even longer to produce a hopefully decent shot to add... I hope the dry spell is over.
Chamonix 5×8", 5×8" Adox CHS 25, Schneider Xenar 210mm, Rodinal.
Quarry, Dorset, VT. (The oldest marble quarry in North America, now the swimming hole for the Town of Dorset.)
Dear Jiri,
Well young man, you certainly did dig deep, and you certainly found a beauty too... :)
Time from your craft, whether it is forced, or whether it is unerring, has a way of making you review your images, your purpose and your artistic intent, so much so, that a pause can enrich every intriguing aspect of your work. Your image is very evident of that effective pause. I do like the way you balance your images, and I do like your image's softer approach, which is reminiscent of another fine image maker within this forum, such as Ken Lee. I do believe that many folks within this forum enjoy your work, such as I do.
My hat is off to you, for bringing your fine work back to the forum...
jim k
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Vasina
Jim,
thanks a lot. I appreciate your comments very much...
Jiri
I won't tell you there's NO difference, that's a little extreme. If I examined an 8x10 contact print and an 8x10 from a 6x7 negative (forget 35mm) with a loupe I'd see a difference. But just normal viewing? No, I don't think there's necessarily a meaningful difference between the two at 8x10 print size. However, I think a lot depends on the person making the prints. In my fairly extensive experience with both, it's much easier to make a good 8x10 contact print if you start with a good negative than it is to make a comparably good 8x10 print from a 6x7 negative. But if someone is a good enough printer I think they can make 8x10 prints from the two sources that are basically indistinguishable.Quote:
Originally Posted by argos33
In fact I think one reason why some people think contact prints are so great is because they weren't very good printers when they were enlarging so their contact prints, being easier to do well, look dramatically better to them than their enlargements did. I came up with that thought after seeing an exhibit of Paul Stand's work, some of which was contact printed and some enlarged. The only way I could tell which prints were made which way was by reading the catalog. Which caused me to question the idea that a contact print is inherently and automatically better than an enlargement. Of course I could be entirely wrong too, it's just a thought.
Brian, you bring up some good points. I think there are many variables in both formats (such as film speed/type, sharpness of taking and enlarging lenses, etc) that might make one noticeably better than the other. A 6x7 negative enlarged from 400 speed film might be noticeably more grainy than the contact print as opposed to the same situation with 100 speed film used in both formats. I recently made some 8x8 inch prints from 6x6 negatives shot on a Hasselblad, and upon showing them to my brother the first thing he asked was "So is this a contact print?"
So overall I agree with you, but I still think there is some textural quality to the contact prints I've made that I can distinguish without a lupe. As far as how much that effects the overall experience of viewing the print, probably not much for most people, but if you have the money for the film and enjoy doing it for yourself why not.
Evan