Digital BW, The Print

I agree, there is some psycho-visual thing that if you listen to it tells
you when to stop going larger.

When I was using a wet dark room I rarely enlarged beyond 8 X 10 even using
4 X 5 negs. Going larger just seemed to lose something that a smaller
version obtain retained. With a digital set up I still rarely go beyond 11 X
14 and usually 8 X 10 or something less. I can also remember Fred Picker
saying that Edward Weston printed contact prints and didn't use an enlarger.
Not too shoddy work to try to use as a model...  The Brady photos of the War
of Northern Aggression can be stunning as are those of his disciples made
during their excursion into the west - all contact prints. Viewing distance
certainly seems to be part of the equation and being able to get your nose
into a print without being halfway across a hall seems important to many
images.

On the other hand I have seen a fair number of AA's prints made using his
railway car enlarger and who can fault the quality there?

Maybe "Chacon a son gout" still holds.

Roger
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Truman Prevatt [mailto:tprevatt@...]
  Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 6:05 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Image Density vs. Print Size


  It probably is psychological. I remember Adams talking about the optimal
  size for a print for impact - bigger is not always better. I think it
  has to do with viewing range - smaller prints are viewed closer and
  because of this they will have a different impact than if the same image
  is printed in a larger print. If you measure the difference on a sensor
  there may not be one but if you ask someone they will tell you there is.

  Truman



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]