Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Anyone else printing smaller?

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Newbury, Vermont
    Posts
    2,260

    Re: Anyone else printing smaller?

    Jeesh - my prints have been getting bigger and bigger...now up to 40x60 (more like 37x55) wet prints, in a 48x66 frame - seascapes which I love huge, but so difficult to transport around, and whose got the wall space? I've done OK with the next smaller size (28x37 in a 36x48 frame)....but most of my work ends up as 16x20's (ish) (22x28 frame from 5x7 or 23x27 for 4x5 and 6x7).

    Thing is...I've seen lots of really small work over the years, and lots of this that is truly stunning. I'm just not sure if I'm ready to do this (smaller prints) quite yet, and frankly some of my broad landscapes/seascapes seem to lose a bit of their power...even as "small" as 16x20.

    But I do envision a series of single-subject still life setups - maybe done as 5x7 contact prints. Old bones, skulls, decaying/interesting plants/fruits/veggies and the like.

    I've done enough contact printing (and have seen enough from other artists) to know that there is a high level skill set involved to truly (truly) pull this off...and I'm not sure that I'd be quite there with this until after I've had a bit more practice.

    But the logistics, on the other hand (when compared to pulling 40x60 wet prints) I do find very attractive!

  2. #22
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, CA
    Posts
    9,211

    Re: Anyone else printing smaller?

    I believe that one of the major factors determining the impact of images is their size (of the image -- not necessarily frame size)...usually, but not always tied to viewing distance. For example, it can be difficult to express intimacy in an image if printed so large that one must stand across the room from it to see it all. Although visual intimacy and forced viewing distance could be used as a tool to create tension.

    I have found that making pt/pd prints from 2 1/4" sq negs requires a different approach to composition than planning on enlarging those images to 8x8 up to 16x16 that I use to do. Basically, I visualize the image as a small print when composing...learned by many mistakes, especially attempting images requiring detail to help carry them. If you can not see the detail in a print without the aid of a magnifying glass, it might as well not be there, more or less. Many images can work as contacts and enlarged, though they may have to printed differently to get the most out of the chosen print size.

    Actually, using a Rolleicord and view cameras I am viewing the image on the ground glass at print-size...which makes it pretty easy.

    Just thinking of life-size images (portraits, painted or photographic) -- the life-size subject removes the 'proper' viewing distance/image size relationship. Seen from a distance, then approached, the subject stays consistently (and subjectively) life-sized. And if approached close, the one's attention to the subject encourages the disappearance of the frame.
    "Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    222

    Re: Anyone else printing smaller?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Wasserman View Post
    Andre Kertesz's early work (approx. 1912-1918 or so) were contact prints that are about 6x4.5cm.
    There is currently an exhibit at the Art Institute of Chicago of Kertesz’s work from Paris (1925-1928) that are all contact prints on Carte Postale paper, including such famous images of his as “Fork”, “Chez Mondrian” and “Satiric Dancer”. Even using such small paper, Kertesz often masked the image smaller and cut down the paper to different, smaller rectangular shapes. It’s a great exhibit, but it closes January 17. It is impressive how powerful such small images are.

    In my own 4x5 work (which I am NOT comparing to Kertesz’s work) I only contact print the negatives.

  4. #24
    Tin Can's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,386

    Re: Anyone else printing smaller?

    I made a 36X48" Digi matt print last summer, mounted on Sintra, no glass wanted

    Now in a huge old frame it is 48 x 60". Frame was $5 at Goodwill, perfect for this print

    I will hang it tomorrow in my studio

    It will be useful there as backdrop for portraits!

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Newbury, Vermont
    Posts
    2,260

    Re: Anyone else printing smaller?

    ...and yer callin' that small?

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    London
    Posts
    73

    Re: Anyone else printing smaller?

    Quote Originally Posted by Serge S View Post
    I remember seeing a Stieglietz exhibition & was surprised by his small framed prints. It opened my eyes to the power of a smaller print.
    I like to print 4x5 at around that size. I also like larger prints, but generally prefer going larger than 8x10 - as it seems an in between size to me- not small & not big enough.
    Interesting topic-it's a personal choice - plus the framing & Matt are an important component to the final presentation.
    I saw an exhibition of Dorothea Lange’s work and was immediately struck by how small the prints were, many of course were contacts. But it felt a more intimate experience and allowed you to appreciate the work more. It left a lasting impression.

    The modern fashion seems to be for very large prints. I also recall seeing an exhibition of Martin Parr’s earlier work and Chris Killip, all mostly 8x10s or a little larger. There were some previously unpublished prints but these were much larger and done by inkjet. They looked terrible in comparison. Part of that was because no attention was paid to print paper, metamerism, tonal control and so on. I was surprised to see such sloppy presentation. But even if they were better, as B&W digital can be, it brought home to me the power conveyed in the smaller, original prints, especially for the subject matter.

  7. #27
    Ironage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    442

    Re: Anyone else printing smaller?

    Sometimes I feel that prints larger than 11x14 tend to become mere interior design elements in a room. I do enjoy the atmosphere they bring, but just not the way I see while working with a camera. This also played into the design of my darkroom which limits the size I can produce. I have taken on a reasonable minimalist philosophy that tends to favor smaller prints.
    ...Dilettante! Who you calling a Dilettante?

  8. #28

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New York City & Pontremoli, Italy
    Posts
    883

    Re: Anyone else printing smaller?

    I have been printing for my family album of late and 90% of the images are 3.5x5 inches; the only exceptions are group photos (5x7), rarely 8x10.

    There was a time when (perhaps still) the Fine Art world screamed big and bigger pictures; in most cases, 8x10/11x14 would have made a better statement. I prefer to be 'pulled in' closer to the image when viewing it, not 'pushed back; there are exceptions, of course. For some, it's hard to resist printing very large.

  9. #29
    multiplex
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    local
    Posts
    5,358

    Re: Anyone else printing smaller?

    Hi Michael

    For a few years I was really enjoying putting 4x5 negatives into my enlarger and making reductions instead of enlargements. I think some were about 2x3" ...

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Forest Grove, Ore.
    Posts
    4,675

    Re: Anyone else printing smaller?

    I typically print medium format and 4x5 on 8x10 paper; I like the tones I can get with a smaller print. I can print up to 16x20 and plan to enlarge an 8x10 negative to a 16x20 this coming year. I have and will likely keep my Zone VI 8x10 Type II kit for my 5x7 enlarger.

Similar Threads

  1. printing on larger sized paper when calibration for smaller
    By Raymond Bleesz in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 1-Oct-2009, 19:20
  2. Dd in mm for f-stops smaller than F64
    By G Benaim in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 6-Oct-2007, 09:48
  3. Smaller than 4x5 Graflex
    By Clemens M. in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 13-Nov-2005, 12:14

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
  •