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?

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.