Making 35mm look like large format
David & Caron Gonthier
grain quaility out of 35mm film in order to make photographs appear to be
large format.
PHOTO-TECH
Shoot Tech Pan and develop it in POTA. It still
won't be equal to LF in tone. But you asked about
granularity.
Regards,
John S. Douglas
Photographer Web Master Darkroom Wizard
=============================================
Jean-David Beyer
>
> Posted & mailed
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 07:03:10 -0500, "David & Caron Gonthier"
> <cdgon...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >I was wondering if anybody had any ideas about how to get the best possible
> >grain quaility out of 35mm film in order to make photographs appear to be
> >large format.
>
> Shoot Tech Pan and develop it in POTA. It still
> won't be equal to LF in tone. But you asked about
> granularity.
Of course, one obvious reason why shooting Tech Pan and developing it
in POTA will not equal LF in granularity or grainyness is that you can
put Tech Pan into your LF camera and get similar improvements if you
need them. You can't beat square inches!
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey
^^-^^ 7:55am up 1 day, 7:50, 2 users, load average: 2.07, 2.10, 2.09
PHOTO-TECH
>You can't beat square inches!
>
>--
> .~. Jean-David Beyer
Linear. Square. Cubic. Particularly cubic. "There is
no replacement for good ol' displacement !" . Of course
"It's quality, not quantity" but then there is "Live large
and smile."
Have a Happy Thanksgiving !
Nicholas O. Lindan
>
> Of course "It's quality, not quantity"
And we know what sort of person wrote that.
Its quality x quantity that counts.
And sheer quantity has a quality all its own.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio noli...@ix.netcom.com
Technical Management Consulting & Engineering Services:
New Product Development; Electrical Engineering;
Software, System and Circuit Design. Oh, & Photography
Dan Smith, Photographer
Pinto. It can be done but you wait for everyone else to break down and pray
the piece of junk can make the 500 miles.
Large format is more about tonality and final image quality than it is about
grain. Trying to make 35mm do what it isn't designed to do is a losing
battle. Yes, you can shoot Tech pan and play around with esoteric formulas
and hope a lot. But if you want Large Format quality, bite the bullet and
buy a large format camera and lens and basic accessories and learn how to
use them.
There is no other way.
dan smith
"David & Caron Gonthier" <cdgon...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:8vj124$aobc$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com...
Perry White
36x48" prints) to hang in the shops, showing current ad shots. I
shoot both 4x5 and 35mm (I own 6x7 but but find it a poor compromise
for either my 35 or 4x5, but that's a whole 'nother story). Shot &
processed properly, with well-chosen subject matter & lighting, the
35mm murals look every bit as good as the 4x5 murals. Realize though,
that it's extrememly important to choose the subject wisely and light
it appropriately. Also realize that 35mm murals mean no tolerance for
error at any point in the process, whereas 4x5 murals can be a bit
more comfortably handled. Pictures based on tonality may not need
nerve-wracking sharpness, while pictures based only on sharpness and
punchy contrast (as 35 murals must be) must be absolutely crisp at
every point on the print. Ultimately, it's so true that small-size
negatives can illustrate a scene well, but it takes large-size films
to actually BE the scene; a mural from 35mm can make the viewer WISH
he were there, but a mural from 4x5 can make the viewer THINK he's
there.
Just my own experience.
Perry White
What in thundering tarnation?!?!?
(and don't call me "Chief")
Gene A. Townsend
<cdgon...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>I was wondering if anybody had any ideas about how to get the best possible
>grain quaility out of 35mm film in order to make photographs appear to be
>large format.
>
>
This is actually very easy to do. First, print a large format
negative using a "grain texture screen", in order to break up the dull
grainless areas of the print, which put everybody to sleep when they
look at these dull lifeless identical recreations of reality.
Now, just print the 35 mm negative. The results can be better in
terms of grain, and wasn't it a lot easier in the first place.
Don't join the "brainless grainless" luddite crowd.
Regards,
Gene A. Townsend
Dennis Kibbe
"Grain is the brush stroke of photography."
Dennis Kibbe
The View Camera Store, Inc.
Tony Spadaro
"David & Caron Gonthier" <cdgon...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> I was wondering if anybody had any ideas about how to get the best
possible
> grain quaility out of 35mm film in order to make photographs appear
to be
> large format.
>
>
If you really want a large format look, and don't want to tote around
a large format camera, then go to medium format (perhaps 6x7) where at
least you'll have a fighting chance. Use Tech Pan and a high acutance
developer. It will be grainier than Tech Pan in a fine grain developer
but the appearance of sharpness is more important than grain.
There is simply no way a 35mm negative is ever going to have that
every blade of grass, every leaf on the trees look. If Ansel Adams is
your goal, using the same size camera and film is going to make it a
whole lot easier - and cheaper in the long run - to reach
--
Digital photo restoration in autumnal Chapel Hill NC
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
New - A Digital Workflow + Sharpness: Threat or Menace?
And Selecting Your First SLR - Java must be enabled
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Adam
"David & Caron Gonthier" <cdgon...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> I was wondering if anybody had any ideas about how to get the best
possible
> grain quaility out of 35mm film in order to make photographs appear
to be
> large format.
>
>
jjs
"David & Caron Gonthier" <cdgon...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> I was wondering if anybody had any ideas about how to get the best
possible
> grain quaility out of 35mm film in order to make photographs appear
to be
> large format.
You will get plenty of replies which insist (largely correct) that you
cannot duplicate or exceed MF using 35mm for prints larger than, say,
5x7, however this is a good opportunity to tell you how to get close,
and what differences you may expect.
Gene Smith used to print some of his 35mm B&W negatives through a
stretched nylon stocking to help obscure the grain, and still retain
certain sharpness. One does this by making the print in separate
passes, one exposure without the nylon mesh filter, then another with,
and then choosing one or the other for dodging and burning. The
objective was to get an underlying sharpness, but then to diffuse the
grain in the second exposure. So, you can try that. In addition, there
are some subjects that do not necessarily benefit from high-accutance
film and high-resolution lenses. For example, certain round forms,
organic types of subjects. So, using an ultra fine grain film with Gene
Smith's technique and a relatively organic-type subject will get you
CLOSER to a MF look. But... but the tones, potential of the MF might
make you wish you had done MF to begin with. ;)
Aaron Taylor
20C. You will not believe the tonality and super fine grain. I think you
will be very happy with the results. At this point the difference with
larger formats are you can gain speed without grain OR you can make
billboard size enlargements.
It also looks very nice at 25ASA and this speed is probably the best
compromise with quality.
Yes, you can get comparable results but not with the same speed film. It's
a game of give and take.
"David & Caron Gonthier" <cdgon...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:8vj124$aobc$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com...
Dick Weld
Dick Weld
Adam wrote:
>
> In article <8vj124$aobc$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>,
> "David & Caron Gonthier" <cdgon...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > I was wondering if anybody had any ideas about how to get the best
> possible
> > grain quaility out of 35mm film in order to make photographs appear
> to be
> > large format.
> >
> >
> Make contact prints.
Adam
Nicholas O. Lindan
>
> Expose Kodak Technical Pan @16ASA and develope it in Technidol for 7 min at
> 20C.
I will second this.
Now, blow it up to 4x5 and put a phony black border around it with cut-outs
just like a 4x5 film holder makes.
Do it right now. The stuff in the magazines has notch codes for films that
don't exist. Or a color shot has a film code for a black and white film.
Making 6xX into LF seems to be the usual trick in the ad industry.
reel_...@my-deja.com
"David & Caron Gonthier" <cdgon...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> I was wondering if anybody had any ideas about how to get the best
possible
> grain quaility out of 35mm film in order to make photographs appear to
be
> large format.
If grain is your biggest concern and you want to use small format, then
you can often achieve better results by giving the film the minimum
optimal exposure. More exposure = more silver on your negative. More
silver will give you more visible grain. Therefore, the minimum optimal
exposure will give you less grain. To achive these results, you will
have to do some work. My advice is to get yourself a book on the zone
system (particularly "Beyond the Zone System" or Ansel Adams "The
Negative") and learn how to test your film so that you can achive
minimum optimal exposure.
I hope this helps
rs
Glenn Stewart (Arizona)
> Gene A. Townsend
Gene,
Not to be a PITA, but how do you know when you have "enough" grain?
"Art" can be found in composition, subject matter, color, changes in
tone and/or lighting. For me, the photographic "art" IS in trying to
create a replica of reality as it relates to the above. My sense of
"art" says that grain is a distraction and that it detracts from my
attempt to recreate reality. My eyes don't see it in the original scene,
so I don't want it in the print. It bothers me. It's not natural. It's
for this reason that I aim my TV antenna toward the transmitter, rather
than turning it so the picture gets snowy.
I'm an electro/mechanical designer by trade. I've made drawings of
mechanical and electrical/electronic equipment for years using pencil,
pen and vellum. I now use a computer. The resultant drawings are
precise, but not "realistic". They serve a business purpose. My freehand
drawing, conversely, is not precise or realistic. It serves no purpose.
It would be best described as either "juvenile" or "surrealistic", but
probably doesn't qualify as "art" in anyone's book. But in going along
with your description of "art", it's certainly not a "dull lifeless
identical recreation of reality", it's just bad.
That's why I like photography. I can make a representation of reality
that is recognizable by most adults. The more realistic it is, the
better I like it. I can't do that by drawing a picture. My dad could,
and my daughter can, but the tallent skipped a generation.
I don't see that a photograph must be intentionally "downgraded" in
image quality in order to qualify as "art". If this is a requirement,
why not shoot everything using 110 or Minox cameras? Blow them up to
30x40, sit back and enjoy the 8 or 10 grains that make up the image.
Sorry for the rant, but I don't like grain and I refuse to search out
materials or techniques that put the artificial stuff in my photos. I
just don't like abstract art.
Please don't take this as a flame. It's just a different opinion on the
subject.
Best regards,
Stew
--
Photo Web pages: http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart
Educate yourself and stop fearing that which you do not understand.
UNIX: It's not just 'User-Unfriendly', it's 'Proactively User-Hostile'!
Nothing generates so much silence as confronting a person with an
undeniable truth which is contrary to that person's beliefs.
Manual cameras, Luna-Pro's and stick shifts.
Please send e-mail responses to the following address ONLY:
gste...@inficad.com E-mail responses to my Intel address will be
cheerfully ignored (Intel policy).
The opinions expressed herein are mine, not those of Intel Corporation.
Gene A. Townsend
<gste...@inficad.com> wrote:
>> Gene A. Townsend
>
>Gene,
>
>Not to be a PITA, but how do you know when you have "enough" grain?
As soon as you are happy is the short answer. Personally, for 8 by 10
prints from 35 mm, TMZ is about right. TMY yields about the correct
graininesss for 16 X 20, as long as not pushed, and TMX almost
requires mural sized enlargements.
>
>"Art" can be found in composition, subject matter, color, changes in
>tone and/or lighting. For me, the photographic "art" IS in trying to
>create a replica of reality as it relates to the above.
This is only a single, rather narrow perspective on art. For example,
in the world of oil painting, photo-realism, which attempts to mimick
photography's realism, is strongly discounted as a very unimportant
method. As another poster recently quoted, grain is like the brush
strokes of photography, and itself produces beauty of image. Just
because a few photographers in recent history made themselves famous
by using large format cameras, does not mean that doing so ensure the
status of art to the works thereby produced. Personally, I think that
all those Ansel Adams clones out there make me throw up. Mimicking
the behavior of others does not ensure art status, in fact it does the
opposite. Grainless perfection only appears beautiful in a world of
graininess, and graininess only appears beautiful in a smooth world.
In other words, rules of contrast apply here.
My sense of
>"art" says that grain is a distraction and that it detracts from my
>attempt to recreate reality. My eyes don't see it in the original scene,
>so I don't want it in the print. It bothers me. It's not natural. It's
>for this reason that I aim my TV antenna toward the transmitter, rather
>than turning it so the picture gets snowy.
I think that too many photographers out there have read too many Ansel
Adams books. Grain is natural in real world images anyway. Just look
up at the sky, and like in a photograph, you eye provides a world of
swirling grain patterns to choose from. No matter how perfect an
image, the eye always provides its' own grain. Most of us in modern
times have cable or satelite TV, also miniature cameras, maybe even
digital cameras. (egads, a modern contrivance!)
>
>I'm an electro/mechanical designer by trade. I've made drawings of
>mechanical and electrical/electronic equipment for years using pencil,
>pen and vellum. I now use a computer. The resultant drawings are
>precise, but not "realistic". They serve a business purpose. My freehand
>drawing, conversely, is not precise or realistic. It serves no purpose.
>It would be best described as either "juvenile" or "surrealistic", but
>probably doesn't qualify as "art" in anyone's book. But in going along
>with your description of "art", it's certainly not a "dull lifeless
>identical recreation of reality", it's just bad.
If you are talking about commercial art, then this is totally
different. Certainly in architectural or calender photography,
grainlessness is desirable because of the intended uses of the
product. However, in fine art, there are no rules at all.
Personally, I think that these Ansel Adams clones have done their part
to continue the relegation of photography as commercial art only.
>
>That's why I like photography. I can make a representation of reality
>that is recognizable by most adults. The more realistic it is, the
>better I like it. I can't do that by drawing a picture. My dad could,
>and my daughter can, but the tallent skipped a generation.
This is technical photography.
>
>I don't see that a photograph must be intentionally "downgraded" in
>image quality in order to qualify as "art". If this is a requirement,
>why not shoot everything using 110 or Minox cameras? Blow them up to
>30x40, sit back and enjoy the 8 or 10 grains that make up the image.
Good idea. Why don't you try that and see how you like it?
Just kidding. There are no rules or formulas to use to decide how to
put art into your photography. It is either there or it is not. One
can not intend himself to be an artist, it happens or does not. There
are far too many people who self-proclaim themselves to be artists in
this field by using a big camera.
>
>Sorry for the rant, but I don't like grain and I refuse to search out
>materials or techniques that put the artificial stuff in my photos. I
>just don't like abstract art.
A little texture in an image is "abstract art"? You'd better look
that up in the dictionary. A little stylized, yes, but definetely not
abstract, unless you blow up a very small portion of that minox
negative to 30 X 40.
As an aside, I've been appreciating more and more my inkjet printed
images, due to the "grain" of the dots in the printing technique, and
although I can print at 1440 dpi, usually prefer the lowest setting,
which is 360 dpi on my printer, because I like the look of the grain.
I may become a digital only photographer in the very near future.
>
>Please don't take this as a flame. It's just a different opinion on the
>subject.
No problem, and also understand that I often feel that I need to
express my opinion, which is contrary to large format photography.
You see, I've been there and done that. I started out in 35 mm 40
years ago, went to large format, then returned to 35 mm about ten
years ago, and wonder why I wasted all that time lugging heavy
equipment around and taking few photographs while complaining all the
time.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Stew
>
Regards,
Gene A. Townsend
Tony Spadaro
Without refering to the pictures tell me:
How much grain is there in Cartier-Bresson's picture of a man jumping
over a puddle? What about Dorathea Lange's migrant woman and children?
Man Ray's nude studies of Kiki? Weston's peppers? Abbott's portrait of
Atget? Steichen's Flatiron? Capa's dying soldier?
If the picture is interesting enough, the grain is unimportant, it's
merely the dots that make up the image. The eye darts about and puts
together the picture from many small snatches of image. Like a movie,
it does not dwell on the grain, but pushes on, looking for new plot
elements
I have a preference for a nice tight grain pattern, and use more Tri-
X than finer grain B/W for that reason. I prefer the colours of Kodak
slide films to the finer grain of Fuji. No one (with the exception of
some photographers) ever comments about grain in my pictures. I can and
have displayed Tech Pan and Tri-X enlargement together, and no one has
said it's too bad you couldn't get small grain on this one.
--
Digital photo restoration in autumnal Chapel Hill NC
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
New - A Digital Workflow + Sharpness: Threat or Menace?
And Selecting Your First SLR - Java must be enabled
PHOTO-TECH
>Making 6xX into LF seems to be the usual trick in the ad industry.
But I just love it when I see 4X5 images dropped
into a 35mm rollfilm !
Then there is the Polaroid tears on a 6X7 negative
image. All digital. What a farse !
PHOTO-TECH
> "David & Caron Gonthier" <cdgon...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> I was wondering if anybody had any ideas about how to get the best possible
>> grain quaility out of 35mm film in order to make photographs appear to be
>> large format.
>Make contact prints.
An excellent suggestion ! Straight to the heart of
the issue. Of course the limit is the resolution of the
paper. And the human eye. viewing distance ? I guess about 4
inches.
trav...@my-deja.com
that not every photo needs to be blown up to gigantic proportions. I
recently show an exhibit of Mary Ellen Marks, all protraits, taken with
Hassy, Nikon, and Leica cameras. All prints were 16x20. Several prints,
I had seen before in publications. Some of the prints were very grainy
and really seemed to lose there impact when compared to some of the
grainless prints next to them. I think the grainy prints would have
benifited from being printed smaller, to inhence not only the contrast,
but the grain. We seemed to have reached the point where image is
everything and content doesn't mean crap. As long as a print is the
size of a billboard and technically competent, nothing else matters. I
never see any discussion about appropriate print size.
Paul and Paula Butzi
Townsend) wrote:
>Don't join the "brainless grainless" luddite crowd.
If I were going to call someone a 'luddite' I'd probably
pick the people who insist that photographs must have grain
when recent technology has made grainless photos from 35mm
impossible. The Luddites were opposed to new technology,
not in favor of it.
In any case, since the question was how to minimize grain, telling him
he has the wrong goal seems non-responsive. If you like grain, fine -
make grainy prints.
Only a Luddite, though, would insist that everyone else do likewise.
-Paul
--
Newly updated and moved web site at:
http://www.butzi.net
Ken
>
> I was wondering if anybody had any ideas about how to get the best possible
> grain quaility out of 35mm film in order to make photographs appear to be
> large format.
Ektar 25 in 35mm with a prime lens is about as close as you can
come. Keep your print size to 8x10 or less.
If you find a better method I'm sure the 'blad and Sinar
crowd would be very interested. <g>
Paul and Paula Butzi
Townsend) wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:25:40 -0800, Paul and Paula Butzi
><bu...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 05:35:50 GMT, wi...@dakotacom.net (Gene A.
>>Townsend) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don't join the "brainless grainless" luddite crowd.
>>
>>If I were going to call someone a 'luddite' I'd probably
>>pick the people who insist that photographs must have grain
>>when recent technology has made grainless photos from 35mm
>>impossible. The Luddites were opposed to new technology,
>>not in favor of it.
>
>I don't follow your logic here. Did your mean possible, rather than
>impossible?
Yes.
> All I am saying is that there are no rules, only
>opinions. There are way too many Ansel Adams clones running around
>carrying big cameras and shooting expensive sheet film because they
>think that it is art. Try something original. Trying experimenting.
It seems to me that the person who was asking that question was doing
exactly that - trying to expand the capabilities of the art they can
attempt. In addition to the grainy 35mm thing, they want to duplicate
the grainless large format thing. Of course, you insisted that grain
is good, and people who don't like grain are bad. But there are only
opinions, right?
>Try doing anything you didn't read in an Ansel Adams textbook.
>>
>>In any case, since the question was how to minimize grain, telling him
>>he has the wrong goal seems non-responsive. If you like grain, fine -
>>make grainy prints.
>
>The question was "Making 35 mm look like large format", with no
>reference to grain at all.
Actually, clipping from the original post, the original question was
"I was wondering if anybody had any ideas about how to get the best
possible grain quaility out of 35mm film in order to make photographs
appear to be large format." I'm pretty confident that that's the
original question, and that you knew it was, because in fact I clipped
it directly out of your response.
You might choose to interpret this as "no reference to grain at all"
but people who engage their intellect would probably not make that
claim.
Some people, rather than imposing their own views on other people's
art, try to help people achieve the effect they seek. Of course, that
was too simple for you. You had to impose your own values on
someone else. Now, that's Art, with a capital A. Or at least,
something that begins with an "A".
Luddite.
Gene A. Townsend
<bu...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 05:35:50 GMT, wi...@dakotacom.net (Gene A.
>Townsend) wrote:
>
>
>>Don't join the "brainless grainless" luddite crowd.
>
>If I were going to call someone a 'luddite' I'd probably
>pick the people who insist that photographs must have grain
>when recent technology has made grainless photos from 35mm
>impossible. The Luddites were opposed to new technology,
>not in favor of it.
I don't follow your logic here. Did your mean possible, rather than
impossible? All I am saying is that there are no rules, only
opinions. There are way too many Ansel Adams clones running around
carrying big cameras and shooting expensive sheet film because they
think that it is art. Try something original. Trying experimenting.
Try doing anything you didn't read in an Ansel Adams textbook.
>
>In any case, since the question was how to minimize grain, telling him
>he has the wrong goal seems non-responsive. If you like grain, fine -
>make grainy prints.
The question was "Making 35 mm look like large format", with no
reference to grain at all. My rather logical answer simply placed
values where there were none. If the large format negative were
printed with a grain texture screen, then mimicry in 35 mm would be
much easier, right? Absolutely.
>
>Only a Luddite, though, would insist that everyone else do likewise.
Well then, Ansel Adams and all followers of this patron-saint, all
practitioners of the zone system, etc., are luddites, and that was
exactly my point. Thank you very much. Older is not better
automatically.
>
>-Paul
>--
Regards,
Gene A. Townsend
Tony Spadaro
I think possibly because of the "standardization" of gallery display
prints at 16x20, people don't think much about the smaller, more
intimate print, or the truly BIG print. It's not an easy determination
either.
--
Digital photo restoration in autumnal Chapel Hill NC
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
New - A Digital Workflow + Sharpness: Threat or Menace?
And Selecting Your First SLR - Java must be enabled
FOR7
>come. Keep your print size to 8x10 or less.
>If you find a better method I'm sure the 'blad and Sinar
>crowd would be very interested. <g>
>
And ofcourse Kodak unfortunately discontinues the film.
E.T.
fo...@aol.com
PHOTO-TECH
>> never see any discussion about appropriate print size.
>
> I think possibly because of the "standardization" of gallery display
>prints at 16x20, people don't think much about the smaller, more
>intimate print, or the truly BIG print. It's not an easy determination
>either.
Large prints may dominate some galleries but in
general you will find just as many small prints. They are
just not as noticeable. Ever attend a Walker Evans show ?
All small prints. Truly large prints need grand subjects and
flawless execution. Almost impossible with a 35mm. Yes I
have some good images on 35mm. They make real nice 6X9's on
8X10 paper.
Ken
>
> >Ektar 25 in 35mm with a prime lens is about as close as you can
> >come. Keep your print size to 8x10 or less.
>
> And of course Kodak unfortunately discontinues the film.
I saw it coming. I have a 5 year old brick of 120 in the freezer.
Stephen Indvik
PHOTO-TECH wrote:
>
>
> Large prints may dominate some galleries but in
> general you will find just as many small prints. They are
> just not as noticeable. Ever attend a Walker Evans show ?
> All small prints. Truly large prints need grand subjects and
> flawless execution. Almost impossible with a 35mm. Yes I
> have some good images on 35mm. They make real nice 6X9's on
> 8X10 paper.
>
> Regards,
>
> John S. Douglas
> Photographer Web Master Darkroom Wizard
> =============================================
A few years ago our main museum here in Minneapolis had a three month show
of photos by Cartier-Bresson. Most of the negatives were made during the
30's and 40's. They were all made with a 35 mm camera. All the prints
were approximately 20"x30" mounted on about 40"x60" boards. It was quite
an emotional experience. I believe it was about the 4th most popular
exhibit of all time for this museum. The film grain and sharpness were
definitely not an isuue for 95% of those who saw the exhibit. We could
probably all guess who the other 5% were...
Regards,
Steve
Tony Spadaro
"proper" size by the gallery owners. The famous get to call the shots
for their work while the unknown must toe the line.
There are galleries with more realistic "rules" though and their
numbers are increasing. It's just that there are so many that see only
the 16x20 as a viable/sellable commodity.
christoph manz
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:40:30 -0700, "Glenn Stewart (Arizona)"
> <gste...@inficad.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't see that a photograph must be intentionally "downgraded" in
> >image quality in order to qualify as "art". If this is a requirement,
> >why not shoot everything using 110 or Minox cameras? Blow them up to
> >30x40, sit back and enjoy the 8 or 10 grains that make up the image.
>
> Good idea. Why don't you try that and see how you like it?
i did ... and i liked it ;]
well, it wasn't 30x40inch [as i guess that's what you refered] but
30x40cm ... however, most of the time it looks nicer on 20x25cm
paper... actually one of my all time favorite photographs is from a very
blury, grainy minox negative...
++ christoph ++
berlin, germany
--
mailto:zem(at)mailcc.com