I remember a photo exhibition with Ed Westons photographs and they all have been in 8x10" size. It was very intimidated and I think it the best one I've ever seen. 5x7 is a very interesting size which I often use for starting the journey with my prints, my worksheets which then often are used for a long time. Having boxes of 5x7" prints is my treasure for long nights with a superbe Scotch
Thank you so much for your videos, John! They are very inspiring. I print on my A3+ inkjet printer but I also prefer smaller size prints. It's easier to look at them when handing them them in hands. It seems to me that the optimal size is a quarter of A3+ (about 24x16.5 cm).
I like small prints too. The trouble with photographic paper is that it is not designed for 35mm format (3 x 2 ratio). It was designed for making contact prints from plates and large format negatives, so there is always some waste when printing 35mm negs. That said, it only applies if you want to print full-frame from 35mm, a la Cartier Bresson.
My mentor often opined that making a print bigger didn't make it better! Personally, I like smaller prints. I find them to be jewel-like and the viewing experience seems more intimate to me. I occasionally make larger prints, but that's pretty rare. I do shoot a lot of 8x10 so, perhaps, that has something to do with my feelings on print size. 🤣
Bonjour m. John Finch, je vous suis depuis quelques mois et c'est toujours aussi intéressant, instructif et passionnant. Vos conseils guident ma pratique. Merci pour tout ca.
One of the most memorable photographs I've ever had the pleasure of seeing in a gallery depicted an ancient stone barrow, standing all alone in a bleak moorland setting. It was wonderful, the frame, I would guess twenty by sixteen, the print, a four by five contact. The detail and feeling in that tiny print was, I thought, remarkable. So, yes John your five by seven does impress upon me a certain something, difficult to know what, beyond, it looks right. I must get the misses a black velvet skirt, be extremely handy for backgrounds.
I prefer the 5 by 7 photo it looks great. I would like to see a print from the negatives that was developed in d76 also it would be interesting to have seen the negative developed in D 76 1+1 and then printed
Very nice photo John. As for the final print size, I totally agree when we are talking just about the final image itself. It has a lot to do with the visual impact but also the subconsciously perceived perspective, considering the viewing distance. Sometimes, a print that is larger than the original just doesn't feel right in the hand. Having said all that, the final choice may also depend on where the final picture is going to be displayed. I would choose different sizes for Kitchen, Bedroom, Lounge, or... Gallery ... It is also important to be coherent with other pictures. A tiny print next to several huge ones sometimes just looks silly. It really is all just in the mind.
I've seen a formula somewhere, think it was in an Arnold Gassan book, where he iterates 35mm negs to 7x5 paper size, like you show here, they look in their natural view aspect, on larger size papers they don't hold your attention as much. It's like these people who buy 55" televisions for their small living rooms, ha?!
Hiya John - hope you're keeping well. I was a member of a Postal Photo Club for many years where the prints were limited to 5x7. I think it's a great size/format. These days I tend to print 10x8 for personal use and store them in A4 poly pockets that are held in a ring binder. Just my way of working. I like your two prints very much - lovely tonality and definition in both - but I think you need to find your 00 sable brushes and do a bit of spotting. All the best from Wales.
I also choose the smaller print . I feel this could be because the borders appear the same size on both prints so proportionally the border is larger on the 5 x 7 and this gives the image more space and balance to breathe. The 5x7 also appears to have more contrast again emphasised by the larger border.
I always like to print small first and if I feel like it needs to be bigger, I will do so. Printing smaller first is way cheaper and you can really dial in the photograph.
Great video, as always. I must amid I'd picked the smaller print from the choice of two, but in my head I thought it was the aspect ratio, 5x7 is slightly wider. Do you think aspect ratio is an important decision when printing? Thanks again. Chris
That's an interesting question. My personal work often end up square. I am drawn to square for some reason and do I shoot a lot with a 6x6 medium format camera. But apart from that I've tended to use 8x10 or 5x7 and never thought much about the difference in aspect ratio. You've given me food for thought, thank you.
I prefer the smaller print and I think it is because it's more in line with the life size of the subject. I wonder if I did not see the capture or know what type of flower it was would my size choice be the same.
As you remarked, the more you enlarge, the more you loose tonality. If tonality is the name of the game here, you go for the smaller print and ask the viewer to step a tad closer. Alternative solution: Fill the frame in the first place, portrait format with the aid of a an extension tube or bellows. But then, the idea was to keep it simple -- fair enough. Thanks for a nice video!
I can't do the maths in my head but I think 5x7 has a different aspect ratio to 10x8. A few decades ago I went through a phase of printing really small, something about 6x9 or smaller, using the lens off a leica clone. It was fun! Would you have had less cropping to do if the shot was made in vertical format (with a longer lens to keep the subject distance)? Subject for a future program perhaps?
Yes, it would have made more sense to photography this subject as a vertical composition, less cropping of the negative would produce an even higher quality final image.@@PictorialPlanet
@garysamson1291 Just to be clear, I didn't crop. By turning the paper to portrait the base and flowers fit just right. However, I think it would be a good idea to take the shot in portrait e with the camera. Edit: I suppose I did cut off the left and right of the negative so I concede it would have been better without that. Yes, it's a valid point you make.
Great video as always! I wonder if the Sekonic is still working fine today or if you had to adjust it, I suppose it's the 188 model with battery. Please correct me. Secondly, I would love to see a tutorial about Fomapan films with this developer, they are very grainy and the PMK Pyro didn't really work to reduce the grain. Finally, I have the impression that the Adox D76 give me a bigger grain than the Foma or Kodak equivalent. Do you think there is any difference in composition in the Adox version? Thank you very much, it's a very inspiring video!
Have you had problems with a Sekonic? Tell me more. Also, I don't use Fomapan films preferring Ilford for their high quality. The D76/Id11 I used was made by myself. I recommend making your own developer to maintain consistency - who knows what's in the commercial ones? Recently, there's been problems with Kodak developers when new manufacturers took over. These are old issues that come back over and over so make your own is my recommendation. This FX55 is easy and excellent!
@@PictorialPlanet I have a Minolta Autometer IV, I was thinking to buy a cheap and light lightmeter for reflecting light. I found a L-188 like yours at a very good price and I was wondering if it could have some loss of sensitivity for being old. Of course I would like to try to make some developer myself, I will try to follow your suggestion to make the FX-55, I really like the results. I love Ilford films but unfortunately now I can't afford them. Thank you again!
@oscarpantalone2964 Minolta are good. My little Sekonic has been nothing but a joy to use. With any equipment you purchase you have to integrate them into your system and lightmeters are no exception. Testing it against a known meter allows for any 'adjustment' required. For film have you tried Kentmere? They are Ilford's more affordable range and quite nice.
There seems to be much more tonal separation and finer grain with FX55. The problem is that lazy people like me just go for a ready made developer. Only if FX55 was available commercially. PS: Weston made small contact prints, and Adams always used to say that the size of the print is dictated by the subject. Indeed, he used to print small. I too found out, that most of my negatives did not stand great emlargements so readily.
I like them both but agree the 5x7 is special. Would it make sense to shoot 5x7 and contact print, or does 35mm printed at 5x7 produce all the quality you could hope for?
I agree with what you said. I would add, if the larger version was cropped to 1 x 1 it would eliminate a lot of that space. Crop two inches of the top and take another look. 👀🌞
