[Leica] bigger IS better!!

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

On 9/26/04 1:55 PM, "Richard F. Man" <richard-lists@imagecraft.com> typed:

> For years, I have been making 8x10 prints (from the inkjet) since they are
> big enough for me. As some of you may remember, I like to take pictures of
> costumers, and 8x10 serve fine for that function - if any costumers were to
> buy any prints, 8x10 is as large as they want (or afford since they spend
> all their money on costuming materials!) Another photog though, loves to
> print 11x14 and 13x19. He uses the behemoth 1Ds (the interesting thing is
> that while he has nice zoom lens, he is now mainly using prime like the
> 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 to get the "highest quality"). I think the 13x19" are
> sort of too big. Especially when he carries two 13x19 portfolio AND his 1Ds
> around. Definitely would build up arm muscles.
> 
> 11x14 - now that's something else. I print some this weekend. Most of them
> are Provia 100F slides taken with the M7. Wow! Bigger is better. Nice
> impact. Very clean. Not much grain. Just the perfect size to carry around
> in portfolios.
> 
I agree. And God forbid if anything one did would get darkroom printed then
that fits in the same stack or box or book.
I'm standardized at 11x14's.
I don't know anyone else who is anymore.

Right now I'm cutting down Hahnam?hle inkjet FineArt Paper Photo Rag Smooth
Surface 188gm2 11x17 down to 11x14 with a big cutter I've got. Printing with
the Epson 2200. I thought the 4000 would be in the near future but we'll
see.
If we move to THAT printer then 13x19's are peanuts. Tidbits. Shavings.
The proofs you make to get a proof.
So I try to keep that in mind.
But I haven't let it drive me crazy.

But some things I'm going to just leave 11x17 and not cut down to 11x14 and
I've got a 11x17 box for that last week which they just came out with. A
black one which is a tad to thick. Also I saw a case which is 11x17 made by
the Swiss Army knife people at the mountain store in my neighborhood. But at
that size I'd almost want it to be a backpack.

13x19 is getting to be quite a popular and common size for Inkjetting.
The guy who works in the camera store I go to all the time is standardized
at that size. Super A3/B. People just call them 13x19s. I think "13x19" is
going to be in the next Webster unabridged dictionary.

Still A3s seem to me to be pretty obvious.
They are just 11x14's on a small does of steroids.
11.7x16.5"

While the 13x19's I think of as 16x20's to the "dwarfed" power.

11x17's though are called "ledger".
Scrooge and Bartelby both or known to work exclusively on that size paper
and swear by it.
So instead of your prints being letters they are ledgers.
That's either better or worse. Easily worse.
It always bugged me about "letter sized" prints.
What an insult!
How confusing!
Are you making a letter or a photograph?
It kind of turns in my head inkjet printers into type writers.
A compliment they don't deserve but Malcolm Mcluhan where are you?

That's why I avoid them like the plague.

Still a Ledger print is the closest any paper comes to being a Golden
Rectangle. To be an totally accurate golden rectangle all it would need
would be an extra .82 of an inch on the long side.
Something to be said for that I'm sure. Just ask Pythagoras or one of those
guys.
In other words its still not quite long enough.
Hard to believe.
It's a great shape for full length shots of people on the white backdrop.
They look lean and mean and not boxy.
People like that. I can vouch for that.
And makes local models look like supermodels.

The portfolio companies are slowly coming around to the conclusion that the
reason why the are not dong any business any more is that no one wants 8x10
or 11x14 or 16x20 portfolios or boxes that size or books anymore.
They want inkjet sizes at least just as much.
But that one company just came out with that 11x17 box.
I snapped it up greedily.

You know those 11x14's with the 3 inch extension!?



Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/