Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/04/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You are absolutely right. I frequently do this with my 4x5 negatives and my 120 film based prints. For some reason the prints seem much more dramatic. Perhaps you hit the nail on the head..............you are drawn into the image. ----- Original Message ----- From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 11:38 AM Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Let's Just Say That Leica Survives and.... > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 369 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!