Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,700   Posts: 1,548,393   Online: 1137
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Print Size?

  1. #11
    bobfowler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    New Jersey, Land of the Living Dead
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,440
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanne Revy
    ... have you noticed sometimes, especially in the art world, the prints are bigger, but the ideas are smaller?
    Very true, very true...

    I let the subject matter (or the client) determine the final print size, but I don't make huge prints from tiny negatives. I really like 8X8 inch prints from medium format (6X6) film, but wedding and portrait customers want 8X10 (or 10X10), so that's what I make.

    Not quite on topic, but funny:

    I was showing a digital shooter some B&W prints recently. The images were shot on 35mm Tri-X, processed in Rodinal - you can see what's coming...

    He commented to me "There's a lot of noise in the sky here, you need to get a higher megapixel camera if you want to make 8X10 prints"

    He had NO idea of the concept of "grain".

    -sigh-
    Bob Fowler
    fowler@verizon.net
    Some people are like Slinkies. They're really good for nothing, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

  2. #12
    Shmoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    972
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by bobfowler
    Very true, very true...

    I let the subject matter (or the client) determine the final print size,...
    I agree with Bob. The final size of the print depends upon the subject. It also depends upon what the artist is trying to achieve. There are some shots that demand huge prints. I doubt that Adams' "Clearing Storm" shot would look as good on 8x10 or 4x5. On the other hand, I saw Kertesz's "Chez Mondrian" shot and it's approcimately 8x10, possibly smaller, and it would look out of place in 20x24.

    S

  3. #13
    Wally H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    NW Washington State, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    160
    Images
    15
    For my own work I generally prefer print in a 10"h[horizonal] x 10" - 13"v[vertical], but there are times a composition seems better at a different size, (larger or smaller). A few of my slot canyon images I prefer at 19"h x 22"v. Generally, I feel the smaller an image is printed, the less complicated and busy the composition should be... again, in general, as I reserve the right to change my mind at any given moment for no apparent reason...
    Regards,

    Wally

    Member:
    National Sarcasm Society
    (like we need your support)

  4. #14
    jmdavis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    VA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    504
    Images
    6
    I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong with "LARGE." But I do think that a perfect print is more important than a LARGE print.

    Personally, I have no suitable space to display LARGE prints. I live in a small house filled with books. Art has to fit the space or remain unhung. 20x24 is the abolutely largest space that I have.

    Recently I bought one of Alex Hawley's prints. I was skeptical at first about the 13x15 matte, but now I really love the size.

    Mike

  5. #15
    david b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    None of your business
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,034
    Images
    30
    I just got off the phone with a friend who just sold a 15x15 and then sold another one to a banker who wants it 20x20 to put behind his desk.

  6. #16
    nze
    nze is offline
    nze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    France
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    705
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    49
    I agree with Ceratto the smaller the image lighter should be the composition.
    I mostly contact print and I got some negative I keep for enlargement as they're is to much information for the size and this information can be revealed tby the enlargement.
    Chris Nze
    me Apug Portfolio
    Me web page

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    471
    I shoot with slower speed films, typically and print usually 8x8 or 10x10's, using 2 1/4 negs... My girlfriend has been known to shoot Delta 3200, 135 and enlarge to 11x14... The grain enlarged that much gives off a sketched look that I think is facsinating with the subject matter...

    I like the consensus that it depends on the image and the finished product.. Its unfortunate that some spaces are designed solely for the display of large work...

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    Large is impressive on initial inspection. But, with time, LARGE IS LIKE SOMEONE TALKING TOO LOUD TOO OFTEN. Kinda gets on your nerves.

    I like the intimacy of photographs. Smaller pictures are inviting, big ones make you stand back too far.

  9. #19
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,325
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdavis
    Yea the whole post-modernist "bigger is better," line.
    I don't really see this as an issue of postmodernism, though there are photographers like Gursky and Struth who have other reasons to be thought of as postmodern printing big. I think for them size is more about competing with painting on museum and gallery walls than it is about, say, skepticism about the validity of all metanarratives. And even Ansel printed bigger and bigger as he became more famous.

    Personally, I don't print large. I like the look of a contact print, and printing artifacts become a distraction to me at around 4x. I tend to print 35mm to about 6x8" and most other formats no larger than 11x14". Occasionally I'll do a 16x20" or 20x24", but not that often.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  10. #20
    colrehogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,016
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by bobfowler
    Very true, very true...
    I was showing a digital shooter some B&W prints recently. The images were shot on 35mm Tri-X, processed in Rodinal - you can see what's coming...

    He commented to me "There's a lot of noise in the sky here, you need to get a higher megapixel camera if you want to make 8X10 prints"

    He had NO idea of the concept of "grain".

    -sigh-
    So funny! Thanks Bob!
    Diane

    Halak 41

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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