Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,900   Posts: 1,584,389   Online: 672
      
Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 178
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, Western Suburbs
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,466
    Dear fastw,

    Very often large prints are used where the viewer stands farther away. I doubt seriously that anyone could appreciate a 40"x60" print with their nosed bumping against it. ;>) Further, the loss of detail and print coarseness can actually enhance the image.

    My point is simply that there is essentially no limit if the result works for the application.

    Neal Wydra

  2. #12
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,675
    Images
    344
    Presumably even if the original is on a 35mm negative, this could then be printed to about 20” X 16” scanned and photographic interpolation introduced for making larger prints through digital output. But I’m not sure if the original post refers to just silver prints at that size?

    “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”

    Francis Bacon

  3. #13
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Noble View Post
    Before you go off on a protracted argument can we at least establish whether Steve McCurry is even selling 35mm film prints in 40"x60" sizes? I mean he has taken literally hundreds of thousands of photographs (or more) and there are about 100 available for sale on his website. The guy has his own page on the Hasselblad website! Some bad information about the artist may have been posted on the internet. Why don't we establish the facts before we argue?
    http://stevemccurry.com/fine-art-prints In his current PDF catalog available on that page (where he shows to offer 40x60 prints) the Women Gathering Clover photo is available, that was shot 1997.

    http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?V...D=2K7O3R1PTTRR

    While not absolutely definitive, it seems the probability is truly very high that that was shot on 35mm Kodachrome.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  4. #14
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Presumably even if the original is on a 35mm negative, this could then be printed to about 20” X 16” scanned and photographic interpolation introduced for making larger prints through digital output. But I’m not sure if the original post refers to just silver prints at that size?
    No we don't know how they get from A to B.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    http://stevemccurry.com/fine-art-prints In his current PDF catalog available on that page (where he shows to offer 40x60 prints) the Women Gathering Clover photo is available, that was shot 1997.

    http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?V...D=2K7O3R1PTTRR

    While not absolutely definitive, it seems the probability is truly very high that that was shot on 35mm Kodachrome.
    I checked out the guy's catalog and he does market some Kodachrome images. I would have to imagine though the people that buy those 40"x60" images know what they are getting. They are fine art prints signed by the artist and come with a letter of authenticity... Which leads me to believe $$$. I can't believe outside of wealthy individuals or large organizations there is much demand for that type of 40"x60" print. I personally don't own anything that size and I can't imagine ever printing my work at that size. I don't see a lot of chatter on this website about printing at that size let alone with 35mm film. I'm certainly aware that people make billboards from 35mm film but that was one of those "special circumstances" that I referred to. What I said about most of the better photographers on this website is in my opinion true. If you did a survey of the forum membership and asked them whether ANY of their work had been printed at 40"x60" for anything other than advertising or some other special circumstance I can't imagine a majority of the people would say yes. And in the billion "how much can I enlarge x size negative" threads I don't think the balance of opinions contradicts anything I've said. When trying to figure out what formats to settle on I read a lot of those threads.

  6. #16
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,560
    Images
    300

    40x60'' prints from 35 mm.

    If you're so hung up on a certain type of print quality that you don't appreciate a work of art because of a lack of it, then don't purchase the work.

    Everything is relative, and there are very many people who appreciate photography based on qualities other than graininess and resolution. I would wager to say that most people appreciate a picture based on content, expression, and how it affects them emotionally.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    If you're so hung up...
    I don't think making an objective factual statement about the majority of the forum makes someone "hung up." If someone asks me why medium format, large format, and ultra large format exist I will tell them the truth. What I shoot and print personally is immaterial. Physics is physics.

  8. #18
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,560
    Images
    300

    40x60'' prints from 35 mm.

    Have fun with the physics.

    I wasn't replying directly to you., Noble.

    I'm just providing a different view of why such big prints might exist, regardless of what camera was used. Prints of that size can indeed be made from a small negative. I've seen it done, and it sold. It was a photograph of Mount Everest from a fly-by, using 35mm Tri-X. Printed by Pete Spilde at the now defunct ImageTech Solutions in Minneapolis. 4x5 feet. The buyer thought it was good enough, and I thought it came out really well. Probably couldn't have done that with an 8x10.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  9. #19
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Noble you are making lots of assumptions without the facts, you have no idea what the rest of the forum thinks or if there is a majority on your side.

    The local to me photo gallery supports itself on selling work by the "well knowns" like McCurry, HCB..., regardless of what is shown up front. The grand majority of their revenue comes from new homeowners or those who have just remodeled filling their walls, not necessarily rich people, just comfortable. Empty nesters, retired, etc...

    Seriously, if you spend 50k on a remodel to repair all the wear and tear of 20+ years of kids in the house, and 10-20k on new furnishings now that the kids are gone and dogs are old enough not to ruin everything, what's another 2-4k for a 2-4 truly iconic big photos to enjoy and impress your buddies.

    I'm not to the point of printing that large yet but I have printed at that magnification from 35mm and it can provide some really interesting characteristics. What is special about that to me is that those characteristics are available to me whenever I please. Those characteristics aren't faults or defects, they are just characteristics. They aren't intrinsically good or bad, they just are.

    What I can say with confidence is that your definition of good work and mine are different. Heck my definition/expectations of good can change in the blink of an eye.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Noble View Post
    It matters. We should be telling the truth about people's art on the internet. I really wouldn't appreciate it if I went through the time trouble and expense to create a particular piece of artwork with what I perceived to be the very highest practical quality materials and then someone came along and started claiming it was produced with some other low cost common material. If someone likes making 40"x60" prints from 35mm negatives that's their business but if this guy is using a digital Hasselblad people shouldn't be going around implying it is 35mm film. Some of the 40"x60" source material appears on the Hasselblad website. Are there shots in the gallery that the OP, you or anyone else can say for certain came from a 35mm negative? If not then what exactly is being discussed?!


    hey noble

    sorry to sound like a stick in your craw ( seems that we sometimes but heads here on apug )
    but i wasn't arguing about whether or not he used a digital hasselblad or whatever, i was specifically talking about
    his 35mm frames that were very large.
    and i still don't really see what the issue is ...
    if someone wants to print ( or have his/her work printed ) that size good for them!
    if they want to do that using old school technology ( wet darkroom ) good for them!
    if they want to use modern hybrid technique .. good for them!
    and if someone wants to pay money for these prints ( or look at them i n a gallery or museum ) that is great.
    i am sure the people buying large prints, no matter how they are made, know exactly what they are paying for ...
    for these people it is every bit an investment as it is something to look at on their wall ( or lend out ) ...

    so, it still doesn't matter one bit to me ...


    if someone suggested they were enlarging 35mm film &c and SELLING / REPRESENTING his/her work as that,
    but it was something completely different ( digital hassy as you had mentioned ) that is something completely different.
    its about trust, and it's not right to misrepresent one's work.
    one sees a lot of that sort of thing online ... digi shots with fake film rebates added post-production ..
    if this is what was being talked about in this thread, i would take issue, but large prints from film?

    i'm fond of pointalist and impressionistic paintings, whats not to like about that sort of photograph?

    john

Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin