Is there any real utility to ULF?

[Durst L184]

Drew's workflow is to make enlargements. That is how he wants his work presented. Different people have different objectives with their photography. Pursue yours.

Ah, well, it turns out that you apparently have missed something.

[faberryman]

Ah, well, it turns out that you apparently have missed something.

It wouldn't be the first time. I am sure someone will enlighten me. Or not.

[Michael R]

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant (my fault for not being clearer). I’ll bet dollars to donuts when someone looks at a contact print by Adams, Weston, Lik or anyone else and says “oh my stars, there’s just nothing quite like a contact print”, it’s because they know it is a contact print, not because it looks like a contact print. You know, bias, amidol, placebo etc. Obviously there’s nothing at all wrong with preferring to make contact prints with big negatives vs enlargements. It’s just the random sublimity stuff.

Depends on the exact prints, Michael. Some were no doubt very modest enlargements done later on. But a version of the same scene shot in the 1930's by AA in more of the relatively crisp style he is known for, and printed a little bigger, despite the graininess of films of that day, gets listed for around ten times the price of the older little fuzzy-lens version. If Steichen had done it instead, the pricing might be the other way around. AA had a good eye for composition, but really wasn't quite up to speed with technique at all in his early 20's. And I presume his camera at the time was comparatively miserable too. George Fiske was one the most prominent Yosemite photographers before, but lots of his prints have faded badly over time. A week ago, I drove past a gallery which once specialized in Fiske, but now it's shut for good. I doubt the owner is even still alive.

And as far as Morley Baer goes, at least from all of his work I've personally seen, he was a much better at contact printing than he was at enlarging. And his color prints were commercially done.

[faberryman]

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant (my fault for not being clearer). I’ll bet dollars to donuts when someone looks at a contact print by Adams, Weston, Lik or anyone else and says “oh my stars, there’s just nothing quite like a contact print”, it’s because they know it is a contact print, not because it looks like a contact print. You know, bias, amidol, placebo etc. Obviously there’s nothing at all wrong with preferring to make contact prints with big negatives vs enlargements. It’s just the random sublimity stuff.

I suppose that's possible. I guess a photographer could shoot 8x10, enlarge it 2x to 16x20, and then crop it to 8x10, and a viewer would be fooled, and swoon before it in a fit of contact print rapture. Maybe I was fooled by those 8x10 prints at the recent AA show in San Francisco.

Besides, I thought this was about what Durst L184 wanted to do, and not about what the viewers of his work might think. What other people think is pretty much outside your control.

[Corran]

I like contact prints.

I wouldn't personally say they are any better or worse than enlargements myself. But as a small data point, I've noticed over the last 5-6 years that ULF contact prints sell well. Specifically ULF 8x20 and 12x20 I have sold many prints from. Meanwhile 8x10 contact prints have not sold well, even a few images I think are stand-out really effective at that size. I've also made a number of 4x5 contact prints and I think they have sold okay within the confines of the price differential (but I sell more 4x5 enlargements to 16x20). Maybe I'm just not a good 8x10 photographer .

[Michael R]

That's interesting. Are the buyers aware beforehand (labeling/description) that they are contact prints? If so, then maybe in addition to liking the image and print there is some value ascribed to (or appreciation of) the fact it was made with ULF tools/materials.

I like contact prints.

I wouldn't personally say they are any better or worse than enlargements myself. But as a small data point, I've noticed over the last 5-6 years that ULF contact prints sell well. Specifically ULF 8x20 and 12x20 I have sold many prints from. Meanwhile 8x10 contact prints have not sold well, even a few images I think are stand-out really effective at that size. I've also made a number of 4x5 contact prints and I think they have sold okay within the confines of the price differential (but I sell more 4x5 enlargements to 16x20). Maybe I'm just not a good 8x10 photographer .

[Corran]

Yes, usually. People who buy my work often are interested in the process - film, darkroom, handmade. I have an "artist statement" and "process" statement hung up in my booth and I have a big picture of me with the 8x20 (as well as a LF or sometimes even my ULF camera in the booth to show and explain). I always talk about contact prints when showing those images and how they are made. Folks unfamiliar with film/darkroom often have no idea how it works and setting the film directly on the paper is very different from what they are used to, even folks who are familiar with film and one-hour photo labs.

My mom, when I first got started doing darkroom printing and I showed her a photo of the Beseler enlarger, asked, "where does the ink go?" So that is often the level of knowledge I am working with, so it can be just as interesting to them as talking to a printmaker, a potter, or a painter about their process and tools, for the layperson.

[angusparker]

I suppose that's possible. I guess a photographer could shoot 8x10, enlarge it 2x to 16x20, and then crop it to 8x10, and a viewer would be fooled, and swoon before it in a fit of contact print rapture. Maybe I was fooled by those 8x10 prints at the recent AA show in San Francisco.

Besides, I thought this was about what Durst L184 wanted to do, and not about what the viewers of his work might think. What other people think is pretty much outside your control.

This AA prints at the San Francisco De Young museum were pretty sweet. Of course the sweeping landscape stole the show but I was fascinated by his other works - especially the cemetery photo and the portraits. Saint AA really was quite versatile.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[angusparker]

If you get an old ULF set-up (say 11x14) and use cheaper B&W film and developer judiciously I’d say you can beat the quality, longevity, and possibly even the cost of today’s digital alternative - like the GFX100S with a single lens and a good Inkjet printer. You have to be a good printer though. I’m not good enough a printer despite all the cheat aides I have to make a good contact print from a few test strips and one full sized piece of paper…..

[angusparker]

Staying in the analog realm, I guess the other argument for ULF versus 8x10, and 4x5 is that you don’t have to fool around with an enlarger and its costs. 8x10 enlargers are thin on the ground these days and an 8x10 contact print just doesn’t have the same presence as a ULF contact print. Making the argument between enlarged 4x5 and an 11x14 contact is more of personal preference IMHO. Then of course ULF is much harder to operate in the field than 4x5. The cheat is going for one of Richard Ritter’s creations I suppose which are remarkable.