Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,671   Posts: 1,481,810   Online: 1158
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,164
    MattKing: as you quote Ansel: “Photography is a complex and fluid medium..." This is, of course, correct and confirms what I say below.

    About large size: Yes I did make that point whereby subject matter (vast scenics sometimes, or large group portraits) mandates a larger footprint. This is simply common sense. But there are those (multitudes) who START with the premise that size is the de facto king and the primary, if not sole, determinant of print quality. This premise is what is being disputed and no one on this board thinks that large prints are always exponents of misplaced aesthetics. - David Lyga
    Last edited by David Lyga; 12-15-2011 at 07:51 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    655
    Quote Originally Posted by Klainmeister View Post
    Ha! I was there last Saturday--Chile Relleno FTW.

    It does seem quite silly to me that there are some prints up to 30-40" that are in a hallway. How in God's name are we supposed to view that!?

    One of my photographic friends here has an astonishing collection of art, including Weston, Adams, Tice, and Stieglitz originals and not to mention about 25 other masters, and the funniest thing as we're walking about his house one day during a BBQ, he brings me into his study to show me his favorite works--3 5x5" prints each from the Weston brothers. He held them as if they were delicate butterflies, and you could see the prize in his eyes. This, as a 20" print looms over the desk.

    Funny how things work.
    Not to blow my own horn, but I have some friends who have a lot of photographs in their house. No Adamses or anything like that; images from other friends. Mostly of a landscape nature. All very pretty and technically solid. Last year, out of gift-desperation I gave them a B&W 4x5 test print, spotted and framed with a floating matte and held to the backing with clear plastic corners. Threw it together in half an hour. They thanked me but I never asked them what they thought of it. A while ago I met him on the street and he said 'You know that print...' His voice just trailed off and he smiled and shook his head.

    My point is that yes, it is funny how things work, especially with art. If you really hit your mark it shouldn't be explainable why it is liked by someone; the why should be too deeply engendered to express casually. It was nice to think I might have approached that point, most of my stuff is completely forgettable.

    Good call, the rellenos.

    s-a

  3. #23
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,985
    Images
    279
    So just for the sake of argument; I have been thinking about this 'size matters' thread.

    Suppose one takes a print that would normally look wonderful at 6x8" size. Say a portrait that you're very pleased with, something subtle and beautiful. If you made this print 5feet by 7feet instead, the relationship with the picture might change and that juxtaposition could be interesting.
    There was a thread here a while back about a very large print by Andreas Gursky, Rhein II at 81 x 140 inches in size. It made me wonder how my relationship to one of my own pictures would change if it were printed that large.

    While I don't care much for that print by Gursky, size can definitely have an impact on the viewing experience, so it is probably incorrect to state that size isn't an important decision. We can all just decide for ourselves what we like, and I think that perhaps some people are lazy in that regard, and just buy whatever they're supposed to be investing in, or just like what everybody else likes.

    I really do think that this discussion is founded in that we should think for ourselves and reach our own conclusions about what we like, and if we care enough it might be interesting to discover why that is too.

    Interesting discussion.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  4. #24
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,045
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by semi-ambivalent View Post
    We go there every time we visit, and I have noticed that as well. Perhaps, because many people have huge houses with huge empty walls (and because they (the gallery) has to eat too), the gallery concedes. Or agrees to what the artist produces. They're really caught in the middle at times, I would think. I'm glad that I am allowed to move around there and find a viewing distance the print and I can agree on, even though size alone can't save an image I just don't care for no matter how I look at it. I've pretty much settled on full (35mm) frame on 11x14 with 3/4" borders. I've done a few shots that look beautiful as 16x20. As for the rest, I wouldn't be fooling anybody by making them "big".
    I once had a conversation with an art dealer in New York who was good friends with Bonni Benrubi, the gallery owner. She sent me to go see a show that Bonni had up on the wall of platinum prints by Jed Devine. Jed's prints were anywhere from 6x17cm to 8x10 inch. Beautiful work. Bonni told her she had the show of Jed's work because it was beautiful and needed to be seen, but she was unlikely to make any sales off of it. The big "hedge fund wallpaper" color inkjet prints of deadpan ersatz snapshots, however, she could barely keep in stock. When it comes to galleries, they are as much slaves to the market as they are market-makers.

  5. #25
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    991
    I once had an exhibition were I actually sold more small prints (12x12cm) than bigger prints. The small photos were in 70x50cm mat and the bigger prints in a little smaller mats. The small prints were all a little darker (lithprints) and the matting (off white) but the contrast seemed to have worked because people wanted to know what the small dark square in the middle of the white was furthermore it looked a lot like a modern painting (Malewitsch). The bigger is better philosophy is not necessaraly new one only has to look at Rubens paintings they are huge, funnily enough the most powerful Rubens I've ever seen was no larger than 5x7in (a gallow in front of storm clouds and hills).

    Dominik

  6. #26
    John Austin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern Forest Region, Western Australia
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    520
    Blog Entries
    3
    Or Both

    For my next exhibition of Naked Portraits I am going to both ends, big 32x40 inch, with every follicle delineated, prints for the big wall and a swarm of 10x8" contact prints

    These are aimed to attract corporate and state collections and also people who love small prints for their intimacy and tonal subtlety or just want a print they can afford

    This is theory at this stage, we will see what happens

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