Digital BW, The Print

Over the years I've observed that the arguments for small (and
"miniature" prints were mostly made by people who aspired to Ansel
Adams but used 35mm. 

Good scanning has expanded the potential enlargement of 35, but the
prosumer digicams (D70 et al) simply don't hold up at those larger
sizes IMO (20D seems to do a little better, as does M8). 

I don't think "landscape photography" is commonly the best examplar of
photography. Landscape visions are derivative of each other, for the
most part, long on red filtration, blurred creeks, and aspens. 

Weston's portraits were IMO better than his landscapes, and even Ansel
showed that potential. Avedon, who I consider at least Ansel's equal,
expressed joy at gigantic portraits (eg of his dying father). 

Large prints open images up for calm contemplation. And you can stick
your nose as easily into a 4X6' print as you can to a letter sized
print, if the gallery will let you. 

Ansel's large modern prints were FAR more compelling than his older
smaller work, and Weston s infinitely better in the size he contact
printed than it is when reduced onto book pages. 

My own economic limitations are 12X18, and my aesthetic target is
11X17, but few of my images deserve prints of that size. I shoot 35mm
primarily: just as in darkroom days, I'd be overjoyed if I produced
one frame that really turned me on in every other roll. Worthwhile
images and fine prints are two different concepts, after all.  




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "steveh0607"
<steveh060758@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@> wrote:
> 
> >
> I just picked up this thread and I also prefer smaller prints.
Printing on 11x17 paper gives 
> me a print big enough for me. I like to get close to prints - to
breath them in as it were. I 
> might add the cost of mounting, matting, and framing is also much
less than for a large 
> print. 
> 
> Most of my stuff is printed on 8.5x11 paper on the R2400 (great
printer!). The Innova 
> FibaPrint lineup is the current favorite (try the semi-matte, it has
a long tonal range). If I 
> can add one shameless plug - I just bought the D40 (not the D40x, I
don't need the extra 
> megapixels) and it's a dream of a little camera!
> 
> Steve
> > Tyler,
> > 
> > >...I'm pretty tired of all this huge stuff, the photographic
> > >integrity of the image is often lost, they lose presence and
> > >substance. 
> > 
> > Yes!  Glad to hear you say that.  My epiphany came about 15 years ago
> > at an AA exhibit where everything was 16x20 or larger.  I became aware
> > of a sense of unease while viewing them and it finally hit me that I
> > enjoyed his pics more in a good book on my lap.  That was the
> > beginning of my scaling down and experimenting with smaller sizes.  My
> > favorite now is a 6x8 image on letter size paper.  Held in the hands,
> > it's the same FOV as viewing a 16x20 from about 4 feet.  
> > 
> > 
> > >Many are printing big simply because they can...
> > 
> > Or are pressured into it by gallery owners and/or buyers.  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >But many of my favorite things by others are quite small. 
> > >Caponigro's latest stuff is amazing...little still lives.
> > >I was told Nick's are around 8" square. 
> > 
> > I'm glad to hear that.  It definitely goes against the mainstream.  Do
> > you have to be famous before people will accept small prints? 
> > 
> > Actually, I think that people who really understand and love
> > photography don't care about print size.  Loving photography as an art
> > form doesn't have anything to do with filling space over the sofa. 
> > For example, I don't recall Szarkowski ever complain about print size
> > in any of his books.  I've seen people gush over giant prints as
> > "magnificent" that were IMO terrible photos.
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Clayton
> > 
> > 
> > Info on black and white digital printing at    
> > http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> >
>