Digital BW, The Print

Some of my work will be included in a three person show at Benham
Gallery here in Seattle-

http://benhamgallery.com/

In July and August. I have known Jeff for some time, we've gone on
shoot trips together, bounced work off each other, and I print his
large work as well. Our work is very different but equally reverent of
the land. His prints will be full Iris sheets, shadow boxed framed,
made on William Turner with the Selenium inks. They are very impressive.

http://www.jeffcorwinphotography.com/

Click on work/three to see his landscape approach.
Nick, who's prints I have not see, apparently makes small impressive
silver prints-

http://www.nicholaspavloff.com/

Mine will be around 19+ x 28, and use a variety of subtle ink blends,
all tending to the warmish.

http://tylerboley.com/FineArtPhotography/landscapes/thumbs.html

Both Jeff and Nick work with very strong tonalities, mine very subtle.
Between the different processes, print size impacts, tonalities, etc.
I think it's going to be a very interesting show from the standpoint
of print aesthetics, and also approach to the landscape. Also, ink and
silver together.

I'll do one more reminder post closer to the date.

Thanks, don't mean to hype, it's just an opportunity to see a lot of
digital B&W printing.

Tyler

Hello Tyler,

>Thanks, don't mean to hype...

I don't consider it hype.  I appreciate the notice, especially with
the links.  I like NP's strong contrast images (I often don't care for
it but he has an exceptional touch), but I really prefer the longer
scale approach in your work.  I just looked at the Italy series for
the first time - lovely.



>Nick, who's prints I have not seen, apparently makes small impressive
>silver prints-

How are you defining "small" here?  I'm asking because I prefer small
prints, but it means different things to different people (for some,
11x14 is small, but for me that's large).  I'm also interested in how
they will be hung.  It's hard to mix large and small prints together.
  Any chance you can take a snapshot for us?

Last winter I saw a wonderful traveling Edward Weston exhibit and of
course everything was 8x10 or smaller.  Was very inspiring, with a
good mixture of his well known and lesser known works.



>Mine will be around 19+ x 28, and use a variety of subtle ink 
>blends, all tending to the warmish.

How are you printing these days?  I have it in mind that you use K7,
but not really sure...


>Between the different processes, print size impacts, tonalities, 
>etc. I think it's going to be a very interesting show from the 
>standpoint of print aesthetics, and also approach to the landscape. 
>Also, ink and silver together.

I wish I could see it, but since I'm in Florida...it's a fer piece to
go.  Good luck with the show.  May you sell a ton of prints.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:
...
> >Nick, who's prints I have not seen, apparently makes small impressive
> >silver prints-
> 
> How are you defining "small" here?  I'm asking because I prefer small
> prints, but it means different things to different people (for some,
> 11x14 is small, but for me that's large).

Hi Clayton, nice shot, you got me on that one. I had a workshop long
ago with the great Linda Conner. She had her gorgeous 8x10 gold toned
POP contact prints. She mentioned that her galleries kept complaining
that she could not supply them with large prints due to her process.
Her comment was- well... they seem pretty d**n big to me!!
We were a bit surprised, but darn if we didn't look down at the table
again and yup, suddenly they seemed plenty big!
You are right, big or small is subjective and somewhat meaningless. In
fact I'm pretty tired of all this huge stuff, the photographic
integrity of the image is often lost, they lose presence and
substance. The whole viewing distance issue is irrelevant to me as,
well, I'm going to put my face right up to any print of whatever size,
as well as stepping back. Many are printing big simply because they
can. I'm pretty pleased with the beautiful things we can do with
putting down ink here, and most people just want me to make big things
for them, and somewhat dismiss the ink possibilities as less
interesting to them.
Being able to print bigger was a revelation to me though, it was
difficult for me to go bigger than 11x14 in the darkroom. My stuff is
very busy compositionally, with lots of detail, and suddenly things
began to work as intended a bit bigger. But these are about as big as
I want, few of my negs will go bigger and hold up, in my opinion, and
some I won't even print this big.
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. But, I may be getting into
trouble here. I have not seen them, nor have met or talked to him.

>  I'm also interested in how
> they will be hung.  It's hard to mix large and small prints together.
>   Any chance you can take a snapshot for us?

They won't be mixed together, we'll be on separate walls and the space
divides up a bit.

> Last winter I saw a wonderful traveling Edward Weston exhibit and of
> course everything was 8x10 or smaller.  Was very inspiring, with a
> good mixture of his well known and lesser known works.

Last Weston I saw was with Modotti in 06, Mexico work. I actually
liked hers better but it was early work for him. Some were trimmed 4x5
contact prints, now that's small. His prints are always a pleasure to see.

> How are you printing these days?  I have it in mind that you use K7,
> but not really sure...

I've been using the same combination of Piezotones for some time now.
A selenium set and a custom mixed warm set with a shared black in the
9600. StudioPrint has given more and more control over how to put them
down, and even though the setup has been the same for a while, I keep
learning more and more ways to put the inks down in better and better
ways. There are always at least 6 inks in my prints.
But it's gotten extremely complex, and I often think no one can see
the difference but me. Keeps me off the street though.
If I had more printers the K7s would be in here in a second. It'll
happen, things are evolving. I'll get a sneak peak in the magic
factory when I teach there in a few weeks.

> ...May you sell a ton of prints...

Now you're talkin'. Credit cards pretty maxed out for these frames <G>
Well, that was a ramble...
Tyler

Tyler,
Your images are magnificent! Is any of your work from digital capture or is
it all large format BW negative scanned?
Thanks,
Gary Wagner

  -----Original Message-----
  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Tyler
Boley
  Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 7:28 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Black and White landscape exhibit


  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
  <cj@...> wrote:
  ...
  > >
  Recent Activity
    a..  15New Members
  Visit Your Group
  SPONSORED LINKS
    a.. Fine art photography
    b.. Digital photography
    c.. Digital photography print
    d.. Digital photography technique
    e.. Fine art photography print
  Sing Country?
  Win $50,000!

  Enter the Road to

  Nashville Contest!

  Yahoo! News
  Most Popular News

  What's the most

  popular news now?

  Yahoo! Finance
  It's Now Personal

  Guides, news,

  advice & more.
  .
  


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

Most of it is scanned 5x7" film, a smaller percentage is scanned 6x7cm 120 film.
I have a dslr I use for commercial work and casual shooting.
The idea of spending $35,000.00 on a capture system that still can't touch a $2 sheet of film 
is so stupifyingly absurd I can't even begin considering it.
Tyler


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "gcwagner" <gcwagner@...> wrote:

>
> Tyler,
> Your images are magnificent! Is any of your work from digital capture or is
> it all large format BW negative scanned?
> Thanks,
> Gary Wagner
> 
>   -----Original Message-----

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

Tyler,

I find that an interesting comment coming from someone obviously able
to make the comparison. Are you able to provide links to any images
that might allow a direct visual comparison between very high end
digital and a piece of fim? That would say more than many words.

Alan


> The idea of spending $35,000.00 on a capture system that still can't
touch a $2 sheet of film 
> is so stupifyingly absurd I can't even begin considering it.
> Tyler

Alan, tell you what- rather than get into this conversation yet again,
I'll simply retract the statement. Pass it off as a silliness coming
from someone tired, brain dead, and working on a national holiday.
As someone who drives an 11 year old Saturn complete with bird
droppings and a smelly dog blanket, the point is moot.
I bow to the new technology, the vested interests, the marketing
geniuses. I love them, I know they love me.

Digital capture is Super Duper! (Young Frankenstein fans will know how
that's supposed to be spoken).

Obviously no blanket statements can be made. More coffee.
Tyler


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "alan9990_6"
<aansell@...> wrote:

>
> Tyler,
> 
> I find that an interesting comment coming from someone obviously able
> to make the comparison. Are you able to provide links to any images
> that might allow a direct visual comparison between very high end
> digital and a piece of fim? That would say more than many words.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> > The idea of spending $35,000.00 on a capture system that still can't
> touch a $2 sheet of film 
> > is so stupifyingly absurd I can't even begin considering it.
> > Tyler
>

"you
just can image the how much the 4x5 film blows away digital"

Having used 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 cameras almost exclusively for about 12 
years, and a digital camera for about two, I can't imagine that at all. 
There's too many variables to make that kind of blanket statement IMHO. What 
kind of scan is being made of the large format film? How good is the person 
making the scan? What equipment is being used ? What size print? What kind 
of scene or subject matter is being photographed?

Some difference in some situations, yes. But blow away? No way, especially 
not without a drum scan and a print larger than about 12x17. Put the large 
format film on even a good flat bed scanner, and make a print no larger than 
about 12x17, and the difference between large format film and a good digital 
camera isn't even close to "blow away" status IMHO.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "elvis24105" <elvis24105@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 4:08 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Black and White landscape exhibit


i have shot 4x5 film scanned it and compared it to at least 10megapix
camera and the 4x5 film shot with a std. 150mm scheinder rodenstock you
just can image the how much the 4x5 film blows away digital

just my two cents

jerry
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "alan9990_6"
<aansell@...> wrote:
>
> Tyler,
>
> I find that an interesting comment coming from someone obviously able
> to make the comparison. Are you able to provide links to any images
> that might allow a direct visual comparison between very high end
> digital and a piece of fim? That would say more than many words.
>
> Alan
>
>
> > The idea of spending $35,000.00 on a capture system that still can't
> touch a $2 sheet of film
> > is so stupifyingly absurd I can't even begin considering it.
> > Tyler
>




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

i have shot 4x5 film scanned it and compared it to at least 10megapix 
camera and the 4x5 film shot with a std. 150mm scheinder rodenstock you 
just can image the how much the 4x5 film blows away digital

just my two cents

jerry
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "alan9990_6" 
<aansell@...> wrote:

>
> Tyler,
> 
> I find that an interesting comment coming from someone obviously able
> to make the comparison. Are you able to provide links to any images
> that might allow a direct visual comparison between very high end
> digital and a piece of fim? That would say more than many words.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> > The idea of spending $35,000.00 on a capture system that still can't
> touch a $2 sheet of film 
> > is so stupifyingly absurd I can't even begin considering it.
> > Tyler
>

bravo 

Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:          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



         

       
---------------------------------
Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting  gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.

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

Not this old tired subject of film vs digital again.
Nap time.
Mark

On May 29, 2007, at 4:08 PM, elvis24105 wrote:

> i have shot 4x5 film scanned it and compared it to at least 10megapix
> camera and the 4x5 film shot with a std. 150mm scheinder rodenstock  
> you
> just can image the how much the 4x5 film blows away digital
>
> just my two cents
>
> jerry
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "alan9990_6"
> <aansell@...> wrote:
>>
>> Tyler,
>>
>> I find that an interesting comment coming from someone obviously able
>> to make the comparison. Are you able to provide links to any images
>> that might allow a direct visual comparison between very high end
>> digital and a piece of fim? That would say more than many words.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>> The idea of spending $35,000.00 on a capture system that still can't
>> touch a $2 sheet of film
>>> is so stupifyingly absurd I can't even begin considering it.
>>> Tyler
>>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you  
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by  
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules  
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the  
> group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines”  
> in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER  
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL  
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE  
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO  
> OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

In a message dated 5/29/07 4:13:23 PM, elvis24105@... writes:


> i have shot 4x5 film scanned it and compared it to at least 10megapix
> camera and the 4x5 film shot with a std. 150mm scheinder rodenstock you
> just can image the how much the 4x5 film blows away digital
> 
> 
No, but I can well imagine how 4x5 film blows away that particular digital. 
16.7 megapixels will be a bit less blown away, and a hi-rez studioback will 
hold its own quite nicely. Its all a   matter of how large a print you may ever 
need... and how much you like or dislike film grain, for that matter.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


**************************************
 See what's free at 
http://www.aol.com.


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

At 04:12 PM 5/29/2007, you wrote:
>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.
>
>Regards,
>Clayton

Clayton -

That was also interesting to me. My photographs are almost all of 
people and I feel the same.  It's much more intimate for someone to 
have to walk up to a photo and view it from a foot away rather than 
stand across the room to view a huge print.  What I really prefer is 
for someone to hold my print in their hands to view.  When I paid for 
a portfolio review, that was the advice of the three professional 
reviewers.  My portfolio prints are 8x10 and are packed loose in a 
box so the viewer can hold them, sort them, and view them at inches 
rather than feet.  I can understand that some landscape photos might 
be appropriate for huge prints but not my documentary photos.

Tina

Tina Manley
ASMP, NPPA, EP, PI
http://www.tinamanley.com

In a message dated 5/29/07 4:21:32 PM, elvis24105@... writes:


> That was the
> beginning of my scaling down and experimenting with smaller sizes. My
> favorite now is a 6x8 image on letter size paper
> 

And for this you need a 4x5 camera? No way! <G>

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


**************************************
 See what's free at 
http://www.aol.com.


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

The current fad of ginormous prints at many NYC galleries has been a major peeve of 
mine. In fact, when I went to Gagosian to see Alec Soth's "Niagra" I was so put off by the 
scale I couldn't look for long, and so I felt I had potentially missed "seeing" them. Once I 
saw these same prints in his book I felt an impact completely missing (for me) from the 
show.

Jeff Wall was a different story, however, but I think he is one of the few who consciously 
uses scale for critical purpose (like his work or not). I enjoyed them much more at the 
exhibit than in books. The downside to his work is that the possibility for private 
collection is minimal both due to their scale....and the price. Ouch.

I just think there should be an integral reason for monster prints, other than what's 
fashionable in the marketplace. Maybe I'm just missing a point not accessible to my 
sensibilities.

I'm very fortunate to be friends with Paul Caponigro, who lives in my neck of the country. I 
was gifted one day at his studio with an opportunity to go through a large portfolio of his 
older work. Holding these prints in my hands created a private space for me to truly see 
them, contemplate them at my liesure and viscerally absorb them. It was an increibly 
moving experience. I absolutely could not imagine that it would have felt so personal, had 
the prints been larger - perhaps requiring me to look at them on a table or on the wall -  
and that afternoon helped me make some decisions about the scale of my own work.

 And Clayton...some of what e have discussed regarding size has also given me food for 
thought....thank you.

It's a personal decision, and I guess large scale just gives me more to think about in terms 
of the artist's intention, which isn't a bad thing at all. But I really believe that covering a 
wall won't make up for that "something" that can't be faked by an initial impact due soley 
to scale.

Tyler...I wish I could make it out to your show to see your photographs "in the flesh". I got 
so much from your feature in LensWork! I did go to the link and saw the other two 
photogrphers work....nice contrasts there. Congratulations!

Sarah





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, jerry rushing <elvis24105@...> 
wrote:

>
> bravo 
> 
> Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:          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
> 
> 
> 
>          
> 
>        
> ---------------------------------
> Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
> Check out fitting  gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:
...
> 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.

I often thought much of his work that I saw was over enlarged. But
some of his better large negs at around 16x20 were really stunning.
Back in the Friends of Photography workshop days they used to bring us
through his home. There was a Mt. Williamson and a Tetons/Snake Rvr
there at about 16x20 that far surpassed anything I saw in a museum or
gallery, and his true level of accomplishment was suddenly very
obvious, and I'm not even a fan.

...
> >Many are printing big simply because they can...
> 
> Or are pressured into it by gallery owners and/or buyers.

But then look at Michael Kenna. Despite a recent thread here he has to
be one of the most successful contemporary fine art photographers
right now. Even in this town, his shows sell really well. To my
knowledge he's always just made those small prints, right? He's
apparently always done what he wanted, I'll bet he's been pressured
for larger.

On the other hand, a photographer I know that prints and exhibits all
silver around 11x14 had me make a 40x50 recently for a commercial
installation, and called just today because there were so many
inquiries for more sales. Her conclusion was that size was the attraction.

So who knows? I think the content should drive the print size
decision, and beyond that, for me, the impression the image structure
on paper makes. Even with that, there are no hard and fast rules. We
might think grain would be a limiting factor, but one look at a big
Ralph Gibson with that prominent sharp crystaline grain structure and
that theory has to be reviewed as well. A completely different, but
successful, kind of presence.

The point you make, about how you want people to experience the object
(the print) is really important too, intimate or overwhelming? Etc..

But then you've spent considerable time on image structure on paper as
well, as an artistic issue.
Tyler

A less discussed subject is compostion that is what i enjoy and if 
you capture the light reflecting or illuminating a subject both 
cameras can be excellent tools. So far people who comment on my 
photos enjoy the capturing of light. Larger maynot be best however 
the little bit of 4x5 film work i have done has been educational and 
enjoyable.

-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@... wrote:
>
> 
> In a message dated 5/29/07 4:13:23 PM, elvis24105@... writes:
> 
> 
> > i have shot 4x5 film scanned it and compared it to at least 
10megapix
> > camera and the 4x5 film shot with a std. 150mm scheinder 
rodenstock you
> > just can image the how much the 4x5 film blows away digital
> > 
> > 
> No, but I can well imagine how 4x5 film blows away that particular 
digital. 
> 16.7 megapixels will be a bit less blown away, and a hi-rez 
studioback will 
> hold its own quite nicely. Its all a   matter of how large a print 
you may ever 
> need... and how much you like or dislike film grain, for that 
matter.

> 
> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Unit
> Datacolor Inc.
> CDTobie@...
> www.colorvision.com
> 
> 
> **************************************
>  See what's free at 
> http://www.aol.com.
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Tyler Boley wrote:
> I think the content should drive the print size decision, and beyond that, for me, the impression the image structure on paper makes. Even with that, there are no hard and fast rules.
That, I think, is the heart of the issue. Small for small's sake is just 
as bad as large for large's sake. Print size should serve the image.

Part of what inkjet printing has done is to open up the range of sizes 
for many artists and many images. Back in my darkroom days, 20x16 inch 
prints were as big as I could go. Period. I had some images that might 
have done better printed bigger, but it wasn't an option.

Now, with inkjet printing, bigger images are at last an option for me. 
And that's a good thing. Especially if the print size serves the image.
--
Bruce Watson

no sorry just a comment what i am interested in is how to keep my highlight under control
  right now i am trying a ND filter on my camera and this seems to be working well. 

Mark Savoia <mark@...> wrote:
  Not this old tired subject of film vs digital again.
Nap time.
Mark

On May 29, 2007, at 4:08 PM, elvis24105 wrote:

> i have shot 4x5 film scanned it and compared it to at least 10megapix
> camera and the 4x5 film shot with a std. 150mm scheinder rodenstock 
> you
> just can image the how much the 4x5 film blows away digital
>
> just my two cents
>
> jerry
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "alan9990_6"
> wrote:
>>
>> Tyler,
>>
>> I find that an interesting comment coming from someone obviously able
>> to make the comparison. Are you able to provide links to any images
>> that might allow a direct visual comparison between very high end
>> digital and a piece of fim? That would say more than many words.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>> The idea of spending $35,000.00 on a capture system that still can't
>> touch a $2 sheet of film
>>> is so stupifyingly absurd I can't even begin considering it.
>>> Tyler
>>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by 
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages 
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed 
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules 
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the 
> group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” 
> in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE 
> “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL 
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER 
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL 
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF 
> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE 
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO 
> OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR 
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO 
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links





       
---------------------------------
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.

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

This weekend a couple of us went to a wonderful, new B&W gallery near
Atascadero, CA.  See http://www.b-wgallery.com/   They have one of the
nicest B&W collections I've seen lately, and they are all about 11 x 14.  If
you're in the Atascadero, CA area, be sure to take a look at this gallery.

 

For purposes of collecting, I think 11 x 14 is my favorite size.  The larger
ones are simply too hard to store.  An 11 x 14 up close has all the
information I think is needed.  

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tina
Manley
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:36 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Black and White landscape exhibit

 

At 04:12 PM 5/29/2007, you wrote:
>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.
>
>Regards,
>Clayton

Clayton -

That was also interesting to me. My photographs are almost all of 
people and I feel the same. It's much more intimate for someone to 
have to walk up to a photo and view it from a foot away rather than 
stand across the room to view a huge print. What I really prefer is 
for someone to hold my print in their hands to view. When I paid for 
a portfolio review, that was the advice of the three professional 
reviewers. My portfolio prints are 8x10 and are packed loose in a 
box so the viewer can hold them, sort them, and view them at inches 
rather than feet. I can understand that some landscape photos might 
be appropriate for huge prints but not my documentary photos.

Tina

Tina Manley
ASMP, NPPA, EP, PI
http://www.tinamanl <http://www.tinamanley.com> ey.com 

 



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

I am using a macbook pro and a viewsonic G810 monitor .
when using photoshop
the viewsonic is my monitor for the "image"
and the macbook pro is for the tools

I'm just wondering if anyone else is using a laptop and a second  
monitor and how they set them up?

I have my macbook in front and below  the viewsonic and things just  
feel a little strange...

before the macbook I used a G4 and two monitors side by side with no  
problem..

any suggestions?

Larry

I've a G5 with a 20 inch cinema display and a EIZO CG210. I use the Apple
display for most of the mundane work, text, email, surfing, etc. When I work
with PS CS2, any of the products in the suite, I put the images on the EIZO
after it's warmed up. I use the EIZO for pages when working with InDesign
and drawings in Illustrator. All the tools stay on the Apple LCD. 

 

I've a PC laptop with a 17 inch LCD. I connect the EIZO if I'm using
Dreamweaver and updating text on one site that needs updating every month.
I'll put the Word doc up on the EIZO and copy the text, then paste into the
web page on my laptop. I don't use my laptop too much for image editing but
when I do it's LCD does a fairly good job of matching my printer, an Epson
4800, without calibration. 

 

The one thing I do miss though is the rotation feature of the EIZO, I could
hold my laptop on its side the that's pretty cumbersome :-)

 

You know you can just "grab" either monitor that's displayed in the monitor
references and drag it to either side of you laptop? That way you can match
the movement of your mouse from left to right and even adjust the height of
the second display so the tops are even or the bottoms are even.

 

Good luck, Alan

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry
Ostrom
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:06 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] O.T. monitors

 

I am using a macbook pro and a viewsonic G810 monitor .
when using photoshop
the viewsonic is my monitor for the "image"
and the macbook pro is for the tools

I'm just wondering if anyone else is using a laptop and a second 
monitor and how they set them up?

I have my macbook in front and below the viewsonic and things just 
feel a little strange...

before the macbook I used a G4 and two monitors side by side with no 
problem..

any suggestions?

Larry

 



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

thanks Alan

the one thing I am really noticing is the difference between laptop  
LCD screen and the viewsonic CRT,,  the laptop has much more contrast  
and sharpness..  Also, I wear glasses at the computer and I'm trying  
to get both screens at the same distance +  I'm using a separate  
keyboard / mouse.
It's funny how one gets used to their "old" setup... and change takes  
a while to get used to.....

thanks again
Larry
PS... a G5 would be a good fix and just use the laptop in the field.

On May 29, 2007, at 4:03 PM, Larry Ostrom wrote:

> thanks Alan
>
> the one thing I am really noticing is the difference between laptop
> LCD screen and the viewsonic CRT,, the laptop has much more contrast
> and sharpness.. Also, I wear glasses at the computer and I'm trying
> to get both screens at the same distance + I'm using a separate
> keyboard / mouse.
> It's funny how one gets used to their "old" setup... and change takes
> a while to get used to.....
>
> thanks again
> Larry
> PS... a G5 would be a good fix and just use the laptop in the field.
Yes, a new G5 would make a great fix:)

Larry, somehow I missed that you're using a CRT with your laptop! IMHO
you'll NEVER get the CRT to match your laptop LCD, no matter how good the
CRT is. 

 

A CRT is usually not as sharp, especially when reading text, as an LCD, and
LCD's often are overly bright and high on contrast. When I profile both my
Apple and EIZO LCD's I force the brightness down quite a bit, otherwise my
prints were always way off - always to light if I remember correctly:-)

 

Good luck, Alan

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry
Ostrom
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 4:03 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] O.T. monitors

 

thanks Alan

the one thing I am really noticing is the difference between laptop 
LCD screen and the viewsonic CRT,, the laptop has much more contrast 
and sharpness.. Also, I wear glasses at the computer and I'm trying 
to get both screens at the same distance + I'm using a separate 
keyboard / mouse.
It's funny how one gets used to their "old" setup... and change takes 
a while to get used to.....

thanks again
Larry
PS... a G5 would be a good fix and just use the laptop in the field. 



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

One gallery owner I talked to surprised me.  I had thought that  
galleries were impressed with large sizes only.  He asked me "well,  
how big are your prints?", and I thought he wanted to hear me name a  
large size.  Before I could answer, though, he said "because I take  
shows all around the country, and the big prints cost me so much more  
to ship".  :   )    So sometimes size does indeed matter, but not in  
the way you might think.

In my experience, when I first went up from letter size to 11x14 in  
the wet darkroom, it was a revelation to me how much more striking  
the prints were to my eye- for essentially hand-holding.  For  
display, even larger sizes seem more appropriate, although I also  
have seen some enormous sized prints that I thought somewhat lost the  
image, as has been mentioned here.  I also have an image that I took  
in available light, hand-held up against a door jamb with an exposure  
time that really needed a tripod.  It looks quite effective as a  
small print, not much bigger than 5x7, probably.  Any larger than  
that, though, and the softness of the focus becomes distracting.

When I went to school, one of my teachers, David Wing, had a whole  
series of miniature prints- no more than an inch or two on either  
side.  I thought at the time that he'd done it as kind of a goof, but  
he maintained that the images were just as effective at that size as  
at any other.  Eye of the beholder.

James

John, you're absolutely right that this is a continuing trend, not something new. I did not 
word that well. I guess what I am a little discouraged by is not so much the large prints, 
per se - because I do appreciate many - but more that I am seeing a lot of emerging 
photographers fresh out of art school going straight for scale, and it gets me thinking. As 
someone who is trying to "emerge" herself, I keep track of as many juried exhibitions/
contests as I can, looking to see what the winners are offering. A high percentage of it is 
large prints. I just wonder what's behind that decision. I'd love to ask each person.

Sarah


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@...> 
wrote:

>
> I hate to break the news to you but this fad of large photographs is
> not recent. It started in California in the early 80's. One of my
> teachers in grad school, Will Larson, had this joke, "why are the
> color prints in California so big.. so you can see them from NY.
> 
> Well, when postmodernism hit Metro Pictures in NY and all those places
> started the larger  than life size type c print situation, Sherman and
> Prince, Skougland, and all that, around 1983 and it has been going
> strong every since. Jeff Wall, Gregory Kundsten, Andreas Gursky-
> http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2001/gursky/index.html, James Casabere
>   and Thomas Demand are only more recent examples of this. I believe
> it started as a way to compete with painting for both money and
> physical attention. It also offered something to put in big corporate
> spaces that people would buy. It would never have the intimacy of of
> Caponigro or Ansel's 8x10 contact print of Moonrise, it is something
> different alltogether. I like both realms for different reasons. There
> is nothing wrong with big prints in big spaces and small prints in
> intimate spaces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sagaface"
> <sagaface@> wrote:
> >
> > The current fad of ginormous prints at many NYC galleries has been a
> major peeve of 
> > mine.
>

john dean wrote:
> I hate to break the news to you but this fad of large photographs is
> not recent. It started in California in the early 80's. One of my
> teachers in grad school, Will Larson, had this joke, "why are the
> color prints in California so big.. so you can see them from NY.

It isn't restricted to photography or California either. In 
the early 80's I was one of the founders of a graphic 
artist's workshop here in the Netherlands. All kinds of 
printing. In the early 90's much of the equipment was 
already replaced by bigger models and that continues up to 
now. Lithography went partly from stone to zinc and aluminum 
for that reason alone. Big etching equipment, paper size up 
to 4 x 7 feet. Large silkscreen frames. Not that the art 
went along in quality. It was the same for paintings though 
but they are now at museum sizes that nobody can display 
them properly in the not so big Dutch houses, not the wisest 
marketing decision.


http://www.grafisch-atelier-daglicht.nl/html/kunst.htm


Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Alan you certainly are right,,, the CRT is not as sharp... reading  
this I can see the difference..

I guess it is also time for a new LCD monitor.

thanks again
Larry

Whoa there Larry, some of the very BEST color monitors were CRT's!!

 

I think most would agree the old Sony Artisan (20 inch?) with hood and it's
own colormeter was one of the best monitors ever produced! Unfortunately
Sony quit making them a few years ago and they nearly impossible to find. 

 

The Blue Lacie CRT was supposedly a close second to the Sony, I never used
either so this is all 2nd and 3rd hand:-)

 

One of the best LCD's on the market, one that displays the full AdobeRGB
colorspace, is the EIZO CG220 (I think that's the newest top end product)
but the darn thing costs $5,000 to $6,500!! And it's only 22.3 inches so big
is not necessarily better! I say that because some folks have fallen in love
with Apples big 30 inch LCD's.

 

The EIZO I have, the CG210, doesn't display the full AdobeRGB colorspace but
it was only $2,700! I couldn't afford the top tier LCD..

 

Anyway, look carefully before you leap <G>. I didn't replace my old Sony 20
CRT until I couldn't get it to calibrate any longer. The phosphors do burn
out in CRT's over time.

 

Alan 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry
Ostrom
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:59 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] O.T. monitors

 

Alan you certainly are right,,, the CRT is not as sharp... reading 
this I can see the difference..

I guess it is also time for a new LCD monitor.

thanks again
Larry 



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

--- 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
>

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
> >
>

I have held off here but I can’t resist any longer. I was working in
California back in the early 80’s and we made up to 40x50 silver gelatin
prints, 24x30 platinum and 30x40 Cibachrome prints (in a drum no less). Big
has its place but big can be 20x24. With a frame and matting, they command
plenty of real estate to show. Well crafted negs from 35mm can go that big
and look great. They will look somewhat different than a 4x5 or 2 ¼ but many
of my silver prints made from 35mm negs were thought by many to be from much
larger formats. Could it be in choosing subject matter? I’d say yes. There
are very nice things about a smaller portfolio or book. It can be a great
treasure sitting in the corner of the room on a shelf. I don’t want to admit
to all those times I have been scratching my head over where the &%@#&@ to
put my portfolio of collected and personal 30x40 prints. 

 

Monster home are in here in Texas and the wall space is waiting for
something.   I’d rather see smaller houses but I am not holding my breath.

 

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of djon43
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:26 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Black and White landscape exhibit

 

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 DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "steveh0607"
<steveh060758@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@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. <http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm>
net/digiprnarts.htm
> >
>

 



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

Kenna actually made some 16X20 (or so) for a brief time.  I heard he 
disliked them so much that he got as many back as he could, destroyed 
them all and went on his merry way making the smaller prints.  
He convinced me in the 80s (yes, he taught bak then) not to be afraid 
of printing small, and although I sometimes give in to temptation 
(16X20) I am usually very happy with my 5x7 on 14x18.  Of course the 
market isn't big on them and I have had several gallery owners and 
potential custoimers say "I'd like to see them bigger".   So much of 
it is a function of filling wall space in the huge houses everyone 
wants today.  Art as a design tool.  I think that is why so many 
people also say "black and white is my favorite" and then buy color!

Peter



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
> <cj@> wrote:
> ...
> > 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.
> 
> I often thought much of his work that I saw was over enlarged. But
> some of his better large negs at around 16x20 were really stunning.
> Back in the Friends of Photography workshop days they used to bring 
us
> through his home. There was a Mt. Williamson and a Tetons/Snake Rvr
> there at about 16x20 that far surpassed anything I saw in a museum 
or
> gallery, and his true level of accomplishment was suddenly very
> obvious, and I'm not even a fan.
> 
> ...
> > >Many are printing big simply because they can...
> > 
> > Or are pressured into it by gallery owners and/or buyers.
> 
> But then look at Michael Kenna. Despite a recent thread here he has 
to
> be one of the most successful contemporary fine art photographers
> right now. Even in this town, his shows sell really well. To my
> knowledge he's always just made those small prints, right? He's
> apparently always done what he wanted, I'll bet he's been pressured
> for larger.
> 
> On the other hand, a photographer I know that prints and exhibits 
all
> silver around 11x14 had me make a 40x50 recently for a commercial
> installation, and called just today because there were so many
> inquiries for more sales. Her conclusion was that size was the 
attraction.
> 
> So who knows? I think the content should drive the print size
> decision, and beyond that, for me, the impression the image 
structure
> on paper makes. Even with that, there are no hard and fast rules. We
> might think grain would be a limiting factor, but one look at a big
> Ralph Gibson with that prominent sharp crystaline grain structure 
and
> that theory has to be reviewed as well. A completely different, but
> successful, kind of presence.
> 
> The point you make, about how you want people to experience the 
object
> (the print) is really important too, intimate or overwhelming? Etc..
> 
> But then you've spent considerable time on image structure on paper 
as

> well, as an artistic issue.
> Tyler
>

Some of my work will be included in a three person show at Benham
Gallery here in Seattle-

http://benhamgallery.com/

In July and August. I have known Jeff for some time, we've gone on
shoot trips together, bounced work off each other, and I print his
large work as well. Our work is very different but equally reverent of
the land. His prints will be full Iris sheets, shadow boxed framed,
made on William Turner with the Selenium inks. They are very impressive.

http://www.jeffcorwinphotography.com/

Click on work/three to see his landscape approach.
Nick, who's prints I have not see, apparently makes small impressive
silver prints-

http://www.nicholaspavloff.com/

Mine will be around 19+ x 28, and use a variety of subtle ink blends,
all tending to the warmish.

http://tylerboley.com/FineArtPhotography/landscapes/thumbs.html

Both Jeff and Nick work with very strong tonalities, mine very subtle.
Between the different processes, print size impacts, tonalities, etc.
I think it's going to be a very interesting show from the standpoint
of print aesthetics, and also approach to the landscape. Also, ink and
silver together.

I'll do one more reminder post closer to the date.

Thanks, don't mean to hype, it's just an opportunity to see a lot of
digital B&W printing.

Tyler

I really wish I could be there for that show Tyler. There's a chance I
may be in Frisco early August. Hmm...If my schedule permits I may have
to check for local flight up your way.
-- 
amadou diallo
Author, Mastering Digital Black and White
www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com

Amadou won't stoop to my crase commercialism to tell you all about his
show in July-
http://www.diallophotography.com/exhibitions.html

Definitely worth a visit.

Would be great to see you, a salmon dinner would be in order. I hate
to tell you though, I think you've seen all the prints <G>, well, mine
anyway.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "amadou diallo"
<amadiallo@...> wrote:

>
> I really wish I could be there for that show Tyler. There's a chance I
> may be in Frisco early August. Hmm...If my schedule permits I may have
> to check for local flight up your way.
> -- 
> amadou diallo
> Author, Mastering Digital Black and White
> www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com
>

Just a note of thanks, and expression of appreciation for this Group.

Back in May, I made a mental note of the gallery exhibit Tyler Boley
mentioned, thinking I might get a chance to see it. Well, I did find
myself in Seattle a couple of weeks ago and managed to see the very
nice digital B&W prints of Tyler, Jeff Corwin and Nicholas Pavloff at
the Benham Gallery. I found the exhibit inspiring and informative, I
appreciate knowing about it. Thanks, Tyler! I have been asked to
exhibit at a local gallery in September, and will include a number of
number of digital B&W as well as color prints. The B&W prints and
presentation will be influenced by what I saw at the Benham Gallery in
Seattle.

I have learned much from this Group, and hope one of these days I can
contribute something of value. 

Howard

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:

>
> Some of my work will be included in a three person show at Benham
> Gallery here in Seattle-
> 
> http://benhamgallery.com/
> 
> In July and August. I have known Jeff for some time, we've gone on
> shoot trips together, bounced work off each other, and I print his
> large work as well. Our work is very different but equally reverent of
> the land. His prints will be full Iris sheets, shadow boxed framed,
> made on William Turner with the Selenium inks. They are very impressive.
> 
> http://www.jeffcorwinphotography.com/
> 
> Click on work/three to see his landscape approach.
> Nick, who's prints I have not see, apparently makes small impressive
> silver prints-
> 
> http://www.nicholaspavloff.com/
> 
> Mine will be around 19+ x 28, and use a variety of subtle ink blends,
> all tending to the warmish.
> 
> http://tylerboley.com/FineArtPhotography/landscapes/thumbs.html
> 
> Both Jeff and Nick work with very strong tonalities, mine very subtle.
> Between the different processes, print size impacts, tonalities, etc.
> I think it's going to be a very interesting show from the standpoint
> of print aesthetics, and also approach to the landscape. Also, ink and
> silver together.
> 
> I'll do one more reminder post closer to the date.
> 
> Thanks, don't mean to hype, it's just an opportunity to see a lot of
> digital B&W printing.
> 
> Tyler
>

Howard, just wanted to make clear that Nicholas Pavloff's work is
silver, no digital involved.
Thank you very much for the comments, the show is extended a week or
so from the original schedule.
Congratulation on your exhibit.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
"howardhamilton3333" <howardhamilton@...> wrote:
>
> Just a note of thanks, and expression of appreciation for this Group.
> 
> Back in May, I made a mental note of the gallery exhibit Tyler Boley
> mentioned, thinking I might get a chance to see it. Well, I did find
> myself in Seattle a couple of weeks ago and managed to see the very
> nice digital B&W prints of Tyler, Jeff Corwin and Nicholas Pavloff at
> the Benham Gallery. I found the exhibit inspiring and informative, I
> appreciate knowing about it. Thanks, Tyler! I have been asked to
> exhibit at a local gallery in September, and will include a number of
> number of digital B&W as well as color prints. The B&W prints and
> presentation will be influenced by what I saw at the Benham Gallery in
> Seattle.
> 
> I have learned much from this Group, and hope one of these days I can
> contribute something of value. 
> 
> Howard
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
> <tyler@> wrote:
> >
> > Some of my work will be included in a three person show at Benham
> > Gallery here in Seattle-
> > 
> > http://benhamgallery.com/
> > 
> > In July and August. I have known Jeff for some time, we've gone on
> > shoot trips together, bounced work off each other, and I print his
> > large work as well. Our work is very different but equally reverent of
> > the land. His prints will be full Iris sheets, shadow boxed framed,
> > made on William Turner with the Selenium inks. They are very
impressive.

> > 
> > http://www.jeffcorwinphotography.com/
> > 
> > Click on work/three to see his landscape approach.
> > Nick, who's prints I have not see, apparently makes small impressive
> > silver prints-
> > 
> > http://www.nicholaspavloff.com/
> > 
> > Mine will be around 19+ x 28, and use a variety of subtle ink blends,
> > all tending to the warmish.
> > 
> > http://tylerboley.com/FineArtPhotography/landscapes/thumbs.html
> > 
> > Both Jeff and Nick work with very strong tonalities, mine very subtle.
> > Between the different processes, print size impacts, tonalities, etc.
> > I think it's going to be a very interesting show from the standpoint
> > of print aesthetics, and also approach to the landscape. Also, ink and
> > silver together.
> > 
> > I'll do one more reminder post closer to the date.
> > 
> > Thanks, don't mean to hype, it's just an opportunity to see a lot of
> > digital B&W printing.
> > 
> > Tyler
> >
>

Tyler, thanks for the correction, I didn't notice that Nicholas' works
were silver! On the positive side, I guess my lack of observation says
something about the quality of the digital prints.
Howard


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> Howard, just wanted to make clear that Nicholas Pavloff's work is
> silver, no digital involved.
> Thank you very much for the comments, the show is extended a week or
> so from the original schedule.
> Congratulation on your exhibit.
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> "howardhamilton3333" <howardhamilton@> wrote:
> >
> > Just a note of thanks, and expression of appreciation for this Group.
> > 
> > Back in May, I made a mental note of the gallery exhibit Tyler Boley
> > mentioned, thinking I might get a chance to see it. Well, I did find
> > myself in Seattle a couple of weeks ago and managed to see the very
> > nice digital B&W prints of Tyler, Jeff Corwin and Nicholas Pavloff at
> > the Benham Gallery. I found the exhibit inspiring and informative, I
> > appreciate knowing about it. Thanks, Tyler! I have been asked to
> > exhibit at a local gallery in September, and will include a number of
> > number of digital B&W as well as color prints. The B&W prints and
> > presentation will be influenced by what I saw at the Benham Gallery in
> > Seattle.
> > 
> > I have learned much from this Group, and hope one of these days I can
> > contribute something of value. 
> > 
> > Howard
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
> > <tyler@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Some of my work will be included in a three person show at Benham
> > > Gallery here in Seattle-
> > > 
> > > http://benhamgallery.com/
> > > 
> > > In July and August. I have known Jeff for some time, we've gone on
> > > shoot trips together, bounced work off each other, and I print his
> > > large work as well. Our work is very different but equally
reverent of
> > > the land. His prints will be full Iris sheets, shadow boxed framed,
> > > made on William Turner with the Selenium inks. They are very
> impressive.
> > > 
> > > http://www.jeffcorwinphotography.com/
> > > 
> > > Click on work/three to see his landscape approach.
> > > Nick, who's prints I have not see, apparently makes small impressive
> > > silver prints-
> > > 
> > > http://www.nicholaspavloff.com/
> > > 
> > > Mine will be around 19+ x 28, and use a variety of subtle ink
blends,
> > > all tending to the warmish.
> > > 
> > > http://tylerboley.com/FineArtPhotography/landscapes/thumbs.html
> > > 
> > > Both Jeff and Nick work with very strong tonalities, mine very
subtle.
> > > Between the different processes, print size impacts, tonalities,
etc.
> > > I think it's going to be a very interesting show from the standpoint
> > > of print aesthetics, and also approach to the landscape. Also,
ink and

> > > silver together.
> > > 
> > > I'll do one more reminder post closer to the date.
> > > 
> > > Thanks, don't mean to hype, it's just an opportunity to see a lot of
> > > digital B&W printing.
> > > 
> > > Tyler
> > >
> >
>