I sometimes wonder how big or how small prints other photographers make. I know it depends on motive - negative and so on.
In addition to this I have always been restricted by the sizes of my developing trays, which make prints larger than 50x70 cm problematic..
However, tonight I thought to He"" with it - I am not going to let that hinder me, so I have just made my biggest prints ever...
Messy, but rather addictive, I think.
Liquid emulsion on 600 grms paper - size of paper: 70x110 cm (ca 27,5x43,3").
what about you? how big do you go - and how do you print larger than large?
I've taken delta 400, tmax 400 and hp5+ up 16x20. But you have to really enjoy the grain.
usually 11x14, sometimes 16x20. I like sharp prints so much of the time bigger prints don't have the detail I'm looking for so I go only as big as I can. That was with a 4x5 enlarger. Now that I have my 10x10 set up I plan to do some larger work until I run out of money. I'm going to try doing them in my 3063 jobo drum and wallpaper trays. Washing becomes the issue so I may make one large tray from 1/4" ABS.
I know what I want but I just don't know how to go about gettin' it.-Hendrix
I can print up to 16x20.
Usually, I print 8x10 or 11x14. Anything larger, I'll have issues finding a place to display it. Also, being 35mm film user, I'll need to know I'm going to print BIG before I shoot so that I can choose an appropriate film. My practical limit is 11x14.
I do print small sometimes, usually on request.
Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?
I've done the extremes printing 5"x4" smaller than the negatives by reduction (about 3" wide) and up to about 18ft wide, The larger images were using a commercial liquid emulsion designed specifically for spray application, it needed airline respiration and fume extraction, so not normal darkroom use.
These days I make a few exhibition images 20"x24 but if I had a specific project I'd go larger if it made sense for the project.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I have some trays for 32x40 inch prints. The trays are about 34.5x42.5 inches. They weren't cheap (about $125 each, when buying 6 at a time), but they work better than my old roll 'em method. Roll 'em works fine for RC, but is much more difficult with fiber. I also do some which are about 21x58 inches. I have no problem rolling them, even in fiber.
Emil- I'm still working on getting my liquid emulsion right, but the goal is very large prints.
For regular prints from 35mm film, I use 13x18cm (5x7") and 30x40cm (12x16") for the very best ones.
The biggest one was a 50x50cm (20x20") from medium format film, but that's as far as I can go with 40x50cm trays. Moving the print evently all the time wasn't exactly easy, but in the end, it came out ok. I don't find this kind of size neccesary unless you actually present your work in a big gallery. What good is a 24x36" print when you put it in your living room and view it from from an arm's length away. I prefer a well-made 5x7" or 8x10" that you can hold in your hand and view up close.
You can't (or I can't) make rolling development with liquid emulsion - and certainly not with 600grms paper...
Originally Posted by eddie
We can get large trays for graphic purposes here in DK, but I think the price you payed for 6 would be less than the cost of one here....
Liquid emulsion ROCKS!
I am quite fond of the old whole plate size, but with photography size does not really matter as you can print as small or as large as you like.
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”