Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,224   Posts: 1,532,636   Online: 907
      
Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 12345678913 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 178
  1. #21
    ParkerSmithPhoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    801
    Images
    6
    The High Museum recently acquired a 68x50 Silver print by Salgado which I saw last week and it is magnificent. Grainy as hell, but beautiful. I think the "Fine Print" aesthetic is pushed primarily by people who don't really have much to say in photography.

    As for quality, McCurry's prints are digital prints and not optical. From his Hasselblad page:

    Over the years, I’ve shot most of my film images with Kodachrome. My studio has used the Hasselblad Flextight 848 scanner to scan and backup my 800,000 transparencies. After the images are scanned, we archive them and post them to our online database.
    Only a masochist would try and make a 40x60 optical print from a slide, and the results would always be inferior to a drum scan with digital output, no matter how skilled the technician.
    Parker Smith Photography, Inc.
    Atlanta, GA

    Commercial & Fine Art Photography
    Portrait Photography

  2. #22
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,196
    Images
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by ParkerSmithPhoto View Post
    I think the "Fine Print" aesthetic is pushed primarily by people who don't really have much to say in photography.
    AA?

    “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. #23
    ParkerSmithPhoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    801
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    AA?
    Not Ansel, but the millions of Ansel wannabes who shoot boring photos with 8x10 cameras and then say "I shot it on 8x10!" as if that makes it significant.
    Parker Smith Photography, Inc.
    Atlanta, GA

    Commercial & Fine Art Photography
    Portrait Photography

  4. #24
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,665
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    AA?
    IMO AA did a lot for photography and taught us a lot but his standards and style, have for lack of a better description become a technical standard for his followers, some would even suggest that it has become a religion.

    I am glad to have the knowledge he provided but I have no interest in being constrained by his standards or style.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    hey noble

    sorry to sound like a stick in your craw ( seems that we sometimes but heads here on apug )
    Don't worry about it. I didn't even notice. If I disagree with someone on one topic it doesn't mean I don't agree with them on a bunch of others. And I suspect a lot of the disagreements I've encountered are one's of semantics.

    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    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
    I think in general I agree with you. The photographer in question is a big name photography with a business and a reputation to protect. Maybe my first post in the thread didn't come out right. My assumption when I recognized his art was that he knew what he was doing. I was just kind of thinking aloud and trying to figure it out. That's what all the Hasselblad, Billboard, rich people talk was about.

    I just think when someone asks a question like the OP having a more nuanced conversation and explaining to the person that there may be plenty of special circumstances where such a print would be made from a 35mm negative is more constructive. Someone's comment about me "sticking my nose up to a print" was ridiculous and misleading. I didn't mind it because I shoot and print multiple formats so I know what their prints look like, but I had to start somewhere. And one of the places I went for information when I was looking to move up in formats was this forum. Obviously if you make a 5' print from a 35mm negative you are not necessarily going to have to "stick your nose up to the print" to see grain.

    And you are correct there is a subjective factor in all of this where there is no right or wrong answer. I just think we can dispassionately lay out the objective stuff and then say there are a wide range of subjective tastes. Some people like it and some people find it distracting or whatever. I just felt people rushed in and I wasn't even sure about the veracity of the OP's statement. It turned out a lot of the images weren't even film of any type.

  6. #26
    nicholai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Kolding, Denmark
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    294
    Last year, i went to visit Oliver Rolf from Platinum, and he showed me an image, that i would guess its around 30x40" made from a half-frame negative. I loved it, and of course it was taken with an Olympus Pen. He would make a point that as long as the camera and lens is good enough, it will not matter. I cannot say this for sure, but i would even believe it was made with Tri-X, he has an affinity for that film. Not without reason of course. Not to mention that because of the distance you will need to properly view these images, you will not notice anything at all.

    (and if you do your math, 30x40 is half 40x60, so thats the exact same "resolution" you will be getting from a full-frame neg enlarged to 40x60)
    Nicholai Nissen
    Kolding, Denmark
    nicholainissen@gmail.com

  7. #27
    darkosaric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,663
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post

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

    Yes, it was Kodachrome, and it was taken with 105mm f2.5 nikkor. Last year I was in Rome on McCurry exhibition and I saw hose huge prints from 35mm: when you look from distance of 3 meters and more - they look just fine.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    210
    Used to shoot windmills, architecture etc. with 35mm KB-14 and print to 20x24 no problem. (Nikon F with 135 mm F 3.5. )

  9. #29
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,665
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by darkosaric View Post
    Yes, it was Kodachrome, and it was taken with 105mm f2.5 nikkor. Last year I was in Rome on McCurry exhibition and I saw hose huge prints from 35mm: when you look from distance of 3 meters and more - they look just fine.
    I have that lens.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  10. #30
    Patrick Robert James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    252
    Images
    35
    I have seen bigger prints than that made from 35mm from great scanners. Optically it would be difficult but doable. In general when I read something can't be done I usually think the person stating it doesn't know how, so assumes it can't be done, or believes all the crap that is written on the internet. To say that a large negative is needed for a large print is completely ignoring the most important aspect of any image which is the content. I once saw one of Capa's D-Day images printed to 8 feet or so. Still amazing!

Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 12345678913 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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