Maybe 16x20” is enough for 35mm

[collarge]

The recent uploads from Gohai’s Epson R-D1’s has brought me round to this old question, do we really need 22 megapixel’s and up if the images are only going to be loaded on Flickr, forums or only printed to 16x20”.
In my experience and not because of grain, noise, quality etc, but when you go above 20x24” in print size the enlarged 35mm whatever film/digital megapixel, it just kind of feels over stretched, where as medium/large format feels right at the larger print sizes.
If you were to take two of the best rangefinder photographers in my opinion Eggleston and Bresson there images are never really shown above a 16x20” print. Am I just seeing things because that’s the way it has been presented up to now, or will more modern ways like 50” flat screen Tele’s change this perception.

 

[Turtle]

More resolution with the lenses and sensor and smaller formats perform the same as larger ones with lesser resolution on sensor and lens.

Besides, I like 20x24 prints from 35mm film if the image suits. not often, but some do. Just had a couple done in fact.

 

[Trius]

I tend to agree, though I have seen 20x24 prints from 35mm that worked quite well.

 

[Sparrow]

Why not print 16x24 and use the full neg?

Personally I seldom go past 12x18

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Huge prints, even from 35mm, seem to be the thing in galleries these days. Those I've seen would have looked much better at much smaller sizes. I routinely print 17"x22" from digital, but rarely print anything larger.

 

[Turtle]

Why not print 16x24 and use the full neg?

Personally I seldom go past 12x18

Sorry, 20x24 is the paper size on which I will have a minimum 1 inch border. Depending on cropping the image might be 18x22 or 15x22 - just depends.

Size and intimimacy are inversely related 😉 The bigger the less intimate the interaction, but you need size for impact with some images IMHO. I agree that big is often a substitute for quality; however, bear in mind that exhibitions are different to homes and often a slightly larger images can work somewhat better in an exhibition by giving people space from the image. I normally print from 10x8 upwards but would have no hesitation printing smaller if I felt it right. I have done the odd 5x7. I standardised on 16x12 and 20x16 for most images tho a I generally print for display and not for portfolio.

 

[collarge]

yes I have seen many images printed to large for 35mm, sometimes people get carried away with printing to large because they can, even if you were to take all the images on this forum there must be 90% that would be best suited to small prints rather than huge wall size prints, this may also be i guess to 35mm lending itself more to street photography/portrait than landscapes.
So even if we had a Leica M12 60 megapixel would the images lend them selfs to huge wall size prints, or would the quality of 16x24" prints become so more interesting in detail.

 

[J. Borger]

Huge prints, even from 35mm, seem to be the thing in galleries these days. Those I've seen would have looked much better at much smaller sizes. I routinely print 17"x22" from digital, but rarely print anything larger.

Agree.
Most (but not all) pictures look better smaller!
Even Hasselblad pictures look best at 15" X 15" or 20" X 20"" if you ask me!

I print 13X 19 maximum and see no differences between M8, Rd1, or scanned MF film when it comes to resolution/ sharpness at that size.
Tonalities, depth, general look is a different story.

 

[venchka]

Last December I walked into a room filled with Ansel Adams photographs. At least 60. Maybe more. One print was 11x14. The rest were small. At least one was 4x5. None of the photos seemed too small.

That said, I have a 12x18 hanging in my office at home. I like that size.

 

[bmattock]

Last December I walked into a room filled with Ansel Adams photographs. At least 60. Maybe more. One print was 11x14. The rest were small. At least one was 4x5. None of the photos seemed too small.

That said, I have a 12x18 hanging in my office at home. I like that size.

Indeed. And I find that a 6mp dSLR from 2004 can cover that as well as a 10mp dSLR from 2008. I think the OP's question was what we've gained, and the answer from my point of view is that I can't think of much.

I can crop more tightly with the newer camera. I like the new dynamic range feature and the anti-shake body. But the older camera was lighter and had a brighter viewfinder (pentaprism versus pentamirror). But other than that, 6mp was quite enough for me, really.

 

[Rob-F]

Last December I walked into a room filled with Ansel Adams photographs. At least 60. Maybe more. One print was 11x14. The rest were small. At least one was 4x5. None of the photos seemed too small.

I was going to say something similar. I've seen small prints, such as 5 x 7 in several museums. I've also seen contact prints from a 4 x 5 negative.

My most used paper sizes are 5 x7 and 8 x 10. I keep some 11 x 14 paper around and use it occasionally. My darkroom is equipped for 16 x 20, but I seldom use it, as it is such a bother to handle. And where will I put it? I have room for three or four such prints on our walls. My wife has nice things to hang up too, after all.

One photo instructor said that 17" was quite enough, even for Hasselblad negatives. He felt the tones started to fall apart after that. Of course, it depends on film and technique, too. I think 11 x 14 is enough from 35mm. I have had no quality problems going 16 x 20 from 6 x 6, but seldom need such a big enlargement.

A good picture is just as good at 11 x 14, and maybe even 8 x 10, as it is at 16 x 20. The gradation can even be smoother smaller. "Smoother smaller"--I like that. Bigger may not always be better.

Added note: concerning the figure of 17 inches. This one instructor liked to remind the class that in between 11 x 14 and 16 x 20, there is an intermediate size of 14 x 17, which he felt was underutilized, yet just about ideal for medium format.

 

[Al Kaplan]

In a typical home setting even a 16x20 print plus matt and frame is probably too big unless you have really large rooms. You also have to consider lighting and possible reflections off the glass.

I sold off my Jerry Uelsmann prints a few years ago. There was one about 4x5 inches (that brought the most money) but the rest were printed on 11x14 paper.

I suspect that galleries like large prints because the truth is that they're selling them as expensive decoration and they can get more money for the larger print for that use. For somebody who is a serious collector an 8x10 Edward Weston contact print is just fine. That's what Weston made. I've seen W. Eugene Smith, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Ken Heyman, and other photographers' work in galleries, museums, and private collections, printed on 11x14 or 8x10 paper.

I have a B&W print by Nathan Benn with an image of 5.25 x 7.5 inches. If that was big enough for a guy who went on to work for National Geographic and who now heads up the Magnum Photo Agency why should I quibble?

 

[sepiareverb]

An acquaintance has a frame with four 35mm single frame contact prints matted in it which is among the most beautiful objects I've ever seen. By George Tice.

I'm one who finds print size an important consideration when printing. I strive for images that work best at 16x20", but use others at smaller sizes as well. But I'm firmly of the belief that there is a 'right' size for every image.

 

[furcafe]

FWIW, having seen the "Democratic Camera" show of his stuff @ the Corcoran here in DC (I believe the same show was @ the Whitney in NYC previously), I can say that many of Eggleston's photographs are actually shown larger than 16x20" prints. Of course, he does shoot w/medium & large format, too.

IIRC, some of Cartier-Bresson's work, e.g., his "Tete A Tete" series of portraits, has also been printed larger than 16x20".

. . .

If you were to take two of the best rangefinder photographers in my opinion Eggleston and Bresson there images are never really shown above a 16x20” print. Am I just seeing things because that’s the way it has been presented up to now, or will more modern ways like 50” flat screen Tele’s change this perception.

. . .

 

[collarge]

I guess what we are saying is there are few occasions and people who need these huge prints and that 16 x 24” to 20 x 30” is large as most of us are going to want to go, unless me inherit a huge mansion house. I know we can crop images, but I always think something is lost in that process.
Certainly I feel that the majority of photo takers in the world have their collections on computer, and the only time they get seen them bigger is if they have bigger monitors, so have we then reached really the maximum mega pixel size needed for Joe public.

 

[vidgamer]

Once you start to get to poster sizes, you also have to figure that the viewer will not be right up to the photo, examining the details that closely. It just has to look good from a normal viewing distance. Personally, I find 11x14 a good size, although I have printed larger (from digital).

If you don't intend on printing large, then you don't exactly need to worry about high quality, I suppose! You could save a lot on equipment. How much do we spend on the chance that we might use it?

20x30 is tough. I've had some poor attempts, but this last one I had done (from a 10mp camera) is pretty good. I have to have a pretty clean source to work with, though! Obviously, any imperfections are going to be magnified....

 

[Turtle]

Surely the only conclusion is that we all have different tastes and even for individuals there are no blanket rules. I can take two frames nest to each other on the same roll of film and want to print one to 10x8 and the other 20x24.

 

[pvdhaar]

After a team building day (helping out at a care-center) where we did a hectic electric wheelchair race, we used a plotter to output one of my pictures taken with a 6mp dslr. Size of the plot was 1m x 1.5m, and I made two observations:

1. Nobody cared about pixels, cause the image was hilarious..
2. To actually see the pixels in the output, you'd have to view it from so close by, that you couldn't see the entire image anymore..

Since then, I feel perfectly at ease shooting 6mp images..

 

[Turtle]

It also depends on how you use the space and perhaps even regional tastes. I don't like large images shoehorned into a small room, but a single large image on the right wall can look superb even if the room is not gigantic. It also depends very much on the type, to me. For example, images where people or faces are very large I feel you need a very large room. however a large image of a distant scene, perhaps where people are small and it is more of a landscpae, I feel works OK in an average sized room even when the print is pretty big.

 

[Matus]

I think how large one prints from a given medium size (data volume) depends strongly on the image itself and the way it will be presented.

For me - as I mostly print landscapes or other images that depend on the detail and should allow the viewer to come close and enjoy "the view" - 6 Mp will at best suffice fo 8x10. What film concerns - one needs a low grain (velvia, provia or similar), technically perfect image and very good quality scan to go beyond 8x enlargment and still rettain full detail. Tonality is a bit diferent issue.

For my tast - if I print an 8x10 image from my 6Mp 2005 DSLR (Minolta 7D) image past 8x10 (or A4) it becomes obvious that the detail is simply not there (this is actually seen alreay at 8x10 as the true resolution of any DLSR is about 60% of the pixec count). On the other hand I made an ~ 11x15 print that a friends of mine have hanged in their beddrom and it's perfectly fine as it never gets view from closer than ~1.5 m

For the reasons above I am using MF or 4x5 films when possible as I like 12x18 and 16x20 prints to be smooth and full of detail. And I can not afford a camera like 5DmII. But I also like the look of film better ...