Tuolumne
Veteran
I am always surprised when I see prints of the masters in exhibits. They are all so small, even diminutive. What is this obsession with large size? Is it supposed to make an inferior photo look better?
/T
/T
Turtle
Veteran
As always it depends. Some prints look awful big and some look awful (IMO) when too small. Salgado's prints vary a lot in size and some of his huge prints from 35mm were absolutely breathtaking, others less so. Plenty of superb photographers and printers make large prints. It depends on so many factors, such as:
nature of subject
Film, dev, enlarger
Display space & viewing distance - home/gallery etc
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A possibly useful quote, in favour of small pictures, from my own web-site
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps magic window 1.html
A small picture is something we see every day: we do not think twice about it as a picture. In that sense, it is 'transparent': we see the subject, not the picture. Big pictures tend to be either Art or Commerce, both of which can do a perfectly splendid job of standing between us and the subject matter (and indeed much else).
I have long believed that there is always a size that a particular picture 'wants' to be. Some 'want' to be big: some 'want' to be small. It's impossible to generalize.
Cheers,
R.
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps magic window 1.html
A small picture is something we see every day: we do not think twice about it as a picture. In that sense, it is 'transparent': we see the subject, not the picture. Big pictures tend to be either Art or Commerce, both of which can do a perfectly splendid job of standing between us and the subject matter (and indeed much else).
I have long believed that there is always a size that a particular picture 'wants' to be. Some 'want' to be big: some 'want' to be small. It's impossible to generalize.
Cheers,
R.
tcline
Member
not exactly on topic: I got a chance to see Avedons - American West exhibit a few years ago and seeing those images anything less than 5'x5' or 6'x6' would not be doing them justice. The impact was absolutely incredible.
Most pictures are better printed smaller though.
Most pictures are better printed smaller though.
uhligfd
Well-known
I do like the original 2:3 aspect ratios of 35 mm film/sensor. So crops are out for me. Size is a matter of price and does not matter much either to me; 8 by 12 inches seems about right.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Size depends on where you display the picture and WHY you display the picture. Most of my photos are just fine with an 8x12 image centered on 11x14 paper.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Just last night I was thinking that several of my recent images would look very good at 16" wide or so on 1620 paper, floated in the frame.