Does size matter?

[davetravis]

I'm struggling with this question.
In my business, it definetly does matter.
The bigger I can make a print, the more $ I can ask for it.
That's a given, but what am I producing?
Larger versions of a concept that might just as well be expressed in a smaller presentation?
Something that appeals to the bigger ego, for more profit?
If what I'm trying to say can be expressed in smaller versions, then why, other than monetary gains, should I?
Where do I draw the line?

 

[Bruce Osgood]

If you're really convinced that bigger means bigger bucks then I don't have your answer.

But I think when someone looks at a photographic print as a piece of art they do not think "that would be really good if it were only bigger". They see as it is. They do not think there are any other sizes around. This is it. They're looking at the only one in the world. Size does not matter. Quality does.

I'd bet you will get the same dollar for an 8X10 as you would 16X20.

I'm not talking about Ink Jet prints at $10 a pop or $50 for one to hang over the couch.

 

[jmcd]

Of course your question is quite personal, and requires a lot of consideration. I draw the line at 8x10, but rarely get past 5x7. If it does not work at these sizes, making it bigger is not my answer.

 

[Whatadame]

I'm currently working on a series and decided that I really liked producing at 5x7, then using an oversized mat--utilizing the negative space of the mat to draw the viewers eye in. The images have a lot of detail and information and I want the viewer to really pay attention.

So far, I've had wonderful responses to the images, but everyone that has purchased any of them have wanted them printed larger. I do it, but I charge more--mostly for the extra work

I say print them the size that feels right to you for the image, and then decide if you're willing to do them another size if it is requested.

 

[MikeK]

If you're really convinced that bigger means bigger bucks then I don't have your answer.

But I think when someone looks at a photographic print as a piece of art they do not think "that would be really good if it were only bigger". They see as it is. They do not think there are any other sizes around. This is it. They're looking at the only one in the world. Size does not matter. Quality does.

I'd bet you will get the same dollar for an 8X10 as you would 16X20.

I'm not talking about Ink Jet prints at $10 a pop or $50 for one to hang over the couch.

This is an interesting conundrum. I went commercial last October and have been selling my images at local art shows etc. Based on my sales I sell more images 16x20 and larger.

Now maybe I am selling my self short, but this is a significant source of income, bigger prints sell faster and more consistently than smaller prints.

Mike

 

[Mick Fagan]

The end size of any image, whether it be a photographic print, a painting or whatever, is usually determined by the place it is going to end up.

Last year I attended a photographic print show and for the first time in years thought seriously about purchasing a print, however the prints on display were on 20x24" paper and far too big for the intended wall space.

When I enquired as to whether it was possible to get a print onto a matt size of 16x20" meaning a 12x16" paper size (give or take) The photographer refused, as there isn't enough money in small prints.

When I proposed having the smaller print for the larger print price, I was then informed that, "she doesn't like her images to be so small, people won't take her seriously".

As a result, I didn't purchase anything!

My only complaint against small prints, which I consider to be 5x7", is if the detail is so small I virtually require a magnifying glass to see it. I have seen prints like this, they are good, especially for portraiture, but if there is extremely fine detail, I find a bigger sized print is more suitable.

Mick.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

The point I was trying to make is that cost and size are not related. A small (8X10) print can cost the same or even more than a different print of 16X20 size. But it is you, the artist who determines the cost as well as the size. The public may look at two pictures and ask why your 8X10 costs the same as someone else's 16X20. More probably they will not ask and make some assumptions.

 

[removed account4]

This is an interesting conundrum. I went commercial last October and have been selling my images at local art shows etc. Based on my sales I sell more images 16x20 and larger.

Now maybe I am selling my self short, but this is a significant source of income, bigger prints sell faster and more consistently than smaller prints.

Mike

the "general public" seems to be more impressed by larger prints is what
i have learned / heard as well.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Hi Dave,

I went to your website, which has beautiful colour work by the way, and can understand you feeling some of your photographs need to be big, especially the Utah and Grand Canyon scenes. You're doing art fairs, right? Why not smack those passersby over the head with a couple jaw droppingly massive prints of those desert, mountain, and canyon scenes, then once you have their attention engage them with mid sized prints of your forest scenes, then steal their hearts with small, intimate prints of your leaf studies. This way all the images are in context, meaning the epic grand views are huge, the middle distance images are mid-sized, and the intimate close-ups are small. That's what I've decided with my own work because it felt wrong seeing a large print of a wide angle, big sky landscape beside a close-up subject printed to the same size.

Are you thinking of going the traditional gallery route? I ask this because you seem conflicted over what would make more sales with the art fair crowds and what your images are asking of you...

Murray

 

[Chuck_P]

I think it is a very personal decision to make. Apparently size is definitely not related to price from what I've seen on some sites. Can't remember his name but on the Alan Ross site there is a link to photographers who have been to his workshops and who now have their own sites for selling prints. This one photographer was asking $475 for some 4x5 contact prints----that seems outrageous to me and it is hard for me to wrap my brain around it.

 

[Lopaka]

I went to your website, which has beautiful colour work by the way, and can understand you feeling some of your photographs need to be big, especially the Utah and Grand Canyon scenes. You're doing art fairs, right? Why not smack those passersby over the head with a couple jaw droppingly massive prints of those desert, mountain, and canyon scenes, then once you have their attention engage them with mid sized prints of your forest scenes, then steal their hearts with small, intimate prints of your leaf studies. This way all the images are in context, meaning the epic grand views are huge, the middle distance images are mid-sized, and the intimate close-ups are small. That's what I've decided with my own work because it felt wrong seeing a large print of a wide angle, big sky landscape beside a close-up subject printed to the same size.

Murray

Sounds right to me...
Some images work very well as very large prints, some seem to be better as smaller prints. I think it is good to have a range of sizes available to sell. I would rather sell a smaller print for a lower price than no print. And if a customer wants to order a grand view in a smaller print or an intimate subject in a larger print - fine. The customer may not always be right, but the customer is always the customer.

Bob

 

[jovo]

First, Dave, let me say that your work is quite beautiful. I see real care given to light, and design and COLOR! Which is, I think, a significant issue. People seem to want large, larger and very large prints of color subjects, but are more likely to be content with smaller prints in black and white. I don't know why that may be*, but it is evident in the NYC galleries that offer both. It's rare to see intimately sized color work, but quite common to see monochrome that can be quite small.....particularly when warm toned. OTOH, Brian Kosoff (Early Riser) told me that some of the galleries which represent him have requested larger prints than were typical of what he usually made. Perhaps it's the subject matter, as Murray observed, that influences the dimensions as well as the medium.


*Personal simplistic speculation: Color prints are so easy to miss and even dismiss because of their perceived verisimilitude that size makes them more arresting to the viewer. They get attention that the smaller print doesn't. Check yourself next time you look at a book of color work and notice how long you spend with each image, and then ask yourself if you would have spent a longer time with a much larger version of the same image. I know I would.

 

[Jim Jones]

Bob is right. When we print for ourselves, we can print for our preference in display environment. If we sell to others, their preferences prevail. Often we do not know how or where our photos will be displayed on others' homes or offices. Therefore, the more we want to sell, the more options we should provide. Respect the customers, they may be smarter than we suspect.

 

[davetravis]

Are you thinking of going the traditional gallery route? I ask this because you seem conflicted over what would make more sales with the art fair crowds and what your images are asking of you...
Thanks for all the kind words...
Yes, ever since I started doing the shows it's always bigger, bigger, bigger just to compete for the $$$'s.
But for myself, I was always happy with a 8x10, 11x14, with 16x20 being really big! Now it seems that is becoming the minimum! Unless I invest much $ into a larger Kreonite processor I really can't compete with those 30x40's that are being done from LF and scanning/lightjet prints.
Maybe I just need to find an alternate venue, and just get back to the basics of it all.
Now off to a dog show...

 

[mabman]

An interesting dicussion. My local art gallery has put up a number of Edward Burtynsky prints, I'd say the minimum size of each is 20x24", and all in colour.

Normally, I'd say bigger isn't necessary better - but after seeing his work, I'd have to say some subject matter just needs to be shown that big or larger (he shoots a lot of scenes of industrial waste and decay) - it wouldn't have the same impact displayed smaller, and I believe he's using an LF view camera, so the enlargements (if any) aren't drastic and detail is well preserved.

Conversely, in my local camera club, there's a pro who likes to shoot panoramic, but displays them relatively small - 4" or 5" high by whatever wide - stunning, and defniitely not "in your face". Apparently he sells quite a few prints in those dimensions.

 

[Early Riser]

Size does matter, and in several ways. First, some images really do work better larger. I have a few images which are only shown as prints, and as larger prints, because they work so poorly small. I can't even put these images on my website because they look so bad small. Yet blow them up to 24" or larger and they really shine. I post one of these images below, it looks like a mess small. When my book comes out this image will most likely appear as a gate fold because even at 12" it doesn't work.

Size matters financially and not just because you can charge more for them being large. Let's be honest it does take more effort and expense to print, spot, mat and mount a 24" print than it does to print an 8x10" print. Just see what's involved with printing something 3 or 4' wide and you'll see just how much the problems and effort increases. These efforts and expenses do justify higher pricing.

Size matters because in some locations, and most often art is bought as decoration, a larger piece is needed to fill a space, or to proportion to other elements in a room. Size however doesn't just mean large, some locations really require a smaller print.

In in the past year I have added a 40" size print to my edition and have to say that I really like seeing my work that large. It holds up surprisingly well and has a impact that the smaller versions lack. From the gallery stand point very large prints become very competitive with paintings. Also for the galleries there's a far higher profit selling a large print versus a small print.

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

To the customer, size matters. There are extreems - a small 4x5" print to a massive 20x24" print, both have a feeling of prestige and value attached. I think in today's world, you have to seem as different to an A4 piece of paper popped out of a printer as you can.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Galen Rowell didn't do much other than 35mm work that I know of. Bigger is better for me because I prefer the larger negative and the information that it affords for printing versatility.

 

[jpeets]

I started printing big this past year, and at art shows, I was selling almost an equal number of small (less than 16X20) and big (24X30 and 30X40) prints.

I know that the large prints tended to sell to people with newer, larger homes, where anything less than a 30X40 tended to look tiny, and would only work as a grouping of 4-6 prints.

People who bought the smaller prints (framed to 20X24) often remarked that they simply didn't have the space for anything larger.

I tend to print certain kinds of shots larger - images that have lots of detail/fine pattern, or those that evoke an environment. Large format shots are stunning.

From other threads, it seems that there definitely is a strong market for large prints, especially in colour, for "decor" purposes, I suppose.

 

[DanielOB]

As you are doing commercial photography, print size is not philisophy. Larger is more money, period. I even and frame 'em myself to get even more money. No philosophy. Might be customer has a big discolored blob on the wall. Yes there are and very special cases too.
With art photography (do not mix it with commerc.) story is different and has no universal rule. What is valid for you is not valid for John, and vv.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think we have to divide the print making into two categories:
1. Those you make for your own artistic exploration - only what you think matters.
2. Those that go on sale to the public - what the public thinks matters.

For my own purposes, with the subject matter I love to photograph, I like prints in the 7" to 10" square size. Sometimes I print rectangular and then those sizes become the 'short' dimension.
When people ask to buy a print of mine, they usually request silly sizes like 30x40, or 20x24. Since I can't print that big, I usually talk them down to a 16x20 or an 11x14, because that's manageable for me, but the trend is clear - people in general like large prints, and especially when it comes to color work.
So I create my portfolios, the work I'm proud of, on 8x10 paper. That's what I show around. A few people buy the smaller prints while most want larger than that. I think that is the bottom line.

- Thomas

 

[davetravis]

DOB,
Right on about the commercial crowd, I'm "expected" to produce print sizes that fill all requests. For most of my slides I can only go to 16x20 and still keep within my presentation standards. But yea, someone is always wanting the bigger one.

Thomas,
I like your attitude, and only wish I could get more $ for the small sizes. Maybe after I'm dead they'll be worth more, but then I won't be around to see...
DT

 

[rootberry]

I'm almost ready to start my own gallery submissions for the first time. All of my prints thus far are either 10x10" enlargements from MF or 8x10" contact prints, and they are what I intend to show. It is kind of silly that "big is in" to me, because I find huge prints from small formats rather unpleasant- just my opinion of course. Within the next 2 months, I will be enlarging my 8x10" and 8x8" negatives to whatever size I can afford and cope with, but ONLY the ones that demand such treatment. I love my contact prints! They are what I am most proud of, my greatest achievements thusfar (I'm only 25). This thread has got me thinking about how to proceed... Kinda makes me nervous about showing my tiny prints to people... =(

 

[arigram]

Size matters.
There are photographs that look better small, there are photographs that look better large.
13x17cm you can hold them tenderly and investigate their mysteriously small details. They whisper.
20x25cm they are not shy and speak to you in a normal voice. They sit next to you and speak softly.
30x40cm is the largest you can handhold and be able to view comfortably. They have dimension and speak loudly. They stand tall.
50x60cm and they demand attention from the crowd. They yell at you from afar. They are not just your friends anymore, but everybody's.
Larger ones want to lead the masses. You can't get close to them, you can't talk to them, you can only listen and gaze timidly. You are now small.

 

[davetravis]

Elegant Ari.