rxmd
May contain traces of nut
So big prints are to art photographers nowadays what shallow DOF is to gearhead photographers?
Sparrow
Veteran
So big prints are to art photographers nowadays what shallow DOF is to gearhead photographers?
One can always find a one trick pony
Roger Hicks
Veteran
So big prints are to art photographers nowadays what shallow DOF is to gearhead photographers?
Indisputably! Thanks for a superb parallel. "If you can't make it good, keep the depth of field down to 2mm."
Now there's a ghastly thought. Combine the two...
Cheers,
R.
Lss
Well-known
What a terrible experience. I would have loved to look at the photos, but instead I had to play some sort of Wolfenstein 3D clone with a weak story line.
Jamie123
Veteran
dave lackey
Veteran
Maybe it is just too early this morning, but I don't seem to follow what this thread is all about.... I can't tie in the title with the OP or the subsequent complaints about this photographer's work and website...what am I missing here, a fourth cup of coffee?
Can't wait for my nap so I can get up on the right side of the bed....
I can't tie in the title with the OP or the subsequent complaints about this photographer's work and website...what am I missing here, a fourth cup of coffee?Can't wait for my nap so I can get up on the right side of the bed....
dct
perpetual amateur
I see the point. My conclusion is, we should discuss this topic only in front of the original at the wall of an exhibition. Looking at the small web copies or book illustrations doesn't make sense if big format is the crucial aspect here. Maybe I would change my mind on the "boring" images too after I saw it in original size...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I see the point. My conclusion is, we should discuss this topic only in front of the original at the wall of an exhibition. Looking at the small web copies or book illustrations doesn't make sense if big format is the crucial aspect here. Maybe I would change my mind on the "boring" images too after I saw it in original size...
Yes, except that when I first saw original Ansel Adams prints (after being familiar with them from books) I found that they are often grotesquely over-enlarged too. Especially the Hasselblad stuff.
Cheers,
R.
gyuribacsi
Established
I can give you an example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/megapickle1/5218328139/in/set-72157621283079446/
Blow that crap up to 40"x50" (from a 6x9 neg.) and it´s really impressive. And I can give you the story behind (concept) too.
Cheers
George
http://www.flickr.com/photos/megapickle1/5218328139/in/set-72157621283079446/
Blow that crap up to 40"x50" (from a 6x9 neg.) and it´s really impressive. And I can give you the story behind (concept) too.
Cheers
George
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi George,
Why is it impressive to you?
Wasn't it done by gear, no matter who was behind that gear? (I talk about larger formats being enlarged more than smaller formats... Nothing impressive there to me, honestly... Nothing technically special done by anyone there... It was just normal, and was done just by light and glass and sensitive materials...)
Cheers.
Juan
gyuribacsi
Established
Hi Juan!
First, I have to commit, I like Thomas Struth and his work, period. Specially his early work the family portraits are really great. You can feel the hell behind the harmony.
Today art means large format, very large format. I also like Neo Rauch and his huge paintings. And there is the diffenrece.... if you look at Neo´s paintings as photos in a catalogue they have the same impact. If you look at Thomas´s pictures in a catalogue you´ll miss something.
What my statement above (about my crappy unleveled pic.) was, that I made a 40x50 digital print of it and I was impressed. This picture was really touchy.
The big sized prints in museums or galleries are not primarly caused by the artist but by the galleries. So they are really more "impressive" to the spectators. It is marketing or business. Nobody is looking on photographs in normal sizes (10 x 20) in a gallery.
My 2 cents
George
First, I have to commit, I like Thomas Struth and his work, period. Specially his early work the family portraits are really great. You can feel the hell behind the harmony.
Today art means large format, very large format. I also like Neo Rauch and his huge paintings. And there is the diffenrece.... if you look at Neo´s paintings as photos in a catalogue they have the same impact. If you look at Thomas´s pictures in a catalogue you´ll miss something.
What my statement above (about my crappy unleveled pic.) was, that I made a 40x50 digital print of it and I was impressed. This picture was really touchy.
The big sized prints in museums or galleries are not primarly caused by the artist but by the galleries. So they are really more "impressive" to the spectators. It is marketing or business. Nobody is looking on photographs in normal sizes (10 x 20) in a gallery.
My 2 cents
George
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
If we talk about the masses, nobody is looking for good photographs, in any size...
In a more humble spectrum, ahem, me all the photographs I consider part of my serious shooting (81 by now after years of constant shooting) are enlarged without exception (3 prints each) on Bergger fiber 10x12 inches warm paper. Size doesn't impress me at all, not even in museums: I guess I've seen too many classic prints, and those have had a relatively small size for more than a century... They look great that size! Most big photographs at galleries (amazingly bad!) make me run away...
Cheers,
Juan
In a more humble spectrum, ahem, me
all the photographs I consider part of my serious shooting (81 by now after years of constant shooting) are enlarged without exception (3 prints each) on Bergger fiber 10x12 inches warm paper. Size doesn't impress me at all, not even in museums: I guess I've seen too many classic prints, and those have had a relatively small size for more than a century... They look great that size! Most big photographs at galleries (amazingly bad!) make me run away... Cheers,
Juan
Roger Hicks
Veteran
gyuribacsi
Established
@ Juan
Yes, Juan, that´s what I mean. If a photograph is good, size does not matter. It has some content, a "story" or just something like beauty (in philosophical meaning).
@ Roger
Yes, it seems it´s a fashion, a life-style thing. Your statement about Arles is great.
One of my favorits is Josef Sudek. Minimalistic still-lifes in small sizes (5x7) but so beautiful. Or take E. Steichen.
George
Yes, Juan, that´s what I mean. If a photograph is good, size does not matter. It has some content, a "story" or just something like beauty (in philosophical meaning).
@ Roger
Yes, it seems it´s a fashion, a life-style thing. Your statement about Arles is great.
One of my favorits is Josef Sudek. Minimalistic still-lifes in small sizes (5x7) but so beautiful. Or take E. Steichen.
George
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear George (or possibly Gyorgy -- see below),
What really struck me about the commercial galleries (where stuff was actually SELLING) was how few huge prints there were... I'm thinking about Arlatino, phOtOs and the like..
Purely out of vulgar curiosity (it's nothing to do with me) are you Hungarian? Or is your screen name not pronounced Juribachi at all?
Cheers,
R.
What really struck me about the commercial galleries (where stuff was actually SELLING) was how few huge prints there were... I'm thinking about Arlatino, phOtOs and the like..
Purely out of vulgar curiosity (it's nothing to do with me) are you Hungarian? Or is your screen name not pronounced Juribachi at all?
Cheers,
R.
gyuribacsi
Established
Yes, Roger, indeed. I am hungarian by birth after my 8th anniversary grown up in Austria, now in good old Germany (Munich).
The galleries for photography I visit here are showing formats upon 40x50 inches, some smallers too but these are the minority.
But it seems to be usual that todays artists producing huge format pieces. Look at Richter f.e. The most of his exposed paintings are 2,5 Meters by 3 Meters. Or Neo Rauchs work, really large paintings. And look at Gursky´s paramounts, incredible stitching work.
I can not understand that point. Why take 20 or more MF-captures and compose them together. I have tried to do some stitching, it´s horrible. You have to grab every pixle at the seams and put them in a matching line. Nothing for me.
Cheers
George
The galleries for photography I visit here are showing formats upon 40x50 inches, some smallers too but these are the minority.
But it seems to be usual that todays artists producing huge format pieces. Look at Richter f.e. The most of his exposed paintings are 2,5 Meters by 3 Meters. Or Neo Rauchs work, really large paintings. And look at Gursky´s paramounts, incredible stitching work.
I can not understand that point. Why take 20 or more MF-captures and compose them together. I have tried to do some stitching, it´s horrible. You have to grab every pixle at the seams and put them in a matching line. Nothing for me.
Cheers
George