Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/06/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Jun 2, 2009, at 12:06 PM, George Lottermoser wrote: > Dave > > Indeed we could discuss > scale > and > context > in art and photography > for days. > > I experience Weston (and other's) contact prints, > down to 4x5, as amazing, glowing little jewels. > > We've grown accustomed to experiencing Adams' prints > as large prints, posters and huge books. > > Recent "art" photographs seem to "huge" no matter what or why > as if size were the point. And, indeed, almost any photograph > blown up to 40x60 will impress the eye for a while. > > My sculpture professor said, > "the human head should never be sculpted larger than life size; > and preferably slightly smaller." and I recall that Camille Claudel believed this, strongly... Steve > > Choosing the appropriate size for a photographic image, > painting, drawing, sculpture, et al is as important an aesthetic > decision > as all the other decisions involved in the process. > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george at imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > On Jun 2, 2009, at 10:05 AM, David Rodgers wrote: > >> George, >> >> Good point. It's not practical to do much micro dodging or burning >> in a >> 4x6. >> >> I've always been somewhat fascinated by print size; more specifically >> why some images work better printed smaller, and others work better >> printed larger. Sure there are general rules, like large negs make >> better large prints, but there are factors that go well beyond that. >> I've seen gorgeous 5x7 contract prints. I've seen gorgeous 24x36 inch >> prints from 35mm. >> >> Making large prints from small negatives isn't easy (and it's not >> something I've ever been good at). The margin for error anywhere >> along >> the workflow is slim. >> >> I'm referring mainly to BW film. There's nothing like a big >> enlargement >> of a well composed, well focused, well developed, well enlarged 35mm >> Tri-X negative. There's a character -- due to grain or other >> factors -- >> that can't be duplicated with digital. Or maybe it can and I've >> just not >> seen it. >> >> A really good image, though, will work in just about any print size, >> although most negs have technical limits. If a 16x20 from 35mm looks >> good, someone is doing everything right. > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information