Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/06/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]One of the past criticisms of photographs was their inability to dominate a wall like large paintings. The notion is that the very large image removes the photographers relationship to the subject so the viewer can have a more personalized relationship (I think I got that right?). Which is what modern painting seems to accomplish. Ansel had tried his hand with making very large photographs that looked like his normal size images from the appropriate distance. The result was a very different technique then the one he normally used. From afar the images look like typical Adams but up close they are less then ideal. Unlike say a Pollak which can be enjoyed up close as well as from afar. Adams technique would be well worth studying for clues into psychological response to image viewing. This was also addressed via photo collage and today this is being conquered by Jeff Wall, talk about ontology, and others with digital high res scanning and printing. Now technology allows very large wall dominating photographs which can also be enjoyed up close in detail. At 11:05 AM 6/2/2009, you 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. > >DaveR > >-----Original Message----- >From: George Lottermoser [mailto:imagist3 at mac.com] >Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 5:45 PM >To: Leica Users Group >Subject: Re: [Leica] Salgado now great image/camera ? > >You're right Dave. > >I failed to consider the "Great Photograph" post card market. > >still I have a hard time imagining Ansel "performing" the minox >negative. >dodging and burning 4x6 prints ain't easy >requires making a whole new set of miniature dodge and burn tools > >Regards, >George Lottermoser >george at imagist.com >http://www.imagist.com >http://www.imagist.com/blog >http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > >On Jun 1, 2009, at 4:28 PM, David Rodgers wrote: > > >>> "Moonrise" by Ansel Adams > > would not be a "truly great photo" > > if made with a minox<< > > > > > > I'm not so sure about that, George. It would have made a great 4x6. > > The > > headlines "Ansel Adams goes Small Format" alone would have given it > > the > > press coverage it needed to attain notoriety...and greatness :-) > > > > DaveR > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information Chris Saganich MS, CPH Senior Physicist, Office of Health Physics Weill Medical College of Cornell University New York Presbyterian Hospital chs2018 at med.cornell.edu http://intranet.med.cornell.edu/research/health_phys/ Ph. 212.746.6964 Fax. 212.746.4800 Office A-0049