Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/04/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm a real odd man out on this size thing - not that that will come as a shock to anyone. While I do occasionally do 13x19s, I tend to prefer small prints; my standard print size is apx 8x5 or 8 x6 on an 8.5x11 or 8x10 sheet. I believe that smaller prints force the viewer to "come in," to really look at the image, where larger prints push the viewer away. When I did my book of photos of people living with diabetes, I beat the client and designer into making it really small - about 5.5 by 6.5 - and they ended up loving it. But I know most photographers think any good image has to be printed BIIIG.... -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Alastair Firkin Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 5:02 AM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Let's Just Say That Leica Survives and.... To the point as always, and believe me, my prints at 12 16 and 16 20 "can" look great. Sometimes I think I oversize my prints, because I then have problems knowing what to do with them: not because they don't look great. I have tried in the last year to "want" smaller "rich" images, which I can fit in my albums ;-) On 22/04/2005, at 6:22 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote: > On 4/21/05 11:06 PM, "Alastair Firkin" <firkin@ncable.net.au> typed: > >> What Thornton was trying to say - I think, and we can never really >> check, because he snuffed it, was that for a "perfect" print, and he >> was very careful to discuss his definition of "perfect", which lead >> to that statement. In reality, the book suggests that you can get >> perfect prints larger than that, and as I recall 10 x 15 was about >> his "upper limit" for 35mm, saying that smaller was "safer". It s a >> good read however, and does really make you "think". >> >> Cheers > > > Well I guess we need to find out what whoever thinks "perfect" means. > > I am familiar with those who are into this super conservative approach > to > how far you can blow up a neg. > They'll tell you you cant blow up a 35mm neg. bigger than 5x7 or it's > lost > it. These are view camera people who are tying to make roll film people > suffer. > Well I can see what they are talking about. > I'm no stranger to printing small and admiring how "rich" the tonality > is. > But they're also a lot smaller. That's the catch. > The un viability of larger and even super larger blowups is never made > concrete. Its just a matter of opinion. Prejudice. > The record of very successful very large prints from smaller negs or > at any > rate large magnifications is a huge one. > > Some guy is thinking: > "gee I've been shooting 4x5 and printing 11x14s so I've been making > 2.5 times magnification blowups. Now that I'm shooting 35mm why should > I not keep to the same program?" > > Because you'd end up with wallets that why. > Very rich looking wallets. Who cares how rich they are if you cant see > them > anyway. > With a great medium format loupe they'd knock your socks off. > > Go to an airport. Go to Grand Central Station. See 100x 1000x 10,000 > blow > ups. > Nobodies calling the PC squad complaining. > "Hey you can't do that! There's a law! My photography teacher said you > cant > do that" > > The same law that says you need to shoot Tri X at 200. > The baloney uptight legal code. > > Mark Rabiner > Photography > Portland Oregon > http://rabinergroup.com/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > Alastair _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information