PDA

View Full Version : Size matters?


Trevor Crone
12th September 2009, 03:27 PM
I found this to be a well written and interesting article and one that resonates with me. For some time I've looked at many of my 16"x20" prints and just found them ostentatious. Most of my personal work is no more then 10" to 12" on the long side, many are 4x5 and 8x10 contact prints.

http://www.davidkachel.com/monographs.html

Click on "ban the bedsheets-size matters" right hand side.

Dave miller
12th September 2009, 04:04 PM
In spite of what he says in his article it does come down to viewing distance. 5 x 4 prints are fine if you are close enough to them, but not if they are hanging the other side of a room. I've just finished going through a PPC folio (http://www.postalphotoclub.org.uk/) where the prints are a maximum size of 5x7 inches. Since they are intended to be viewed in the hand this is an ideal size. Those same prints will be completely lost if they were intended for framing in the average living room where something around 14 x 10 would be ideally presented in a 20 x 16 frame.

I think that the present passion for super sized prints stems from the availability of wide roll digital paper. If you have brought a 60 inch printer then 60 inch prints must be sold to the public to pay for it.

Trevor Crone
12th September 2009, 04:36 PM
A small print on the wall can be viewed close to, providing there's no physical obstacle preventing you from doing so.

He is right about intimacy I believe. I get a real feeling of connection when I view a small print close to then a large print further back. Even going close to a large print doesn't always work for me.

Poster size prints that take up an entire gallery wall just push me away. Although I may still enjoy the image I just find it too overwhelming. I'm just let feeling the photographer has just said, 'look how big I can print this'. It works on advertising billboards but sorry not for me on the exhibition wall

Richard Gould
12th September 2009, 05:10 PM
Once I used to print mainly 12x16, but these days I love the smaller print, and I nearly always print on 9x12 these days, and mount using 16x20 mounts, I like the idea that people have to look closely at my photographs, and can get drawn into the picture,.I think the size of the print is very much down to personal choice,Richard

Alan Clark
12th September 2009, 05:46 PM
When I was selling prints in galeries I made them in two sizes, 14" x 9.5" and 11" x 7", from 35mm negatives, frame sizes 20 x 16 and 16 x 12. I sold substantially more of the larger size, possibly because they had more "presence" on the wall.
Nowardays most of my prints are done either for an archive on farming life for my local museum, at 11" x 7", or for my own personal collection. When friends come to stay they ask to see my latest stuff and to be honest I feel a bit pretentious handing them a pile of photographs in 20 x 16 mounts. They are also rather awkward for people to handle when sitting down. So I now mount everything in 14" square mounts. This suits 11" x 7" 35mm prints, both vertical and horizontal format. 6x6 negatives are printed 7.5" square, on 10 x 8 paper, and 5 x 4 negatives go on 9.5 x 12 paper. Now I have just aquired a half plate and a 10 x 8 camera, contact prints from these negatives fit very nicely into the system as well. I feel very cofortable with these small prints, and am really enjoying building up my collection of them.
I don't suggest anyone else adopts my system, but it's a good idea to find something that you are comfortable with.

Alan

Ian David
12th September 2009, 07:57 PM
I reckon it all depends on the particular image, the particular space where you are going to put it, and what feeling you are trying to achieve. A lot of really large photographs look pretentious simply because they are just not that good, or they are in the wrong place...
I like small intimate presentations as much as the next man, but sometimes a big image can be very strong and effective.
Ian

Miha
12th September 2009, 08:34 PM
Thanks for posting the link, Trevor.

I very much share the idea about intimacy and small print size. I print small (13x18cm or 18x24cm). Infact I do not take photographs or print them with the idea of exibit them as the final result.

I have a small Phaidon book Magnum Landscape. The prints in the book are 15x21cm or smaller. They look gorgeous, provoking. Every time I look at them, they reveale something new to me. The magic of photography hidden in a small, fragile, tactiled and intimate object. - as David Kachel put it.

A small print can be seducing, a large one is often perverse.

Miha

Ian David
12th September 2009, 08:59 PM
Yes, thanks for posting the link Trevor. I have now read the article and Kachel's is an interesting point of view, and a good topic for discussion. But I think he is mistaken in his belief that intimacy is a vital ingredient of every successful photo. The examples of someone else's family portrait and Weston's pepper are particularly good for illustrating his point, but not at all representative of the range of photographic subjects. Small prints probably do generally foster a greater feeling of intimacy, but I am not at all convinced that intimacy is a necessary or even desirable goal in every presentation of every image. Just my tuppence...

Trevor Crone
12th September 2009, 09:17 PM
For me a big print shouts while a small print whispers.

Ian David
12th September 2009, 09:32 PM
Sometimes a shout is more appropriate than a whisper.
Sometimes, depending on the subject and the context, a big print whispers while a small print goes unheard...

Ian David
12th September 2009, 09:34 PM
I just noticed over on AP*G that David Kachel seems to have "big print" sort of ambitions for his article!

Mark-NY
12th September 2009, 11:42 PM
Trevor, thanks for pointing out this article. I found it very interesting and quite relevant at this particular juncture. Having just made the commitment to 8x10 contact printing, the relationship between print size and subject was a much anguished over consideration. This choice meant that I would have to select subjects and compose for one print size.

I think that the subject does in many ways dictate print size; however, I am not sure that photographs need to be intimate. For me the best example of this are the photographs of Brad Washburn (www.panopt.com/images-new.php?a=1). He did many wonderful and amazing things over the course of his 90+ year life. While photography was in many ways just a method for Brad to document his exploits, he did it in such an innovative and brilliant way that is really fine art and has been recognized as such.

He is probably best known for his aerial photography of the Alaska Range. Here, he used a Fairchild K-6 aerial camera with 8x10 film rolls (can't imagine how he developed them). At altitudes of up to 22,000 feet Brad would open the door of the plane, compose the shot and then he would have the pilot turn off the engine so that the vibrations would not affect the photograph.

As one can imagine, his landscapes are EPIC in scale: massive walls of ice and rock. A favorite subject, Denali (Mt McKinley), has larger bulk and greater rise than Mt Everest. Anyway, I cannot imagine these photographs as a 5x7 or even 8x10. It really takes a 20x24 print to convey the drama and scale of the subject. There is also nothing intimate about the environment, so if the size does not draw one in or allow one to easily contemplate the subject then all the better for these particular photographs. On the other hand, there are also many of his photographs that I think only work when printed smaller. They are generally the ones with people as the main subjects.

Dave miller
13th September 2009, 06:19 AM
Trevor, thanks for pointing out this article. I found it very interesting and quite relevant at this particular juncture. Having just made the commitment to 8x10 contact printing, the relationship between print size and subject was a much anguished over consideration. This choice meant that I would have to select subjects and compose for one print size.

I think that the subject does in many ways dictate print size; however, I am not sure that photographs need to be intimate. For me the best example of this are the photographs of Brad Washburn (http://www.panopt.com/images-new.php?a=1). He did many wonderful and amazing things over the course of his 90+ year life. While photography was in many ways just a method for Brad to document his exploits, he did it in such an innovative and brilliant way that is really fine art and has been recognized as such.

He is probably best known for his aerial photography of the Alaska Range. Here, he used a Fairchild K-6 aerial camera with 8x10 film rolls (can't imagine how he developed them). At altitudes of up to 22,000 feet Brad would open the door of the plane, compose the shot and then he would have the pilot turn off the engine so that the vibrations would not affect the photograph.

As one can imagine, his landscapes are EPIC in scale: massive walls of ice and rock. A favorite subject, Denali (Mt McKinley), has larger bulk and greater rise than Mt Everest. Anyway, I cannot imagine these photographs as a 5x7 or even 8x10. It really takes a 20x24 print to convey the drama and scale of the subject. There is also nothing intimate about the environment, so if the size does not draw one in or allow one to easily contemplate the subject then all the better for these particular photographs. On the other hand, there are also many of his photographs that I think only work when printed smaller. They are generally the ones with people as the main subjects.

An excellent example of the need for large prints to convey the detail in the landscape. Thanks for the link, I wasn't familiar with Washburn's work, very impressive.

Trevor Crone
13th September 2009, 07:43 AM
Trevor, thanks for pointing out this article. I found it very interesting and quite relevant at this particular juncture. Having just made the commitment to 8x10 contact printing, the relationship between print size and subject was a much anguished over consideration. This choice meant that I would have to select subjects and compose for one print size.

I think that the subject does in many ways dictate print size; however, I am not sure that photographs need to be intimate. For me the best example of this are the photographs of Brad Washburn (www.panopt.com/images-new.php?a=1). He did many wonderful and amazing things over the course of his 90+ year life. While photography was in many ways just a method for Brad to document his exploits, he did it in such an innovative and brilliant way that is really fine art and has been recognized as such.

He is probably best known for his aerial photography of the Alaska Range. Here, he used a Fairchild K-6 aerial camera with 8x10 film rolls (can't imagine how he developed them). At altitudes of up to 22,000 feet Brad would open the door of the plane, compose the shot and then he would have the pilot turn off the engine so that the vibrations would not affect the photograph.

As one can imagine, his landscapes are EPIC in scale: massive walls of ice and rock. A favorite subject, Denali (Mt McKinley), has larger bulk and greater rise than Mt Everest. Anyway, I cannot imagine these photographs as a 5x7 or even 8x10. It really takes a 20x24 print to convey the drama and scale of the subject. There is also nothing intimate about the environment, so if the size does not draw one in or allow one to easily contemplate the subject then all the better for these particular photographs. On the other hand, there are also many of his photographs that I think only work when printed smaller. They are generally the ones with people as the main subjects.

Mark, I saw Bradford Washburn's work in the Land exhibition at the V&A in 1976. I can't for the life of me remember now what size it/they were for there were many big prints on display. But what left a lasting impression on me from that epic show is Edward Weston's 'quite' 8x10 contact prints.

Perhaps its as I've got older many things have changed for me, for one my taste in music is to say the least very minimal, ambient and one of quietude. My prints are now small because I have nothing to shout about ;) I've just turned the volume down.

I would have to disagree that big landscapes require big prints, I think they can work equally well printed small and I have seen this many times in exhibitions. But this of course is a personal opinion and we all see, approach and present our work in different ways. There is no wrong or right way, just different.

Trevor Crone
13th September 2009, 07:55 AM
I just noticed over on AP*G that David Kachel seems to have "big print" sort of ambitions for his article!

Ouch! But I did enjoy reading your reply to his article.

Ian David
13th September 2009, 08:10 AM
You probably noticed that, due to a lack of mental effort on my part, my reply to his article was just a cut and paste of what I wrote here! He seems to be taking people's various comments in good humour...
I actually have a personal project on the go here at home, Trevor, which requires a couple of very large prints. If I ever finish it, I will post a picture of the prints in situ on my wall and you can tell me if you think they look OK or are too big :D

Trevor Crone
13th September 2009, 08:26 AM
You probably noticed that, due to a lack of mental effort on my part, my reply to his article was just a cut and paste of what I wrote here! He seems to be taking people's various comments in good humour...
I actually have a personal project on the go here at home, Trevor, which requires a couple of very large prints. If I ever finish it, I will post a picture of the prints in situ on my wall and you can tell me if you think they look OK or are too big :D

That would be great Ian and I think really interesting. But I'll tell you now, TOO BIG, seriously, what I say matters not it's what you feel and think is what counts. May I ask what is the work of?

Yes, David Kachel is taking comments well, but when you stick your neck out like he has done you better prepare for some flack, and rightly so.

David Lingham
13th September 2009, 08:56 AM
I've moved away from making large prints as well. I often proof print on 8x10 and find the image works well at this size. When mounted on a 16x20 board it draws attention and asks to be looked at.

Tony Marlow
13th September 2009, 09:09 AM
Looking at the works of Manet, Degas, Renoir, Monet etc., they produced pictures to be viewed hung on a wall in a similar way to photographs in an exhibition. The size of these paintings usually start at 20ins.x 16ins and more commonly go up to one or two metres in size. I wonder why paintings are bigger but photographs smaller? Both show similar subject matter. Are the size of photographs influenced or dictated by price and the practicalities of the size of negative, paper and enlarging equipment? Any views on why?
Tony

Peter Hogan
13th September 2009, 09:16 AM
I've just checked with Sparkle. Size does matter. Absolutely.:o

Trevor Crone
13th September 2009, 09:30 AM
I've just checked with Sparkle. Size does matter. Absolutely.:o

Dare I ask.......? :rolleyes:

Dave miller
13th September 2009, 09:37 AM
Dare I ask.......? :rolleyes:

No, you may not. ;) At least not on this forum.

Ian David
13th September 2009, 09:38 AM
That would be great Ian and I think really interesting. But I'll tell you now, TOO BIG, seriously, what I say matters not it's what you feel and think is what counts. May I ask what is the work of?

Yes, David Kachel is taking comments well, but when you stick your neck out like he has done you better prepare for some flack, and rightly so.

The plan is for the pictures to be of some fairly dense jungle Trevor, with the intention of making it almost feel like you are in amongst it. I am actually thinking a wallpaper effect might be an option... There is an expanse of wall downstairs where the doors open out onto palms and other lush foliage where I think this may work.... We'll see.

Dave miller
13th September 2009, 09:42 AM
Looking at the works of Manet, Degas, Renoir, Monet etc., they produced pictures to be viewed hung on a wall in a similar way to photographs in an exhibition. The size of these paintings usually start at 20ins.x 16ins and more commonly go up to one or two metres in size. I wonder why paintings are bigger but photographs smaller? Both show similar subject matter. Are the size of photographs influenced or dictated by price and the practicalities of the size of negative, paper and enlarging equipment? Any views on why?
Tony

The painters were selling to (or hoped to) the wealthy who had lots of wall space to fill.

Trevor Crone
13th September 2009, 09:48 AM
The plan is for the pictures to be of some fairly dense jungle Trevor, with the intention of making it almost feel like you are in amongst it. I am actually thinking a wallpaper effect might be an option... There is an expanse of wall downstairs where the doors open out onto palms and other lush foliage where I think this may work.... We'll see.

Now that is interesting. I see where big prints can have that intimacy, of being amongst the subject. Indeed would be difficult to achieve with small prints in such a setting.

I do hope you finish this project, would love to see the finished item/installation.

Ian David
13th September 2009, 09:54 AM
I hope I finish it too! My main problem is having too many personal projects underway at the same time. Because there is no real deadline, and I am hard to please, it is easy for these things to drag on a bit... But I will post a shot of the finished job because I would be interested in people's impressions. Your interest will spur me on!

Trevor Crone
13th September 2009, 10:22 AM
Ian, just one more thought. Will you behaving some kind of border around the prints or will they be flush mounted? Also you are taking photography to another level in bringing the outside in or indeed the inside out. Creating the illusion of space and location.

Tom Kershaw
13th September 2009, 11:12 AM
Ian,

There is a video you can purchase from the Luminous Landscape website, an in-depth interview with Clyde Butcher that goes through his process in some detail.

http://store.luminous-landscape.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=20&products_id=134&zenid=d4e3792a390bffbf675c9b0d5baa028b

Tom

Mark-NY
13th September 2009, 11:33 AM
Perhaps its as I've got older many things have changed for me, for one my taste in music is to say the least very minimal, ambient and one of quietude. My prints are now small because I have nothing to shout about ;) I've just turned the volume down.

I would have to disagree that big landscapes require big prints, I think they can work equally well printed small and I have seen this many times in exhibitions. But this of course is a personal opinion and we all see, approach and present our work in different ways. There is no wrong or right way, just different.

Trevor, Couldn't agree more - it is all personal and subjective. Not only in terms of artistic preference but also the life experiences that colors one's reaction to it. No two people will have the same experience viewing a photograph.

I had a number of occasions to meet Brad Washburn one of which was in Talkeetna, Alaska. There were about 15 climbers waiting for the weather to clear before taking a ski plane on to the glaciers near their various objectives. Many had been waiting a week or more and were quite bored. So Brad organized an impromptu slide show of aerial photographs he had done for a mapping project. It was such a nice evening and Brad was just charming as he detailed the story behind each slide. On the other hand, I have spent many collective weeks experiencing the isolation and incredible scale of the Alaska Range.

So, every time I look at a Washburn photograph I, not so subconsciously, see the warm personality of the man behind the camera as well as remember my own experiences in the landscape. For me, they really work large. Everyone will not experience his photographs this way.

This also makes me realize there is a lot that I am missing when I look at other artists' work. Not having the same experiences and connection that I do with a Washburn photograph, I am probably only just scratching the surface of their work. Or, maybe, that is the hallmark of a great artist - the ability to convey to others ideas that are out of their own experiences?

I also no longer care to shout about anything; just not worth the effort and not all that effective as an agent of change. Now if I could help my teenage son understand that. ;)

Akki14
13th September 2009, 12:39 PM
Having just viewed lots of 3x4 and 4x5 polaroids at Modern Art Oxford (Mapplethorpe early work exhibit), I see nothing wrong with small prints in a large room, as long as there's space to stand close to it and it's at a comfortable viewing height on the wall. They didn't feel "weird" or wrong in that context.
I'm not really one for large prints either. I think it's down to personal preference. Certainly it's surprising some people print the d-word stuff so large as it's much more likely to look awful and pixely up close when printed to wall-size.

Should also point out that there were painters who specialised in the very tiny. Miniature portrait painters. Unfortunately, they're not so easy to display so most museums do not or do not have many in collections because they're easier to lose etc.
More about them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_miniature which unsurprisingly points out that Portrait miniatures became more rare as daguerrotypes and other photography came into play (probably carte de viste, certainly).
The V&A has a display of these in a dark room in perspex cases, fibre optic point lighting and magnifying glasses on stands inside the cases for better viewing.

Tony Marlow
13th September 2009, 01:04 PM
The painters were selling to (or hoped to) the wealthy who had lots of wall space to fill.

I guess what you are saying Dave is that everything we do in this world is compromised by money. Either in our efforts to get more of it or falling short of our aspirations by just having to make do with what we have got. I thought I was supposed to be the cynic!
Tony

Keith Tapscott.
13th September 2009, 01:06 PM
http://www.davidkachel.com/monographs.html

I see that Mr. Kachel is another digital convert. :(

Trevor Crone
13th September 2009, 01:14 PM
I see that Mr. Kachel is another digital convert. :(

I noticed that too Keith. I was tempted to contact him and ask why the change? I was looking at some of his photography taken in Texas and thought it was very good.

Daud
13th September 2009, 01:44 PM
This is a very interesting thread:

I have just spent all weekend (Thursday, Friday) printing various negatives as small as I can, but still get a feeling for the subject.
Now comes the hard bit – framing but hay ho……

My thinking has been – if I can look through a book of photographs and still get an interaction with the image; when most are in the order of 6 x 8 inches, why do I need to print larger?
As an example in the art world: look at the work of the Japanese artist 'Hokusai' his work is never large (what I have seen of it anyway) But can convey so much drama & meaning, surely a B&W print can do the same thing.

I agree that in certain circumstances, a large print is needed, but I suspect needed for decorative purposes; not because the subject matter needs printing large.

David.

Dave miller
13th September 2009, 02:08 PM
I guess what you are saying Dave is that everything we do in this world is compromised by money. Either in our efforts to get more of it or falling short of our aspirations by just having to make do with what we have got. I thought I was supposed to be the cynic!
Tony

You have some way to go to catch me in the cynic stakes Tony. :D

With regard to paintings, particularly old masters, I think they were originally sold by the square metre rather than content. Now they have to fit into a bank vault, so smaller is good.;)

Tony Marlow
13th September 2009, 04:20 PM
With regard to paintings, particularly old masters, I think they were originally sold by the square metre rather than content. Now they have to fit into a bank vault, so smaller is good.

Perhaps we should get back to aesthetics; I don't see how you can make generalised statements on the size of prints. Surely size depends on so many factors, picture content, viewing situation, purpose of the photograph, who is it intended for, limitations of the process etc. etc. I am sure we all take these factors into consideration, even if sub-consciously, and print accordingly.
Tony

Ian Leake
13th September 2009, 06:15 PM
I've picked up on this thread rather late... I believe that size definitely matters, but that the right size for a picture depends on the composition, the photo's emotional load, and the photographer's aesthetic.

Many prints work well in different sizes, but in general I believe that a small prints needs a simple, uncluttered composition, while a large print needs a composition which will dominate the space it's in. I don't think the specific subject matter is relevant.

I like the way a small print forces you to cross the room and engage with it. And when I'm making photos I like the purity of making contact prints from a large format negative. The, "what you see is what you get," when composing on the ground glass helps to ensure the print works at the size at which it will be printed.

Despite that preference in my own work, I'm as likely to enjoy someone else's large print as their small one.

Alan Clark
13th September 2009, 06:18 PM
Tony,
I agree with what you say but when I go into the darkroom with a 5 x 4 negative in order to make a print for my personal collection and can have the pleasure of making a print of any size from a 5 x 4 contact to a 20 x 24 inch enlargement, I usually prefer to make a print on 9.5 x 12 paper, wheras at one time I would always opt to make a large print if given the chance. As others have said here, I seem to have woken up to the charm of small prints. But I still make big ones occasionally.

Alan

Alan Clark
13th September 2009, 06:29 PM
Ian,
Would you not agree that for a large print to dominate the space it is in (as you say it should) it should have a simple uncluttered composition, just like your requirement for a small print?
I agree with you over the need for a simple uncluttered composition. I always stand as far away as possible (4 metres in my darkroom) when I am evaluating trial prints. If I can't see what is going on in the picture I am always reluctant to take the print further, even though I know it will mostly be viewed in the hand.

Alan

Ian Leake
13th September 2009, 06:51 PM
Ian,
Would you not agree that for a large print to dominate the space it is in (as you say it should) it should have a simple uncluttered composition, just like your requirement for a small print?


Not necessarily. While a large print still needs a strong composition (obviously), it doesn't need to be so simple; it can carry more detail ("clutter") than a small print can.

For example, a field of sheep may look like a field of sheep in a large print, but in a 5x4 print the sheep would probably become anonymous white dots. So if you were making a negative for a 5x4 print then it would be a good idea to wait until there weren't any sheep there.

A small print requires simplicity, but a large print has more options.

Ian Leake
13th September 2009, 07:02 PM
Perhaps this is a better example: Spencer Tunick: Mexico City 4 (http://www.spencertunick.com/). This photo only works because the figures in the foreground are clearly people. Printed small they would just be little pink blobs and the photo would lose its meaning.

Trevor Crone
13th September 2009, 07:28 PM
SNIP; A small print requires simplicity, but a large print has more options.

Ian, I would not agree entirely about a small print requiring simplicity. I've seen quite complex 4x5 contact prints that providing they can be viewed at close quarters, reveal a wealth of information. If you can see it on the GG screen you should see it in the contact print.

Sandeha Lynch
13th September 2009, 07:49 PM
If you can see it on the GG screen you should see it in the contact print.

Er ... with or without the loupe? :D

Trevor Crone
13th September 2009, 08:05 PM
Er ... with or without the loupe? :D

Just with your normal reading glasses, if you need them.;)

Rob Archer
14th September 2009, 06:37 PM
When got 'serious' about printing, I used 12x16 almost exclusively, on the basis that 'a good image was worth making big'. Economics meant that I had to go down to 9.5x12 about 5 years ago. Since getting involved in several print exchanges (including here) I've started printing a lot more on 10x8 - a size I'd discarded as far too small for serious work years ago. I now print all 35mm negs 10X8 and even some MF ones. The thought occurred to me that most of the photographs we see in books, magazines etc are much smaller, even than 10x8. For me now, there's no point in making large prints unless there is a specific reason to do so (e.g an exhibition with long viewing distances). A smaller image 'invites' one to look closer.

A friend of my wife was looking at some contact sheets I had drying the other day, and wondered if I could do some the those 'miniatures' for her bathroom wall. She's thinking of framing then in 5x7 frames. It could be an interesting and eye-opening project!

Rob

Trevor Crone
14th September 2009, 08:13 PM
SNIP; A friend of my wife was looking at some contact sheets I had drying the other day, and wondered if I could do some the those 'miniatures' for her bathroom wall. She's thinking of framing then in 5x7 frames. It could be an interesting and eye-opening project!

Rob

Sounds like an interesting project Rob. As a matter of interest what size are these negatives?

If I ever need to convience myself that small can be beautiful. I only have to look at some of the small Polaroid prints in 'The Polaroid Book' published by Taschen and Walker Evans, 'Polaroids', even AA did some little gems, see his book, 'Singular Images'.

Rob Archer
14th September 2009, 08:25 PM
The contacts were 6x6, which I reckon is about the minimum. After I'd posted the previous post, I rembered that my Dads albums are are full of nothing bigger that 6x8cm prints. He never had an enlarger (in fact few amateur photographers in the 1950s did).

Rob