Of course 35mm could be blown up directly. That's what blazingly hot mural enlargers were for; and there was even a franchise in a number of cities with a tower outside the bldg which looked like a grain
silo, and was basically a huge vertical enlarger. Pro labs used big horizontal enlargers. But the correct
way to do it was to enlarge your small image onto an 8x1 to 12x16 interneg or dupe chrome first, depending. Nowadays I could just walk into the CBS Outdoor Adv Co down the street and they'd scan
something and put it on either a traditional or digital billboard. That kind of thing is disgusting enough
cluttering our outdoor space. I don't know why anyone would want it indoors too.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
In my tiny little photo corner of the world, it is really difficult to say no when somebody wants the equivalent of a 4.5x3 foot print from one of my 35mm negatives. I don't sell much work, especially recently, but was approached by somebody who wanted a print from one 35mm negative as three vertical pieces, each 1.5 x 3 feet, where all three sections together work out to be 60x36" panel, with the same crop as my original 18x12" print, except for the 3inch space between each section... I ended up telling him no, even though it was a good opportunity. Perhaps I should have sold it that way, to make some money back from this vocation, but silly me thought my integrity was more important. I'll probably regret it.
I can understand why McCurry wouldn't mind selling a 60x40 print. As long as he gets paid for it and he doesn't mind having his pictures exist in that size, good for him!
"Make good art!"
- Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera".
- Yousuf Karsh
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit".
In my furniture schlepping/college days I saw plenty homes in places like Vail, CO where you'd need 60x40 just so the image wouldn't get lost above the fireplace.
Originally Posted by Neal
I photograph things to see what things look like photographed.
- Garry Winogrand
There are a lot of houses like that these days.
Originally Posted by semi-ambivalent
Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
Viewing distance is not necessarily a myth. For really gigantic prints that are meant to hang on the wall of a big auditorium or transit station or whatever, of course you are going to be seeing them from farther away, so it makes sense that they can have grain up close.
I sometimes think maybe we should speak more in terms of angular view than actual size, but I'm sure that would be confusing.
For prints meant to hang on home walls or gallery walls or such, sure you can make a 40x60 print from 35mm. You can also hang an outboard engine on a bathtub and call it a motorboat and if you plug the drain carefully it will probably even work, after a fashion.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The old Colorama prints were way up high. Now you walk into an airport and there are huge prints everywhere which look like fuzzballs.
Leave it to Avedon to start that accursed crossover from advertising genre into "fine art". Now its on steroids. Yeah... these neo-rich shale
oil types are building huge ugly sheetrock boxes and need big photographs to match their collection of Elvis rugs. Or you've got these Vegas and Miami types who hired the same architect as designed the movie set of Scarface, and they want some big loud atrocity to match the
color of ribbons on their poodles. But the average joe can just walk into an Ikea and plop down a couple hundred bucks for a huge photographic image, and it will probably look more professional than anything Peter Lik sells for fifteen grand.
Or you could even race the bathtub: http://www.nanaimo-info.com/gpage13.html
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Perhaps a stupid newbie question, but where does one find paper that big? I've not run into it in my travels yet.
The maximum size Ilfochrome Classic prints I produced from 35mm (transparency) was 46x30.5cm. Beyond this, the optical fall-off is too pronounced.
I wouldn't besmirch Rowell's substantial body of work that still gets people running for the cameras trying to imitate him. His records of the landscape were inspiring, and often imperfect, but he was the right person there at the right time and made the name and product for others to look up to.
.::Gary Rowan Higgins
One beautiful image is worth
a thousand hours of therapy.
"It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government
to save the environment."
Ilford produces B & W paper up to 56" wide in rolls. Kodak produces colour paper up to 72".
Why are there no speaker jacks on a stereo camera?