for sale/display what is the appropriate exhibition size for display? it's quite obvious that 8x10 is insufficient for decorative purposes. but, at 16x20 too much for leica images to be competitive to larger format derived images? i'm sure that the lay person/decorator won't appreciate grain/non-sharp images except when expressionist themes are presented.

what is thee limit for the best in 35mm?

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002

Answers

What kind of subject matter? Who's your intended market? Where will they be sold? What will the typical viewing distance be?

but, at 16x20 too much for leica images to be competitive to larger format derived images?

Competitive?

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 24, 2002.

Salgado's enormous prints (16x20 and larger) are beautiful.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), April 24, 2002.

Depends on the film, of course. Also viewing distance. You can get away with a 40 FOOT by 60 FOOT enlargement - so long as it's on a building wall a block away.

I consider 8x12 on 11x14 (framed 16x20 or so) to be the MINIMUM size for most wall-mounted viewing - otherwise you're standing with your toes against the wall to see anything.

With Velvia/Kodachrome (35mm) grain/lens/edge softness usually starts to become a factor at about a 12x18 on 16x20 - at least that's MHO.

As to where/when I can start to see a difference between 35mm and larger formats? Usually in a print on 8x10 paper.

As to what the lay person/decorator "won't appreciate" - I don't shoot to the market (it seems a miserable way to do photography) - I shoot what I want how I want and let the market decide whether it likes it or not.

Seems to work.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 24, 2002.

Depends on the film, of course. Also viewing distance. You can get away with a 40 FOOT by 60 FOOT enlargement - so long as it's on a building wall a block away.

I consider 8x12 on 11x14 (framed 16x20 or so) to be the MINIMUM size for most wall-mounted viewing - otherwise you're standing with your toes against the wall to see anything.

With Velvia/Kodachrome (35mm) and top-quality lenses grain/lens/edge softness usually starts to become a factor above about a 12x18 on 16x20 - at least that's MHO/E.

As to where/when I can start to see a difference between 35mm and larger formats? Usually by the time I hit a full-frame image on 8x10 paper.

As to what the lay person/decorator "won't appreciate" - I don't shoot to the market (it seems a miserable way to do photography) - I shoot what I want how I want and let the market decide whether it likes it or not.

Seems to work.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 24, 2002.

More heresy!!!! - Sorry, to me the "merchandising" aspect should not be given priority over the specific esthetic considerations of the individual print (and subject matter). I am very much aware of the wholesale conformity to the notion that, print wise, bigger, bigger, bigger, is best!! It is something that the public has been conditioned to require or expect. The tendency in most contemporary "art" has been the impact effect of size - witness the grandiose canvases that grace the exhibits of most museums, galleries!! Frankly, I believe that a paucity of vision is generally compensated for with size!! I've seen many, fine, original prints of modest proportions that have far greater content (and "staying power") than most of the ubiquitous stadium sized drivel!!

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), April 24, 2002.

Viewing distance absolutely makes the difference. Ever watched a movie? Fine from the cinema, probably not so hot close up. My photo club has a max size for prints of 16 x 20 with matts, which makes the print itself only up to 12 x 16 or so. Viewed from across the room they look great; up close some are fuzzy - partly due to less than fantastic computer printing which everyone does these days. For wall display, I guess most are viewed at about 3 feet. But, the sharper the better. You can't get away with saying colour fringing and fuzziness are art! The bottom line: Leitz/Leica lenses and slow film are more than adequate to compete with medium format up to 16 x 20 and beyond. Last year I visited the UN gallery in NYC, which has some ginormous prints on display from around the world. Of course, it does not say what camera was used, but some are sharper than others - could they be Leica image

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), April 24, 2002.

There is no limit on the size you can enlarge a 35mm negative/slide to. Generally it is down to the photographer and the qualities you want. But the amateur 'camera club' has a lot to answer for in its insistance on viewing images close up, and making up rules about using larger formats for landscapes etc. If you want a large picture, grainy or not, do it, and don't be stiffled by 'rules'.

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), April 25, 2002.

Two points not discussed above: the texture of the final print's surface and the fact that very large 35mm prints are sometimes printed by first making an 8X10 negative from the original and then making the final print.

-- Ned Learned (ned@kajabbi.com), April 25, 2002.

Leica lenses on a tripod mind you is sharp up to 16x20 at least! I have made a B&W 12x16 print recently of a Walnut tree with spring flowers around it with an ELMAR 50/3.5 (recently recoated by Malcolm Taylor). The camera was mounted on a steady tripod, the ELMAR stopped down to f8 and the time was 1/4 of a second with yello filter no.1. People who are watching the picture are always astonished by the resolution of the small white flowers in deep shadow under the tree. Each flower is approx. 0,5-1 mm wide on such a large print, which means that the subject on the negative is 10 times smaller. It's amazing what such an old lens can do. Now comparing it to my new 35/2 asph is even more dramatic, but more about that another time. The bottom line: Use a tripod and high f-stop, be meticulous in the dark room, and 24x36 is as good as medium format in 98% of the cases.

Thomas Krantz

-- Thomas Krantz (tkrantz@kpmg.dk), April 25, 2002.

No, 35mm cannot hold a candle to medium format in terms of resolution and gradation, tripod or no tripod, if that is what you're after. Photo Techniques magazine ran extensive "blind" tests of Leica photographs against medium format; MF won easily every time. If you want the MF look, use MF; but 35mm photos have their own ethestic: just look at HCB, Ralph Gibson, etc. In my experience 12x18 prints are fine from 35mm, which means that larger ones are fine also, as they're viewed from a greater distance. I have a 25x38" enlargement from Tr-X that is beautiful, the highly visible grain being a positive factor in the overall effect. But if you want the prints to look like an Anselm Adams landscape photograph, don't use 35mm.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), April 25, 2002.

thanks mitch, that was the answer i was looking for.

of course every question can be answered "it depends". but it's never thoughtful. semantics, where's the controversy in the question? i wanted to be as brief as possible. sorry if i can't make myself understood. english is my 3rd lang. so don't read between the lines to try to figure it out.

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.

oh, and the decorator/lay people are referring to me, my friends, and family, as i want to place some of my own work in my house and didn't want to embarass myself by going too large. thanks

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.

ok, some in between the lines info:

one extream: kodachrome 25, tripod mounted, sunny 16, landscape, viewed close up, 20x30 is probably easy.

direct exp: 100 asa print film, sunny 16, landscape, 16x24 printed for free because i won a company sponsored photo contest. the print looks pretty good.

i do not sell my photos, as it is only my hobby. i just wanted your exp/opinion because i didn't want to spend $40-50 on a 20x30 just to find out.

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.

I have seval 24x36" enlargements from Vario-Elmar 28-70/3.5 taken at Jasper and Lake Louis, Alberta

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), April 25, 2002.

A couple of points as well. I hae exhibited in galleries for over 10 years now and find that my standard print size with 35mm is about 10X13 inches. However I usually overmat to a framed size of 16X20 inches which is a good size to hang on a wall. Another point to consider is that we have become used to largish print sizes due to coffee table books. Recently I have been interested in the images of J. Lartigue, and took a number of books out of the library. Nice big 8X11 inch prints in one coffee table book, but the actual print sizes were all about 4X6 inches, and are all contact prints from early folding cameras.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 25, 2002.

The smallest print that I'll even bother with is an 8x10. I mostly print 11x14 to 16x20 from 35mm. From ALMOST grainless 16x20 prints from Provia or Pan-F to 16x20's from Delta 3200 @ 3200, yes it was grainy, but the content was a beautiful shot of my precious niece. You can go even larger from 35mm. I can't from my enlarger. For me, the image outways any percieved rule. If you shoot Leica, use a tripod, best film, then you should be quite happy with what 35 can do.

-- Brian E. Harvey (bharvey423@yahoo.com), April 25, 2002.

I made a print once that was 4 feet by 5 feet from Tmax 3200 shot in 35mm and developed for maximum grain (high temperature).

It looks great.

Arbitrary technical "rules" are just that. Arbitrary rules that don't mean all that much.

That said, I print most of my stuff 11x14 because it's big enough to hang, and small enough to be easy to work with.

-- Pete Su (psu@kvdpsu.org), April 25, 2002.

All:

TAking teh contrary view, smal prints can be beautiful. Ekton John, in a recent inrterview says he often buys small prints just becauise they are small and can do what they need to because of/inspite of being small.

I have several 4x5 in Platinum/Palladium prints from Leica negs that are beautiful, framed in 8x10 mattes. Depending on the subject, "miniatures" are as valid as any other size. Size does matter, as small can be beautiful. A talented magician even with a short wand can work magic.

Cheers

Cheers

-- richard ilomaki (richardjx@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.