Author Topic: Size. How big do you print? (Read 17571 times)

Tammy · « **on:** March 14, 2006, 04:41:29 PM »

I'm curious how big most of you are printing for gallery showings. Specifically, from the toycameras with all the fine blur, etc, what size do you feel best represents your work hanging on a wall.

I found that 10x10 was a nice size, and could be made easily with my small set up. Anything larger and I have to farm the work out for now.

Thanks!

LT · « **Reply #1 on:** March 14, 2006, 04:49:23 PM »

with toycam stuff, I typically print at 8 x 8 on 9 1/2 x 11 paper. Even with my non- toy stuff I rarely print above 10 x 10 on 12 x 16 paper. I dont think it needs to be any bigger than that. I find I cant handle bigger FB prints without leaving crease marks etc - probably jus me being heavy handed, but without fail they get crease marks even after drying and mounting.

astrobeck · « **Reply #2 on:** March 14, 2006, 05:03:26 PM »

5 x 5 or 7 x 7

on an 8 x 10

Rogerrr · « **Reply #3 on:** March 14, 2006, 05:21:41 PM »

usually use 8x10 or 11x14 paper then crop/matt for whatever works with the image ....but I have a few prints that look good BIG, so a few times I have gone to 16x20-ish

some images look good small..I have a few nifty pictures of ants that I want to print at like 4x6 or so..then surround by a HUGE matt in a HUGE frame...little tiny ant in a sea of white

outofcontxt · « **Reply #4 on:** March 14, 2006, 06:48:58 PM »

Either 7x7 on Hahnemuele Photo Rag or Moab Entrada Bright White 8-1/2 x 11 or 10x10 on the SuperB size of both papers.

RebekahP · « **Reply #5 on:** March 14, 2006, 07:46:40 PM »

10x10 on 11x14 paper.

david b · « **Reply #6 on:** March 14, 2006, 10:28:21 PM »

Depends a bit on where they're going to be displayed. I'm making 12 x 12 prints at the moment for a venue where anything smaller would be lost on a huge wall - in a smaller space 8 x 8 is nice, and easier to manage for framing and transport.

Tammy · « **Reply #7 on:** March 14, 2006, 11:23:12 PM »

Thanks for that input.

JOhn Reeves · « **Reply #8 on:** March 15, 2006, 03:53:45 AM »

up to 7x7 on 8x10, but I'm thinking about 10x10 on 11x14 all the time. I have a 7x7 photo on a wall with a bunch of other people's work, and it is nearly lost among all of the other muck surrounding it. the broad clean mat and modest frame help to show it off a bit.

Susan B. · « **Reply #9 on:** March 15, 2006, 04:08:35 AM »

Varies...

I started out with a wee 7X7, but they just kept growing....
8X8...
10X10...
Just switched my portfolio to 12X12.

Dave_M · « **Reply #10 on:** March 15, 2006, 09:23:20 AM »

I've been printing 7X7 on 10X8 paper in the darkroom. If I'm honest then biggest reason is cost. However, any larger and I have to use processing drums outside the darkroom (it is VERY small) and this slows me down too much. If I can work quickly and cheaply then I'm happier to experiment. And I'm not as disappointed if a print is pathetic (quite often the case!).

I'm going to get a few negative scans printed at 10X10 on a lightjet soon as a test (in addition to traditional printing).

Ailsa · « **Reply #11 on:** March 15, 2006, 01:49:12 PM »

I recently printed up a whole series of prints at 5x5in on 10x8in paper, and loved it for its restraint. But then the other week I blew a stack of 16x20in paper on a set of Holga negs, and completely fell for the size. Budget, I feel, is going to mean that such extravagant behaviour is a rare occurence, unfortunately. $:-\$

Tammy · « **Reply #12 on:** March 15, 2006, 09:40:56 PM »

I had been printing Holga at 7x7, and the results were good. But, I noticed a trend for bigger prints, and was thinking of entering a competition next month. So, I played with 10x10 on 11x14 paper, and I liked that size quite a lot. THEN, I had my lab traditionally print something 12x12 and it was quite impressive. I think it's easy to get sort of pulled around though. I matted the 12x12 to a 20x24 and I like the way it looked optically centered. But, 12x12 from a Diana neg, for instance, is really pushing it for me, I think.

I'm glad to see that folks are printing small. It validates that small is still just fine. I like that idea of smallish with a nice white mat around it.

Thanks!

FrankB · « **Reply #13 on:** March 16, 2006, 08:27:16 AM »

I shoot 35mm (newish Nikon and old Pentax) and have recently started with 6x6 (Mamiya C330).

Most of my prints go onto 10x8 paper, 1/4" margin for RC, 1/2" margin for FB or cropped to suit the image. Anything I'm really serious about generally gets reprinted onto 16x12 FB, again with a 1/2" margin or cropped to suit the image.

Occasionally I'll use 7x5 RC if I'm printing up a portrait for someone's mantel (1/4" margin again), but I do find it fiddly working that small.

Janet_P · « **Reply #14 on:** March 16, 2006, 11:01:03 AM »

I've just spent a day in the darkroom (joy

) and printed, as I usually do, 7x7 on 10x8. It was the first time I've used FB paper and I loved working without despite the extended dev times. At that size they're like little jewels.

Janet

Tammy · « **Reply #15 on:** March 16, 2006, 11:50:34 AM »

FrankB- I have a C330 too! I just LOVE that camera. It was my first 6x6, and it's one I use almost all the time. I was printing nearly all my squares on 8x10 paper (~7X7"). seems a perfect size.

Janet P. I did fiber seriously for the first time this winter too. I don't think I can go back to RC.

I'm glad to hear your thoughts on the size thing too.

FrankB · « **Reply #16 on:** March 16, 2006, 01:51:05 PM »

Quote from: Tammy on March 16, 2006, 11:50:34 AM

FrankB- I have a C330 too! I just LOVE that camera. It was my first 6x6, and it's one I use almost all the time.

Tammy - I am enjoying the camera, and the learning curve too! Have you christened yours yet? Mine's called "The Brick"! (Or, when I'm having a particularly bad day, "The Millstone"!) Excellent for building upper-body strength!

Quote from: Janet P

I've just spent a day in the darkroom (joy ) and printed, as I usually do, 7x7 on 10x8. It was the first time I've used FB paper and I loved working without despite the extended dev times. At that size they're like little jewels.

Janet - Mine are 3/4's similar: 7x7, check! 10x8, check! Little, check! Jewels, erm...

Janet_P · « **Reply #17 on:** March 16, 2006, 03:14:32 PM »

Quote from: FrankB on March 16, 2006, 01:51:05 PM

Janet - Mine are 3/4's similar: 7x7, check! 10x8, check! Little, check! Jewels, erm...

Oops. Sounds like I was being big-headed but I wasn't, honest

The FB just seems to make all my shots look better...

FrankB · « **Reply #18 on:** March 16, 2006, 03:54:14 PM »

Not a dig at your work, just a truthful (and regretful) commentary on mine!

lauraburlton · « **Reply #19 on:** March 19, 2006, 06:02:57 PM »

I tend to go all over the place. Ususally I print 5 x 5 if it is fro an exhibition or 12 x 12 because you can buy frames with pre cut matts at Ikea, No they are not archival but I change them out frequently. But sometimes I print 7 x 7 or 10 x 10 because those sizes look nice in a portfolio. These are for my holga images. Recently I have been shooting with a 4 x 5 camera and I actually like the size of the contact prints, they seem so intimate. I have enlarged them and the lack of noticable grain is pretty amazing, but I still like the 4 x 5 size for now.

Tammy · « **Reply #20 on:** March 19, 2006, 08:24:47 PM »

Laura, I enjoy the 4x5 contacts too. If you haven't tried AZO paper, you should (before it's gone

!). It's got a sparkle to it.

FrankB, I had lovingly called my C330 the "Tank".

Sarah · « **Reply #21 on:** March 19, 2006, 08:58:08 PM »

Hi everyone,

Really enjoying the site! I tend to print a variety of sizes ranging from 8x10 to 16x20. It completely depends on the work as some images look much better at a more intimate 8x10 size and some are great as poster size prints.

I've recently started using a 5x4 large format camera in the hope of getting final print sizes up to 30x20 which is probably the biggest size I've ever gone up to!

david b · « **Reply #22 on:** March 20, 2006, 10:21:49 AM »

I forgot to mention before - a year or two ago I sold some toycam pics that were printed on canvas. Can't remember the exact size, but I think it was about 40 or 50 inches square - so, pretty big! The photos were from a holga and a dodgy old folder, and really stood up well at that size ... the canvas had quite a nice texture too, and was stretched so the image went all the way to the edges which I thought looked really good. So, worth thinking about if you do want to go large...

eyecaramba · « **Reply #23 on:** March 20, 2006, 12:24:43 PM »

Most of my work has been printed on 11x14 or 16x20 but recently have added 20x24 the mix. Also, I have done a number of 30x30 Iris prints lately which are pretty expensive but on a few, so far, prints have looked really encouraging.

Gordon

lauraburlton · « **Reply #24 on:** March 20, 2006, 01:06:23 PM »

Size queens!

Tammy · « **Reply #25 on:** March 20, 2006, 08:07:32 PM »

david b-- May I ask how you arranged the canvas printing? My lab does inkjets and they are pricy. It's all they will do from a medium format neg above a certain size.

That must have looked quite impressive.

david b · « **Reply #26 on:** March 20, 2006, 10:35:30 PM »

Hi Tammy - it was through a gallery I've worked with before who have a large format printer. Not sure about the tech side of it really - I just gave them a hi-res scan of the negs, and they did the rest. I think they charged around £100 ($175 US) for each canvas, but I was doing them to order so had included that in the price. There are at least three or four places that make canvas prints here in Manchester, so it seems quite a popular thing to do these days.

Tammy · « **Reply #27 on:** March 21, 2006, 12:58:45 AM »

Thanks! Oh, I meant to say my lab does "Lightjets" not "inkjets". DUH!! big difference there...

Very cool thing about the huge canvas. I'd love to see one. I can imagine one in my living room.

Susan B. · « **Reply #28 on:** March 21, 2006, 09:08:29 AM »

Quote from: eyecaramba on March 20, 2006, 12:24:43 PM

Most of my work has been printed on 11x14 or 16x20 but recently have added 20x24 the mix. Also, I have done a number of 30x30 Iris prints lately which are pretty expensive but on a few, so far, prints have looked really encouraging.

Gordon

30X30? Must look spectacular.

G--I'm curious. Being that you're a tradtional darkroom guy, are you able to adapt to Iris okay?
Do you just feel like you cheated on your first love or do you feel as if you've expanded on your current great love?
I'm asking, since I often ask myself these questions and would love to get your take on it.

Also....
Did you drum scan your neg, then Iris or did you scan them on a Nikon or whatever you have? Sorry for going a bit off topic, but I've been thinking about getting a few iris prints and wanted to get the low down.

Thanks G!

eyecaramba · « **Reply #29 on:** March 26, 2006, 04:49:10 PM »

Susan... No, I don't really feel I am cheating. I have had some of my color work printed for me at times and printed it myself when
I have had access to the right stuff and then I have had a lot of film developed by other people. What is important to me is that I do some or most or the most logical part of my work I guess. As for the Iris prints I can tell you that they are expensive and I haven't made but about four good ones so far because I want to find a home for them before I spend the money. I have recently presold a couple more to a commercial client and they are going to pay for production as well as purchase the prints which is cool. This is a nice arrangemement also because the second print is considerably cheaper when they already have made the scans.

As for the scanning, I concern myself with making a really good finished print at 11x14 and the guys I work with I think use a flatbed scanner though I am pretty sure they used to use a drum scanner so maybe it is comparable? I don't know but will ask for you as I am going to be working with them again here in a couple of weeks. The company is out of D.C. and if you want that info for pricing or whatever, then email me offline for the specifics and contacts and such.

Last thought would be... If the print looks really good, which the Iris prints have so far, and then it is designed to last, which it is, then all is well I think. If I make a good print vs. if I make a shitty print or if the goodness or shittiness comes from someone else, I feel like I have authored the image still be it good or be it shitty. Now, I will probably never have someone print my regular b&w work for whatever reason so, I still will hang onto that I guess...

best,

Gordon

Susan B. · « **Reply #30 on:** March 26, 2006, 06:42:16 PM »

Excellent, G!

It's great to get the perspectives from traditional versus digital printing making from accomplished, mega talented folks like yourself.
I agree--it's about the image and if it looks good, it looks good no matter what technique.

After attending the Silver Conference weeks back, it's just a question that's been on my mind since my portfolio consists of 12X12 on 13X19 pigment prints. I have trouble forgiving myself for this since I'm a traditional film purist by heart, but can't afford to rebuild the darkroom right now. Attempted to rent one for the latest portfolio, but that proved to be an expensive and heartbreaking venture...dirty enlargers, bad chems, no temp control... Just can't find a good darkroom for hire.

I've also been laboring over these issues of traditional printing versus digital output mostly because of being fortunate enough to land myself in a number of shows this year. And now that I'm selling the work on pigment--the thought keeps my up at night about how I want my work to be seen ultimately ... And there's the fact that at least 60 percent of the work shown at Photo LA this year was digital output on Hahnemule paper. Even Jack Spencer and Rocky Schenck are now doing mega sized digital prints in addition to their traditional work.
So can't get this topic out of my mind and it's extremely helpful to have the viewpoint from someone I respect as yourself. So thank you for taking the time. Mucho appreciated.

david b · « **Reply #31 on:** March 26, 2006, 11:05:50 PM »

Susan - just to help / confuse things further: there are several fiber type inkjet papers just coming on the market that are much closer in look to traditional fiber photo papers than anything that's been around before. There's a slightly misleading thing about some of them in the new B&WP (I'm fairly sure the papers they mention are all the same, just being marketed by different companies) - but there's at least three different ones: Crane Silver Rag, Da Vinci Fiber Gloss (also sold as Permajet Fiber Base Gloss, and possibly also as Fotospeed DWFB Platinum Gloss, I'm waiting for a sample to arrive to check) and a Hahnemuhle one that I've forgotten the name of.

I've been using the Da Vinci paper for a little while and, whilst it's not the same as a traditional print, it's a lot closer than anything I've seen before, and has certainly made me a lot more confident about showing digital output...

Susan B. · « **Reply #32 on:** March 26, 2006, 11:51:47 PM »

Quote from: david b on March 26, 2006, 11:05:50 PM

Susan - just to help / confuse things further: there are several fiber type inkjet papers just coming on the market that are much closer in look to traditional fiber photo papers than anything that's been around before. There's a slightly misleading thing about some of them in the new B&WP (I'm fairly sure the papers they mention are all the same, just being marketed by different companies) - but there's at least three different ones: Crane Silver Rag, Da Vinci Fiber Gloss (also sold as Permajet Fiber Base Gloss, and possibly also as Fotospeed DWFB Platinum Gloss, I'm waiting for a sample to arrive to check) and a Hahnemuhle one that I've forgotten the name of.

I've been using the Da Vinci paper for a little while and, whilst it's not the same as a traditional print, it's a lot closer than anything I've seen before, and has certainly made me a lot more confident about showing digital output...

Hey David--

Yeah, know about the Fotospeed DWFB.
I have a small sample pack of it - sent over from the UK after Damion told me about. Interesting stuff. Haven't actually tested it for fear I'll fall in love with it--and it's twice the price here if I order it from the UK. So good to know those other names. I suspect Cranes will be much easier for me to find in the US. I'm off to investigate. Thanks!

david b · « **Reply #33 on:** March 27, 2006, 12:34:39 AM »

Ah, it's the other way round here - the Crane paper is going to be twice the price of any of the others. I'm waiting for my DWFB sample pack, so I'll be able to tell you when I get that if it is in fact the same paper as the Da Vinci and Permajet - at least that way we might be able to shop around more for the best price. Oh, and I just checked and the forthcoming Hahnemuhle fiber paper is called Fine Art Pearl, just so's you know.

My, it feels BAD talking about matters digital.

Tammy · « **Reply #34 on:** March 27, 2006, 01:40:20 AM »

tsk tsk...

Is there a naughty corner on this board somewhere???

Susan B. · « **Reply #35 on:** March 27, 2006, 03:39:12 AM »

Quote from: david b on March 27, 2006, 12:34:39 AM

Ah, it's the other way round here - the Crane paper is going to be twice the price of any of the others. I'm waiting for my DWFB sample pack, so I'll be able to tell you when I get that if it is in fact the same paper as the Da Vinci and Permajet - at least that way we might be able to shop around more for the best price. Oh, and I just checked and the forthcoming Hahnemuhle fiber paper is called Fine Art Pearl, just so's you know.

My, it feels BAD talking about matters digital.

David--
So I did some investigating and emailed Cranes.
Sorry Tammy.

Cranes Silver Rag is being shipped out in rolls now.
Precut 8.5X11, 11X22 and 13X19 will be available in April through select stores in the US.
I read several reviews and folks are going ga-ga over this stuff.
But it's really expensive. 50.00 odd dollars for a pack of 25 8.5X11 and 130.00 for a pack of 13X19.
Da Vinci and Permajet is supposed to be similiar to Innova Photo Gloss Fibrapint (available at Freestyle) so I'll grab a pack this week and see what it's like. It's slightly on the thinner side at 280 or 290 gsm versus the crane which is something like 310 gsm.
FYI--the Fotospeed has an interesting texture to it--kind of pseudo photo creasing---I have no idea how else to describe it.
But it's not as smooth as fibre when holding it up to the light....another reason for my hesitation to use it. But I will give it a go once I get the Innova and Cranes so I can compare them all. I can say that the sample pics on the fotospeed platinum that come with the pack are really lovely.

Sorry again Tammy.

Author Topic: Size. How big do you print? (Read 17571 times)

astrobeck

Rogerrr

FrankB

FrankB

FrankB

Sarah