• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Displaying small prints. Have I lost my mind?

Nathan King

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
248
Location
Omaha, NE
Format
35mm RF
I really enjoy creating small 6x9 prints to display in 11x14 frames. I feel they are large enough to show details but small enough that viewing them remains an intimate experience. Are people looking only for larger prints or is there a healthy market for small prints? Do you feel small prints can present as well as larger prints?
 
Some time ago I saw an exhibition of postcard-sized photographs at a commercial photo-gallery.
 
That is my standard size. It is very small by today's standard, with giant prints being so easy with digital. But I think that can actually be an advantage. I think the small print forces the viewer to get a bit closer to the picture in a gallery, and maybe pay a bit more attention to it. Some images look nice on 11x14 mixed in with the 6x9.

I like bigger prints too, but I don't see much downside to this size. It also has the advantage or working well in hand, which is how most people see my pictures, not to mention economy and convenience. I made a bunch of 11x14's, some 16x20's, and a few 20x24", but they mostly sit on the shelf due to inconvenience. For gallery sales the bigger sizes might be an advantage, but for a show itself I don't think it is a hindrance at all. Where I live, sales of photography at shows are nearly non-existent anyway, with the exception of crafts fair sort of shows of postcardy subjects.

I do have a bunch of 11x14 paper in the fridge, so will probably look for some shots that fit in well at that size.
 
Last week I attended Paris Photo, perhaps the major annual venue in Europe for the sale of photographs; among the many photos on sale I was taken by several that were very small, seemingly the size of contact prints from a 6X4.5 negative. Tiny, but effective in part because, as Nathan might agree, they can be perceived as a whole, without eye have to roam here and there to assemble the entire image in the mind. I enjoyed the experience of viewing them; in a sense, they reminded me of my first films developed in a bathroom and "printed" by the sun on print-out paper -- there is was, right in your hand!
 
Yes absolutely. Kenna is known and famous for his small prints. Some time ago I was at an exhibition featuring color photographs from 100 years ago. There was a 6x9 slide that was framed and backlit. One of the most amazing things I have ever seen in this regard. Didn´t even know that they had color slides back then!
 
I've done as small as 6x6 cm, but display in smaller frames. It just makes viewers stand closer.
 
Nothing at all wrong with it. I just prefer much larger prints provided the fine detail is there.
 
Jefferson Hayman is a much collected photographer whose work is usually presented in frames he makes himself, or are antiques he acquires. Rather than exhibit his images in a consistent size and format, each is unique and offered with the frame being an intrinsic part of the whole. Most of his photographs are very small, and are often sold in groups. With MOMA, Bill Clinton, Elton John, Robert DeNiro, Ralph Lauren, and the like buying his work, have no concern that small sized prints will not find favor.

Dead Link Removed
 
Small prints are much easier and less expensive to produce, so that's a big plus.

I saw a show of Ralph Meatyard's photographs about 22 years ago and none of them we bigger than 6" or 7". It was stunning; I don't think I've ever had an art viewing quite like it.

So much photography nowadays is just "art by the pound," as if printing a boring photograph bigger makes it more engaging. My feeling when visiting websites is if I like the thumbnails, I'll like the photos. If I scan the thumbs and don't get the feel, I just move on.
 

hi nathan

i was part of a show a few years ago called the miniature or something like that
all the prints were small, some very small, some no bigger than 5x7 ( if that is considered small )
people loved the show

btw apug's shawn dougherty makes small prints and they are some of the most beautiful photographs i have ever seen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When producing artwork in any medium the scale is important to get the message across. Having said that photography is quite unique in the fact that when you view a very small print produced by enlargement, you know that by the same process it could be made the size of a house. I think photography is unique in this way of having an inherent latent scale of reproduction. I know any medium can be made larger and smaller through process, but not quite in the direct way a photograph can in terms of its original integrity production method (if you get my drift).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love small prints. There's a trend of large ink jet prints and for the most part, it's just large for no reason. Some prints are so large I have to step back to see the image. One of the most memorable photo exhibits I saw was André Kertész readers. The prints are small which have a precious and intimate feel to them.
 
always

The notion "if it ain't that good, make a big print" has been with us always. Being that I am a former "ink-stained wretch,) AKA newsman, I think 11x14 inches is a pretty big size but that's just me. Go into an art gallery. Some artists paint things as big as a side of a barn and others paint things that are quite small. I don't believe the public goes home thinking "the big ones were great, the small ones were not." Viewing distance is very important.
 
I love small prints, saw an exhibit at the American Art Museum with 4 6x6 contact prints all within one big 48" frame - huuuge mat. It was an awesome presentation. Going to kill me trying to remember who it was.


snapguy said:
The notion "if it ain't that good, make a big print" has been with us always...
Click to expand...

In my own work I find the opposite to be true. Photos I loved as a small print lost interest for me printed bigger. It's probably true vice versa (don't have much experience that direction) but I think that in most cases flaws and imperfections in your composition are going to be more apparent large. A small print hides a lot of sins.
 
horacekenneth said:
but I think that in most cases flaws and imperfections in your composition are going to be more apparent large. A small print hides a lot of sins.
Click to expand...

I would beg to differ, as small prints may hide imperfections in detail and quality, but not composition. When looking at the gallery on APUG you can spot a good composition at thumbnail size before viewing the enlarged image.
 
Small prints are going to be one of my winter projects. My starting point is going to be 35mm contact prints.
There is a tradition of miniatures in painting, so why not for photographic prints?
 
One benefit of printing smaller (for certain styles of photograph) is that for any given contrast, the print will look sharper and more contrasty because the lower magnification makes the density slope (density vs linear distance) steeper on the print.
 
For some time now, I have been enjoying printing full 6x6 negs onto 4x5 paper. The image is like a 3x3 or slightly larger. (Whatever the biggest I can print using a 4x5 speed easel)

I find it a nice size to print and give away, they normally end up
On a fridge somewhere.

The prints just look stunning though.
 
Masao Yamamoto is a Japanese photographer known for exquisite small prints (I'm not sure if he shoots digital and/or film). Here's a short video on Youtube.
 
rthomas said:
Masao Yamamoto is a Japanese photographer known for exquisite small prints (I'm not sure if he shoots digital and/or film). Here's a short video on Youtube.
Click to expand...

I think I saw work of this guy on Paris Photo, he was one of few exceptions with small and intimate prints - in contrast of majority with super huge prints there. Another small prints that I saw there were small print from Brassai - I think they were some contact prints (family heritage?). Brassai contact prints were in huge Passe-Partout and frame, like 50x60 cm or something.
 
The work I just finished printing for an upcoming show were almost all full frame 6x6 on 5x7 or 5 x 8 paper. they are about 4.5 inches square and they definately have an alure I was not anticipating. As pinholes they really look... not sharp but not fuzzy like you would expect.
 
I like small prints for their intimacy. You can cruise by a big print and think you've seen it. But with a small print you must stop and look - or ignore it all together. But I don't know anything about how they fare in the marketplace vis-a-vis larger prints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register