David Kachel, First New Article in Over a Decade!

Ian David

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
1,132
Location
QLD Australia
Format
Multi Format
Hi David
Interesting article, but I think you are mistaken in your belief that intimacy is a vital ingredient of every successful photo. The examples of someone else's family portrait and Weston's pepper are perhaps particularly good for illustrating your point, but hardly 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. 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 (more often than you suggest) a big image can be very strong and effective.
Ian
 
OP
OP

davidkachel

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
151
Format
Large Format
On one Adams print in a book: "One picture is a mountain landscape which Ansel prints about 30x40 inches. In the book it's compressed to something more like 4.5x6 inches -all the page size allows, and something vital is lost"
Lee

Lee,

I had thought about mentioning in the monograph that a print can also lose its intimacy if made too small, but I decided that might be just a bit more explanation than anyone actually required.
 
OP
OP

davidkachel

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
151
Format
Large Format

Ian,

I absolutely agree with your position that not all photographs require the intimacy factor. There are so many uses for photographs under so many different circumstances that it would be presumptuous of me to claim 'all photographs must have...".

In fact, the one thing I most fervently do not want to do is dictate to other photographers what they should do or set down any sort of guidelines whatsoever. All I am attempting to say is;

"Here is this attribute that photographs have (intimacy) from which photographs benefit greatly. It seems this has not really been dealt with before. We should be aware of it and become well versed in how to use it to our best advantage."

Now I may have a different opinion about how well you played out the intimacy factor with one of your photographs, but the only opinion that matters with regard to your photograph is yours. A criticism or an observation may help you to notice something you hadn't noticed before, but your opinion is still the only valid one.

Having planted this idea of the inherent quality of intimacy in the minds of readers, they cannot help but look for it and decide whether or not to do anything about it. A "no" is just as valid as a "yes".
 

clayne

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
2,764
Location
San Francisc
Format
Multi Format
Just went to 3 separate galleries today and let me tell you, they are a bad place for keeping one's prints small. I had remarked on how an 8x10 looked, or felt like, a 5x7 in the gallery context (due to all of the available blank space). Even 20x24 didn't *look* 20x24 to me. 11x14 felt more like 8x10, and basically every print felt atleast one size smaller than how I would perceive it in my own familiar settings.

There are other sizes besides 8x10 and 20x24, and I do tend to think that 11x14 is a good compromise size.
 

keithwms

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
6,220
Location
Charlottesvi
Format
Multi Format
Interesting article, David. I recently blogged on a related topic here.

Of course, whenever we imply that anything should or should not be done, there will be (often reasonable) arguments to the contrary.... photographers are an un-rule-y lot. And thank goodness for that! I do agree that, at least in the digital community, there is a tendency to oversize prints. Those oversize prints often give a commercial impression to me. Which is fine... commercial photography is important, and I understand that we all need to make some money!, but...
 

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,481
Location
North Coast BC Canada
Format
Hybrid
My first show was a blur. The second one was all 11x14's hung on a single line, and people walked around the gallery as if on a tread mill about five feet from the wall. The last one was 5x7 to 11x14 prints hung randomly (not on a single line) and the way people reacted with them was totally different. They would stand back to take in a large print, then move in close to see a small print beside it but would also peer into the larger print next door to see its details. The whole crowd was doing this move in close, step back dance, which to me anyways meant they got to know my prints in a deeper way.

Great article!

Murray
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,093
Location
Fond du Lac, WI
Format
Multi Format
Perhaps "The Intimacy of Small Photographic Prints" would've been a better title then "Ban the Bedsheets", the latter of which implies getting rid of big prints. That's my main problem with the article. In it Mr. Kachel waffles between implying that big prints are in bad taste and the much less contentious claim that some prints work best small because of increased intimacy.
 
OP
OP

davidkachel

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
151
Format
Large Format
Peter,

The title you suggest would be misleading indeed. It is possible to experience intimacy with a large print. I stated very clearly in the monograph that I was not supporting any particular print size but that print size should be such that it does not destroy the experience of intimacy. That taking advantage of this idea would naturally lead to smaller prints is probable. But making small prints for no other reason than to make small prints, though certainly cheaper, is no better than making bedsheets.

"Ban the Bedsheets" was intended to add a little tounge-in-cheek fun to the topic. We tend to take ourselves way to seriously.
 
OP
OP

davidkachel

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
151
Format
Large Format

Clayne,

If in fact the intimacy factor is important and if galleries are bad places for small prints, perhaps there is an important message here.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,093
Location
Fond du Lac, WI
Format
Multi Format
Yes, but it's not really funny, is it? Or it might only be so to those who don't like big prints. It certainly is misleading, combined with some of the other rhetoric, including the accusations of bad taste. How about, "In Praise of the Intimate Photographic Print." Or perhaps, "Intimacy and Print Size."
 

keithwms

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
6,220
Location
Charlottesvi
Format
Multi Format
How about, "In Praise of the Intimate Photographic Print." Or perhaps, "Intimacy and Print Size."

Or "Intimacy and Bed Sheets..."

But seriously, we have to let the man who wrote the article decide his own title. Alll of us can write our own articles and decide our own titles

I would have titled my blog on this topic differently, were I trying for a magazine article... in that case I probably would also have tried to come up with something more catchy.
 

Marv

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Messages
141
Location
Eastern Iowa
Format
Large Format
"The basic nature of a photograph is that it is a small, fragile, tactile, finely detailed and intimate object."

When I upgraded from the venerable Speed Graphic to a fully functional field camera I wanted to explore its full potential. Having more than one lens opened a new world and I needed a project. That ended up being a years worth of photography in 4X5. Contact printed and mounted on 8X10 boards the thrust of the project was to produce a body of work that was.....a "small, fragile, tactile, finely detailed and intimate object."
I went on to display 50 of the images in a group showing and was gratified to find there were a great number of viewers who held the same values of the prints as intimate views.

Now 17 years later I come across your monograph and transported back to the roots of my system of printing and display. Prints between 4X5 and 8X10 have always held the most value to me for all the reasons stated in your article and it's interesting to see another photographers perspective on that choice.

I also find that as I age and go from bifocals to trifocals the size of a print has a great deal to do with the ease of viewing. I don't like to have to "scan" a print with my eyes in back and forth motion while trying to find the "focal" that works best. A print that can be hand held and viewed as a complete image works best for me and provides the most enjoyment. For me enjoyment is what it's all about.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,093
Location
Fond du Lac, WI
Format
Multi Format
But seriously, we have to let the man who wrote the article decide his own title. Alll of us can write our own articles and decide our own titles

Absolutely. I was merely trying to highlight the disparaging air displayed at some points in the essay.
 

keithwms

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
6,220
Location
Charlottesvi
Format
Multi Format
Yep, and I agree, Peter, that the style of the article will feel rather non-neutral if you do in fact do large prints. Some may prefer a more neutral academic style of argumentation. On the other hand, I kinda like it when an author throws caution to the wind and just says what he/she really thinks without any diplomatic filtering
 

Bob Carnie

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
7,735
Location
toronto
Format
Med. Format RF
I have seen this image as a 16x20 platinum and now as a large triptich.
Both are beautiful and require a different space to look at it.
 

Attachments

  • large.jpg
    112.9 KB · Views: 119
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,093
Location
Fond du Lac, WI
Format
Multi Format
And just for the record, 95% of my prints are on 8x10" paper with at least 1/2" borders from 4x5" negatives. The biggest I've ever printed was on 11x14" paper, and that only a few times.
 

Ian David

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
1,132
Location
QLD Australia
Format
Multi Format

I sometimes like reading unfiltered rants, generally either because I agree with what is being said or because I don't have a strong view and find it amusing.
But if you really want to convince anyone who is not already convinced, then a bit of diplomacy and reason is often called for.
If you just want to preach to the converted, then go ahead and sound as one-eyed as you like!
 

plasticphyte

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
7
Location
Australia
Format
Medium Format
I agree with the OP's underlying 'complaint' - simply going big for the sake of big is a notion that doesn't appeal to me (although I prefer to print large photos, I try and only use it where it works).
Picking the correct print size is simply another skill in the tool belt of the photographer.
 

clayne

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
2,764
Location
San Francisc
Format
Multi Format
I only print 20x24, every print, no matter what it is. It takes a lot of time, but I find this is the only way to see the true beauty of film.


I'm kidding guys. I mostly print 5x7 RC 95% of the time, with some 8x10s thrown in. 11x14 and 8x10 fiber are less common than RC for me, but only because I didn't have access to a press. Now I recently picked one up and I'll be doing more fiber.

BTW: What's up with the piss poor selection of 5x7 FB paper?! (edit: I guess it's not so bad, but I notice that BHP actually carries more 5x7 FB than FS, which surprises me).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…