Galen Rowel Huge Prints with 35mm ?

Just curious ran across some of Galen's work and checked out his website.

 

Am I correct that most if not all of his work was done on a 35mm system ?

 

It looks as if they are selling 48X72 inch art-work, They have some huge photos.

 

Not sure if he went to MF cameras or he is strickly a 35mm guy.

 

I thought that he was a 35mm purist ?

 

 

Your thoughts ??

 

Jay

As far as I know, he was a 35mm 'purist'. 35mm enabled him to travel light and get to locations that would have been difficult to reach packing the weight associated with larger formats.

 

People discuss resolution, format, and enlargement potential ad infinitum. The simple reality is that while a larger format will produce a better large print, all other things being equal, having an image worth printing large in the first place is the most important thing. His images were spectacular regardless of whether or not a larger piece of film would have imparted some minor technical advantage.

 

Photography isn't about line pairs or standing with your nose on a print counting blades of grass.

I read that he liked the lighter Nikon FM10 cameras for backpacking. If true, that would take

it even farther into the realm of the unusual for the Nikon purists who reject Cosina-made

equipment. I agree, it isn't about the hardware as much as the eye, and the skill to translate

the image onto a medium, effectively.

The FM10 is a sweet little camera, very much underated.

I agree with Bernard. After all, you attach a nice Nikon lens to it and it's light, small and you don't have to worry about it.

 

I carry mine from time-to-time just to remind me about photography.

 

Conni

"... having an image worth printing large in the first place is the most important thing. "

 

Absolutely.

 

Much also depends on the subject matter. Images of cloudscapes is more amenable to enlargement than say those of Chris Jordan's work.

About Galen and his gear...you might find this article interesting:

http://www.mountainlight.com/rowell/gr_camera_bag.html

Early in Galen's career he used Nikon (F2?) and routinely carried a Minox clamshell 35...and made highly salable large prints using it when, on a peak (McKinley?) the Nikon failed/froze.

 

At the time (late 70s) he used Faulkner Color Lab in San Francico...we inventoried a large number of dry mounted full frame prints for him (as we did for several other print-selling photographers) on 30X40 and other sizes (perhaps a half dozen of each of twenty images) made with 4X5 internegs. There would have been no reason not to make much larger prints. Color was exquisite.

You should check with Justin Black, he worked with him.

If your subject is special, and your light is good, and you're not completely unknown, you can use whatever gear you like!

 

Clearly, going to the places where he went was very important to him, and that meant 35mm. MF SLRs would substantially increase the bag weight, and MF rangefinders are not easy to use with neutral graduated filters or polarizers.

He made a 6 foot print of "Horsemen beneath giant sand dune,

Pamir Range (China, 1980)" that he says (in his mountain light book) held up quite well -- 35mm Kodachrome 25.

Many of Galen Rowell's images are stunning, and I absolutely agree that having an image worth printing is more important than starting with a large size original. And yes, those 48"x72" prints are made from 35mm photographs. I have seen beautiful 35mm photographs by Jim Brandenburg printed at 40"x60" and this, at least to me, is too big. An original image the size of a postage stamp doesn't hold up very well when enlarged to the size of a door. This is subjective of course and depends on, among other things, how closely one views the print. However, you don't have to be very close to a 40"x60" or larger print from a 35mm original to see the problems inherent in this degree of enlargement. I would have a hard time printing a drum scanned 4x5 transparency as big as 48"x72", but to each his own I guess.

All you need is a sharp image, a good drum scanner and a smart technician. Amazing what can be pulled out of 24x36 mm. Consider viewing distance -- billboards read from a block away, 48x72 from six feet or more. Only pixel peepers get their noses up to big prints.

I have an excellent drum scanner and know how to use it, and at sizes like 48x72 the detail from even the sharpest 35mm transparency is mush. See here for an example:

 

http://www.brettdeacon.com/gallery.php?gallery=WhyLargeFormat.

 

Of course you can stand back and even huge prints from 35mm shots will look OK. I'm afraid though if I had a massive print hanging on my wall at home I would be tempted to view it from closer than 6-10 feet on occasion, and I wouldn't feel like a "pixel peeper" in doing so. Just my style I guess; others are surely different in this regard.

<p><i>"Only pixel peepers get their noses up to big prints.</i></p>

 

<p>Let's not get carried away here. Photography, like life, is most often about trade offs rather than absolutes. Galen Rowell made the trade offs he felt were appropriate for his style and method of working, and his results speak for themselves.</p>

 

<p>From a personal perspective, I never would've gotten some of my favorite images had I not been using a small format camera at those times. Size, portability, fast focus, fast shutter speeds... all can, at times, be critical in just "getting the shot". Translated, that means that, despite small format cameras generating inferior images, I was still using the "best" tool for the job at those moments. But that doesn't mean that the laws of physics magically get repealed when it comes to making sizable prints.</p>

 

<p>And no, you don't have to "pixel peep" to see the differences. Case in point was a show I attended a few years back. There were excellent large format landscape shooters from much of the western US in attendance, and some stunning work on display. All but one of the guys I visited with were shooting 4x5 LF. The one exception was the last booth I visited, and was I ever glad it was the last, as everything else suddenly looked second rate after seeing this gentleman's work. While his images were certainly top tier anyway, his prints just stood out from the pack. It was all 8x10, drum-scanned and Lightjet printed, and you could see the difference from 2' away or 20' away.</p>

 

<p>If you think it doesn't matter except for when you leave noseprints on the glass, then you really haven't looked at quality LF prints when directly compared to smaller stuff.</p>

 

<p>I love Galen Rowell's work, but at 48x72? I'd pass, thanks.</p>

 

<p>Scott</p>

Plenty of billboards have been filled handsomely with Kodachrome.

 

If one wants "sharpness" one can always interpolate...the interpolation figures will be as sharp as ceramic tiles and will in themselves be attractive in the same way.

 

The limited thinking that says 35 has limited enlargement potential is the same limited thinking that dislikes grain in B&W and prefers optical enlargement in 2008 to good scans and inkjet.

 

To say that one can "see the difference" between 35mm and large format

makes no point whatsoever.

 

There are no MF cameras as sturdy as the mechanical Nikon that failed for Galen and there are no LF cameras that anyone could have toted to the places he went, or whose shutters would have functioned.

Please pardon the tone in my post, above.

 

We all know 35mm isn't ideal for every application, but to question it in Galen's case seems odd.

 

Perhaps some folks have not actually seen Galen's prints. If they have, they'll know that many would be shockingly wonderful at any size.

John, nobody on this thread questioned Galen Rowell's use of 35mm. It was clearly the best tool for his needs, and he wouldn't have been able to make many of his classic images with a medium or large format camera. What some of us are pointing out is that there is a point at which an enlarged 35mm image starts to lose its aesthetic quality. I have to disagree with your claims that it is "limited thinking" to suggest there are limits to the extent to which 35mm can or should be enlarged, and that it doesn't make sense to talk about seeing the difference between 35mm and large format. I wouldn't dream of questioning how wonderful Galen's photographs are. I would however be willing to take issue with the aesthetic quality of the prints of any photographer who enlarges an original image so far beyond the point where obvious degradation occurs. As before, the extent to which a person is bothered by this degradation is a matter of taste, and I freely admit to having very high standards for the quality of photographic prints even at close viewing distances. This is why I use a 4x5 camera.

Is it possible he could have used a larger format camera to make a duplication negative, from his 35mm negs? I'm not sure I have the terminology right. I thought I had read this somewhere. I could be wrong. - Sean

Creating an interneg used to be common practice in making prints from positives; 4x5 or 120 could be used.

 

Mark off 6 feet on a blank wall, then step back until you can comfortably see both edges without moving your head. That's your viewing distance. Getting any closer would be for reasons other than absorbing the entire image.

 

At any rate, the majority of Rowell's images are made on 35mm and good as they are, 48x72 is probably not their optimum display size.

 

There are a lot of factors that go into selecting the optimum print size. 48 x 72 is pretty extravagant, even for good 8x10 negs. The ancient ones among us will remember the Kodak exhibit prints that used to take up one end of Grand Central Terminal in NYC.

Galen, commonly made 70mm internegs from his slides, for printing purposes.

 

Russ

Whoa there John! Looks like you're a big Galen Rowell fan, but...

 

First of all, I thought I made it clear that I am as well, and yes, I've seen large prints of his. I understand and appreciate why he chose to work the way he did, and chances are pretty good that had he forced himself to do otherwise, his images would've suffered for it or simply wouldn't have been made. I have nothing but contempt for those who sneer and look down their noses at someone who chooses to do landscape and nature work in 35mm, because that's what works for them. But Rowell's decision to work largely with 35mm does have consequences, just as it does for less celebrated folks like you and me. Life is about trade offs, and you can't get around that.

 

You seem to be saying that this is somehow not true in his case, and you're offended that his work should even be questioned in this regard, and I find that point of view hard to understand. In fact, I find the idea that any photographer, no matter how admired and accomplished, can't be examined and questioned to be absurd.

 

My point was and is simply that this isn't about pixel peeping. A well made print from a larger source has qualities that can't be matched by 35mm prints from anyone, and the differences aren't about "sharpness", and can't be made up for with post-processing techniques like interpolation.

 

Do you really disagree?

 

Scott

35mm of fine photos doesn't "lose aesthetic quality" at any size. That's a low-brow urban legend that has to do with high school photo teachers and inferior techniques.

 

"Ideal viewing distances" refer to distances adequate to hide bad work, not anything theoretic about formats...especially given high resolution scanning, interpolation, and digital printing.

 

I'm not just a "big Galen Rowell fan," I admire many photographers. I do think it's pathetic to question the potential in good film and fine images, such as his.

 

I don't know if Galen used any 70mm internegs, don't know why he would have, but I do know he relied heavily on 4X5...we made easily a hundred for him.

John, what do you mean he relied heavily on the 4X5 heavliy. Are you saying a 4x5 large

format camera or a different way of processing the original 35mm slide film he used ??

 

No I have never seen his work up close but people have said it is high quality 35mm

photography that most traditional folks say that could not be achieved with 35mm film

 

Is this true, I assumed it was ??

 

I guess my question now is How did he do it ? Did he print directly from the slide or what

?

Can his method still be done ??

 

Thanks

Jay

As many here are already aware, Galen used 35mm Nikons for their portability, their ability

to respond quickly to fast changing situations, their reliability, etc. He was interested in

having one camera system that could do everything he needed from landscape to

adventure to wildlife and macro, for the sake of complete familiarity and simplicity. He

would also test his lenses and his film to determine how to get the most out of them.

Galen was a genius at getting the most out of 35mm, but he would have been the first to

admit that a larger formats are capable of greater resolution. He would have also pointed

out that much of his work would have been practically impossible, and for him the point

was to document amazing moments in nature and human experience. It was the essence

of the image that was importantant to him, not the absolute resolution.

 

Before he got seriously into making Lightjet prints from drum scans in the late '90s, Galen

mostly made Type-C prints from 4x5 internegatives (70mm slide dupes were for stock

distribution and publication), as well as some dye-transfers, and a few Evercolor pigment

prints. He printed larger than 20x30 with relative infrequency.

 

Now, Galen's best selling print of all time routinely sells off the wall of the gallery in the

32x48 size. Our clients think it is beautiful, despite the fact that it is enlarged 1,024 times

from the original. It was shot in 2000 on Velvia 50 with a Nikon F100 and a 24mm f/2.8

Nikkor on a tripod, drum scanned, and is printed on Fuji Crystal Archive Type-C paper

using a Lightjet digital enlarger.

 

In any case, a 48x72 print from a 35mm Kodachrome or Velvia slide is of course going to

suffer in terms of resolution when viewed from one foot away, but as others have pointed

out, they are meant to be viewed from at least six feet away, and they look just like a

smaller print viewed from the proper distance. At Mountain Light Gallery, I have noticed

that most of our visitors naturally stand at an appropriate viewing distance. Curious

photographers, on the other hand, tend to be the ones who press their noses to the big

prints, as one would expect I suppose. I did the same thing when I started working for

Galen back in '99.

 

The 48x72s are actually too large to mat and frame, so they are mounted to half-inch

foamcore and displayed with protective film over them, but are otherwise naked. Frankly,

there aren't many people who have a place to hang a print that large, and they take up a

lot of gallery wall space, so we usually only have one on display in the foyer.

 

You might be interested to know that most of the other photographers we represent in the

gallery print mostly from 4x5, and while people certainly buy them, they don't slow sales

of Galen's prints. People respond to photographs based on the underlying image first and

foremost. The format used isn't really of much importance to the non-photographers, and

photographers tend not to buy other photographers' prints.