Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,566   Posts: 1,545,353   Online: 1054
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23
  1. #21
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,086
    Images
    191
    At a portfolio review last year I asked a gallerist about size, and the answer was that, in the NYC metro area at least, people do NOT have gigantic walls to decorate. In fact, the bulk of this person's clients were apartment dwellers with taste and enough money to buy art, and were quite content with modestly sized prints.

    At that review one reviewer suggested I either make my (typically 10x10") prints either much bigger, or much smaller. I continue to make them now as I did before.

    I also think that some photographers are motivated to make huge prints in order differentiate themselves from amateurs with typical digital printers who can grind out inkjets with as much skill and quality as they can. But, the "pro's" have spent big bucks to be able to do what the amateur can't. There was a TV ad for an entire digital workflow from "capture" to inkjet print performed by a four year old child. That sort of thing must really make the digigraphers uncomfortable.
    John Voss

    My Blog

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    813
    Images
    9
    The last two major shows at the Getty, a huge museum here in LA, featured Irving Penn's Small Trades series, pretty much nothing larger than 16 x 20...and now the Frederick Evans platinum exhibit (amazing show you must see!) also with prints mostly smaller than 16 x 20. Their "Workers" exhibit just closed, almost all under 16 x 20 (there was an incredible Salgado print there!)...also the SB Museum of Art hosted the Brett Weston show last summer, same as above.

    Oh, and last year's Michael Kenna show at a private gallery in Santa Monica showed his mostly 8 x 8 -ish prints.

    I understand that Nick Brandt's show last year at Fahey-Klein featured very large prints of his incredible African series.

    Just some food-info for thought...

  3. #23
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by eddie View Post
    I went to a talk on collecting photography, last week, in DC. On the panel was a well known gallery owner who addressed the issue of size. It came down to "real estate". While most people won't question a 16x20 painting for 3-4,000 dollars, they will question a similar sized photograph at 10% of that price. Larger prints command larger dollars. Galleries have finite wall space, and need to maximize the dollars per square foot. Between rent, staff, and publicity, large prints give them more bang for the buck. If they can sell a 16x20 for $250, a more limited print (of the same image) at 32x40 can go for $2500. This applies to contemporary photographers, not vintage prints by famous shooters.
    Once again - about money and not photography or "art" in any sense.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin