I contact print using alt processes. The bigger the neg, the bigger the print.
And it is a lot of fun...
Because the logical extension of your answer would be to take the position that any artist who feels the need for greater levels of technical perfection in the use of his chosen medium (in order to more clearly express his vision in whatever medium that might be) cannot, by definition, create a work of art.
i can only speak from personal experience, and seeing works of art made by elementary school children.
often times it is not having any clue about what is right and wrong, what is good technique and bad which leads to great art.
i think it was picasso who said that his main gist was to create art like a child.
for me at least ... the only thing gotten from a technically perfect photograph, is a technically perfect photograph, and i find that to be a bore ... just a "document"
"art" happens when there is human touch, mistakes and imperfection ( like wabi sabi ) otherwise a robot can make art, and elephants couldn't ...
i could be wrong ...
I was referring to detail and cost per frame (35-50c vs $1.80, for first-rate films), not per area so I think we mostly agree here. I have a pair of 16x20" prints on my cubicle wall: one from 6x7 TMY2 and one from 4x5 Fomapan (Arista) 100... they have the same level of perceptible detail and the better film in smaller format gives about 4 stops of speed advantage. So even though a large negative is nice, my subjective experience is that it makes no (when using cheaper films) to visible-but-not-earthshattering (using identical films at 5x $/frame) difference in final appearance. I'd much prefer to shoot 5x7 but I can't really get the films I want in that size and my enlarger is only 4x5. The extra area would probably make more difference if I could print at 32" or 40" but I can't as yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by ntenny
Maybe I'm an incompetent, but my keeper ratio for LF and MF is about the same unless I'm doing higher-risk (uncontrolled subject) shots like candid portraits that have an inherently lower keeper rate due to fleeting expressions, etc.
Kept coming to the weekend though, wanting to print from the 2 or 5 or whatever number of shots I grabbed as I went through the work week.
The problem compounds itself when I shoot those "5" shots on 3 types of roll film.
I've tried upping the shot volume too; more shots of the same subject, more subjects even if they weren't all that exciting to me. That hasn't gotten me any more keepers though, typically just more stuff to wade through.
Don't get me wrong, roll film cameras have there place in my life, but sheet film is darn handy for low volume work.
I bought mine (an Omega D6 with a good set of carriers and lenses, an Ilford Multigrade light source, a condensor light source and a bunch of other goodies) off of Craigslist for a very reasonable cost. I know others who have essentially been given one free.
A new one is, however, very expensive.
I think the pursuit of technical excellence can be a mark of an artist... it serves the pursuit of a look.