Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > General discussions > Photography in general

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 8th October 2010, 11:18 AM
Martin Aislabie's Avatar
Martin Aislabie Martin Aislabie is online now
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stratford-upon-Avon, England
Posts: 2,081
Default Print Size

Why do some prints work only in smaller print sizes, while others work only in much larger print sizes and yet a third group work regardless of print size

Any thoughts

Martin
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 8th October 2010, 11:53 AM
Trevor Crone's Avatar
Trevor Crone Trevor Crone is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,609
Default

Martin, I tend to favour 'smallish' prints these days particularly 5x7" and 8x10" contact prints. I feel they have an intimacy about them, beckoning the viewer to come close and enjoy the detail and subtleties. Although some would no doubt work much bigger.

Although I do produce enlargements on mostly 11x14 and 12 x 16 papers. When I look back on some of my 16 x 20 prints I often feel they have a pretentiousness about them although this is probably due to where I am at the moment

I like plenty of space around my images when exhibiting etc., gives them room to 'breath' and also isolates them better from their surroundings. I think bigger prints can look effective borderless on something like a block mount, for me this doesn't work with small prints. How an image is to be viewed is important as to its size. I often feel small prints work better in a set/group, big prints in isolation.

Small is beautiful - funny when you think of it - big camera - small prints
__________________
"To the attentive eye, each moment of the year has its own beauty, and in the same field, it beholds, every hour, a picture which was never seen before, and which will never be seen again" Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Timespresent
Arenaphotographers

Last edited by Trevor Crone; 8th October 2010 at 12:00 PM. Reason: additional material
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 8th October 2010, 02:24 PM
Richard Gould Richard Gould is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 5,433
Default

I agree with Trevor, I have printed 20/16 in the past, and used to print to12/16 as standard, I nfind a smaller print works better for me,I would now very rarely print to 12/16, most of my work is printed on 9.5x12,and I like the smaller prints in big mounts, normally 2ox16, and sometimes I will print 6x6 or 645 full frame on 9.5x12, which makes my prints even smaller,I think it is down to the photographers personal preferance,Richard
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 8th October 2010, 07:26 PM
cliveh's Avatar
cliveh cliveh is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Coornwall
Posts: 937
Default print size

Martin, can you give examples for this, as it would help to look at these as a comparison?
Although I often print large, I like small prints. They have an intimacy about them. I have recently been using a pinhole camera which produces images at 86mm X 50mm and they look beautiful. One of the aspects I liked about Atget was that he contact printed from his negs. Contact prints have all that compressed detail, just look at the images produced by Fox Talbots mouse trap cameras (as his wife coined them).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 8th October 2010, 09:56 PM
WillShade WillShade is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lone Star State, USA
Posts: 45
Default

I think 11x14 is impressive especially from a Medium Format negative produced with a sharp lens.

I can't do 16x20 yet, no easel
__________________
Will's B&W Photography
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 9th October 2010, 02:32 AM
FrankS FrankS is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Valley Stream, NY, USA
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Crone View Post
Small is beautiful - funny when you think of it - big camera - small prints
There would appear to be a bit of a dichotomy in that statement to a lot of photographers. But you know, there's nothing like a well executed small print, be it a contact print or a modest enlargement, from a medium to large format negative. It's more than sharpness and detail. It's the incredibly smooth tonal gradations that makes these prints so beautiful.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 9th October 2010, 10:22 AM
Richard Gould Richard Gould is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 5,433
Default

Frank, that is the reason that for a while now I have printed 9.5x12, sometimes smaller if I print full frame, for me small is incredibly beautiful,Richard
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 9th October 2010, 10:51 AM
joanphoto joanphoto is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Wales
Posts: 22
Default

I have a liking for 12x8 in a 20x16 mount and 5x5 in 10x12/15 mount at the moment

Joan
__________________
www.wedevelopfilms.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 9th October 2010, 02:43 PM
Stoo Batchelor's Avatar
Stoo Batchelor Stoo Batchelor is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 339
Default

Hi Martin

I can only agree that "Small Is Beautiful" when it come to a black and white photograph. These days I almost always print my negatives to either 10 x 8 or 8 x 6, no larger.

I don't think that there is any answer as to what negative 'works' as a larger or smaller print, but looking at my recent work I have noticed that I tend to print an open view, such as a landscape, at the larger size of 10 x 8, and a more intimate view, such as a selected part of a landscape at 8 X 6. This seems to work for me, though I do feel that I still get it wrong sometimes.

It's all about finding what feels right for you, and your own work. I could not imagine Ansel's "Clearing Winter Storm" as a 10 x 8 print, equally I could not imagine any of Kenna's work larger than his 71/2 inch square that he chooses to print to.

Cheers

Stoo
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 9th October 2010, 09:21 PM
MartyNL's Avatar
MartyNL MartyNL is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: based in The Netherlands
Posts: 3,341
Default

Firstly, I'd like to thank Trevor for the link he gave in this thread;
http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.or...ght=print+size

Which led to lots of other interesting articles especially the following on fine print secrets;
http://www.davidkachel.com/historical/fpsecret.htm


Secondly, I've standardised all my printing to 16x20 simply because it takes just as much time and effort to make bigger prints as smaller. And when you consider viewing distance it's all relative, isn't it?
__________________
MartyNL

“Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action
is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.”
- Minor White, 1950
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Size of prints akyiia Darkroom 22 17th September 2010 11:39 AM
small 7x5 size prints Larry Art and aesthetics 9 19th January 2010 06:47 PM
What size tray? Andy Darkroom 5 15th December 2009 05:39 PM
Size matters? Trevor Crone Art and aesthetics 46 14th September 2009 08:25 PM
Size of Borders on printing paper Larry Monochrome printing techniques 8 5th May 2009 04:42 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.