In the past I have printed and sold 16/20 prints from 35mm, HP5+ negatives, also Tri x negatives, while there is a certain amount of grain it only adds to the charm of the print and in no way detracts from it,
I have only 2 for sale (11x14 & 16X20, both TechPan negs),
Exposed Roots, Lodgepole Pine
El Capitan Reflection,
out of a couple hundred MF and LF mixed that I actually consider for sale as fine prints – because a good print is a good print, no matter the format.
Regarding Rowell, those large 35mm prints, though fantastic images, are mostly hybrid digital prints. In the few optically enlarged still on display, you can see individual dye clouds (i.e., color "grain") from across the room. They are not fine art prints, and I don't believe Galen ever claimed that they were. I've never talked with anyone who didn't think this degree of digital enlargement was over the top.
If you are concerned about "the supporting infrastructure, easel, trays, large enough washer, drying rack, etc." as mentioned by Suzanne, and are willing to print RC, a magnetic board and some magnets (for the easel) and a Cibachrome or Unicolour or Beseler 16x20 developing tube (for the rest) makes a lot of sense.
I sent them a response last night and I think the price for a FB print scared them off a bit. I was going to do it for $120 + delivery unmounted - I know, probably under selling, but I wanted to try and get the sale/experience. I also don't think that they necessarily wanted a 'fine art' print, more a poster to go on the wall.
I actually hadn't considered printing it on RC optically (I did offer to have it machine printed from a scan, which they were more keen on), which I might actually do now for the same price as the machine print.
Anyhow, for your reference, this is the picture in question, which is a scan of the 8x10 I did:
Have to admit that just about the only 35mm negs I've enlarged to 16x20 were from really slow film (on RC from memory - 10 years on, the prints are fine). However I'd be game to give it a go with a grainier image and see, why not try? Looks like a decent shot too, and if they like it, then it doesn't matter. I'm all for pushing some boundaries if you see it that way. If thats any dose of encouragement. :)
Pity, it seems that anything more then $20.00 would of scared them off. Everybody sees the online photoprinters prices and thinks that all a photo is worth.
A 16x20 print is the same as my 40x50cm prints I had made from 35mm Velvia transparencies to Ilfochrome for years. I don't see how visible grain would put people off, but likewise, I also don't see what your concern is about the size of the enlargement. A TMAX P3200 print I had made in 1990 was enlarged to 20x24 to exaggerate grain in an image that features old world wrought iron, lace and a Ford Zephyr V. It was recently reprinted again.
Oh, in that case, you must give it a go. There's nothing about the image itself at 8x10 that suggests you can't do it. Just make certain the client is rational about the final result.
Originally Posted by hoffy
Only 9 or 10?!? :laugh:. Trial and error is often the best (and only) way to learn. My normal scale–up from 8X10 to 11X14 is 50%, with a 100% increase from 11X14 to 16x20. Going straight to 16X20 that means starting with 150% more light during enlarging for basic exposure and burns (dodges can be less predictable), depending on your light source and negative. Then figure it out from there. Of course, making an 11x14 first will be extremely helpful (and less costly) in fine-tuning the direction of your print. Hope you kept printing notes from the finished 8x10.
Originally Posted by hoffy
To be honest, its cheap technology and to beat a dead horse, digital photography that have created this rock bottom market for sports prints.
Originally Posted by SMBooth
I am not sure if people know this or not, but I run a forum for Motor sport photographers (www.catchfencephotos.net), which has quite a few mid level pro’s involved. There is one guy who has been doing it since the late 80’s. Back then, to make the cover of a magazine such as Auto Action in Australia was worth good money. Now, you would struggle to make $100. I’m also not talking some guy who owns a entry level DSLR with a kit zoom, but people who have invested heavily in things like 1D’s and long primes.
Granted, though, there is one member on my forum (who was co-incidentally a specator at the time!), who did make a lot of money out of 1 sequence of pictures that featured heavily in mainstream media….but that is the exception, not the rule.
Getting back to the subject at hand, I was looking at my setup last night and think I could just do 16x20’s. I have 3 16x20 trays, which covers off the processing (I love ‘I have some old darkroom stuff – do you want it’ deals). I’d just need somewhere to hold the print while I clean a tray for washing, or I would need to get a bigger sized tank for the jobo. As for easels, I had considered making a fixed size one out of MDF, so it wouldn’t take me much to kit up. The only other thing I haven’t checked is whether the enlarger would actually go that high!, but there are ways and means to get this done as well.
You might consider a modified version of single tray processing - a tray for developer than water rinse, a tray for fix, and then a water holding tray.
When you are finished, re-fix in fresh fix, and then tray wash.