11x14 Prints

[wally_hess]

Not a question, just an exclaimation regarding large pictures.

I can see what the gratification is all about with large pictures or

large negatives.

Up until now I have only printed up to 8x10 print size, but always

wanted to try printing larger.

I just completed my first set of 11x14 enlargements from 4x5

negatives, and am amazed at what a difference the larger size makes.

I especially like how I can finally get the entire negative printed

on the paper exactly the way I imagined it and composed it - I'm not

sure why it didnt work as well as an 8x10 print, but somehow the

images just work better at the larger size.

I brought some to work to show, and one person was so intrigued by

the result that he is now interested in possibly shooting LF himself.

Anyway , I can now see the appeal of the ULF cameras - maybe some

day...?

 

Wally Hess

[irvingthalburg]

Wally, I completely agree -- having gone through the same progression with prints myself. I exclusively print everything at 11x14 on FB paper.

 

However, I don't shoot MF. With 35mm the same holds true: to get a real sense of what you're looking at, 8x10 just doesn't cut it.

[howiepete]

Just wait until you see a 16X20! You will wonder why you bothered with 11X14! Now I am going for 20X24 when I can find some large trays that don't cost an arm and a leg. Where does it all end???

 

Howie

[donald_miller1]

Howie..."Where does it all end?"...It is called the "Poor House"...in lieu of that, "Debtors Prison"...

[henry_suryo]

Hi Wally,

I feel that prints 8x10 or smaller are supposed to be viewed at a more intimate distance, 10 inches or so, whereas 11x14 and larger obviously further back. You made no distinction between larger prints made from contact or from enlargement. Personally I prefer an 8x10 contact print than an 11x14 enlargement from 8x10. I like to get up close and take in the details and smoothness of tone when viewing a print. The tonality and gradation are somewhat degraded as the grain size and clumping is magnified in enlargements. The appeal of ULF cameras is obviously the larger contact prints. Henry

[joe_lipka3]

An image needs to be the size it needs to be. Some images need to be small, others need to be big. You will figure this out. Bigger is only bigger, not necessarily better. A bad big image is much, much worse than a bad small image.

[brian_c._miller]

Howie wrote: Where does it all end???

 

You'll be in the gutter next to the rest of us with your shopping cart! You'll have your dark cloth/darkroom tent set up as a lean-to next to a fountain. You'll beg money to buy coffee and drain cleaner to make your own developer. None of the working people will understand why there is a solar-converted Omega D3 in your shopping cart. Most people will misunderstand your cardboard sign, "NEED MONEY FOR HYPO!"

 

One of these days I just have gotta dress up as the part, and then post the result.

[rayfc]

Hmmm, Bummer! I guess size does matter :+)

[michael_meyer]

howard-

 

there comes a backlash and it goes to smaller prints.

 

when i was back in school a class i was in got caught up in the

bigger is always better mentality, particularly one mediocre

student. i had been shooting mostly 4x5 in this class and

printing 20 x24. i became so frustrated with this at one point that i

showed up to the next class with one print: a postage sized print

in the middle of a 20x24 sheet of paper. derision ensued, but i

made some sort of point with the print. and the little prints (later

on smaller paper as i couldn't afford 20x24 paper to make 1x1.25

inch prints) held their own charm.

 

now i find i make prints the size they need to be. my 35 work

right now tends to be small, usually about 3x4 give or take. 4x5

work ranges from 8x10 to 20x24 (which is sadly starting to feel

small).

 

at some point you end up being thomas struth.

 

-m

[philip_glass]

I went to New York City last month it was interesting to compare some small 5x7-8x10 prints by Kertesz to some huge mural-sized plexiglass mounted prints located at nearby contemporary art galleries. Some by Liebowitz and some by Struth. The Kertesz prints were much more inspiring to me. There seems to be an optimal size based on how you want the print to be perceived. Bigness is not necessarily better.

[john_kasaian1]

I think it all depends on the subject. An 8x10 contact print can indeed be intimate, though for some subjects, unless you do a blow-up the viewer will miss all important but tiny details---we're talking about an 8x10 negative---that draw a viewer into the picture. There is little that compares to LF in this aspect, which is why Christopher Burkett and Clyde Butcher routinely make big prints---from big negatives. It is kind of like Vladimir Nabokov's Glory...A little boy sleeps in a room with a print of a trail vanishing into the woods in view of his crib, and he wonders what it would be like, to go down that trail. That inviting detail is one of the attractions of LF.----------Cheers!

[bro_monk]

Hi Wally,

I understand your enthusiasim; I used to make 11x14s and 16x20s from 4x5 and 8x10 negatives. Now, after 16 years of LF photography I have returned to the contact print as the best possible print. I think it says something about this in the Bible...a time for enlarging...and a time for contact printing... Maybe it is just a matter of seeing...to my eyes, the enlargement does not compare to the contact print.

Respectfully,

George

[wally_hess]

It's interesting to see the different view points about sizes.

I, too, think contact prints are great, that's why I recently bought an 8x10 camera to do just that. I havent had really the time yet to take landscapes with it, since the weather has been bad, and the thing is very heavy. On the other hand, my 4x5 contact prints are nice, but dont give the "look" to the landscape images I need, so I've enlarged them to 8x10 with some success. Only by going up to the 11x14 size using the same images from the 4x5 negatives have I finally been able to realize the look and feel of what I'm after - the larger prints have a presence that the smaller size simply dont have.

I agree that the subject matter dictates the size, yet sometimes bigger is the only way to go.

[paul_coppin]

I'm wondering how much the organization of the subject matter affects this - Its intuitive to believe that this is is true. Good head shots and tight portraits tend to look best when they begin to approach approximate lifesize. Landscapes and pictorials that depend heavily on perspective elements seem to benefit from larger prints, (intuitively, because you can see deeper into it, as we do naturally). Two-dimensional compositions seem to be better as smaller prints (intuitively, no need to see into it, thus we reduce it to its graphic elements). Colour work with a rich palette seems to be better larger, simpler palettes, smaller. (I acknowledge a whole 'nother discussion on the colour theme where graphic rather than imagery is the point).

[will_wilson]

So in response to the question about affordable large darkroom trays. I would suggest the large additional shelf made by rubbermaid for their bus carts available here or somewhere else probably:

 

http://www.labsafety.com/store/product_group.asp?dept_id=7085&parent_id=10995

 

The perfect 20x30 darkroom tray on a budget.