Galleries to see high-quality large optical prints in the US?

...some photographers would rather not print that large. Michael Kenna and Robert Adams come to mind. Why get hung up (pun maybe intended) on print size? There can be some really terrible large prints on gallery walls, the size certainly does not work to their advantage.

Hilo said:

A little unfortunate you limit yourself to "prints bigger than 24" on the wide side. Otherwise, there are plenty important galleries that show the work of many wonderful photographers, from the past to the present. To just name two galleries that I am very familiar with: Howard Greenberg Gallery and Tom Gitterman gallery. The first quite large, with many known photographers, the second a smaller gallery but run by someone who makes no distinction between a collector or a student coming in. He gives time and his wonderful knowledge to anyone interested.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Wherever I travel in the world, I make a point of visiting galleries exhibiting photographic prints. Size is of little interest to me. To this day, th most impressive prints I've see are those of Vittorio Sella, whose mountain work was exhibited at the Whyte Museum in Banff in 1999.

I remember reading that Robin Bell made an enlargement print on paper size of 30x40 inches from a 35mm negative.
It was a portrait of Mick Jagger titled 'Diamond Geezer ' because Mick has a diamond embedded in one of his teeth. I don't know what the film was.
Tri-X perhaps?
That print must be in a Gallery somewhere.

I sure as heck wouldn't go out of my way to see some oversized modern inkjet re-strike of a classic vintage silver image. That kind of thing is fine for hospital lobbies or office walls; but there a thousands of them out there, quality-wise just one step above mass-produced posters.

And I think I'm right to suspect that those who think it's all the same really haven't seen a lot of the real deal. Sure, all kinds of after-the-fact "corrections" can be made via scanner and re-profiling. But still, the flavor is off. I'd rather have a small scoop of real ice cream than a bucket of imitation ice milk.

Going back to Taylor's earlier post, I once stumbled into Peter Lik's former Lahaina Gallery. I've also encountered his Las Vegas gallery. Some of the worst tourist trash I've ever seen. Yeah, he had his fancy sales people with their baited "investment" hooks. I chatting with a couple of them, and told them they'd have to pay me $50,000 dollars to hang one of those abominations on my own wall, and then I'd reserve the right to drywall over it so I didn't have to look at it. Those big things are so blatantly Photoshopped and falsely colored that it's hard to even call them photographs with a straight face. And now with Ai on the horizon, why bother with a camera at all, if that kind of nonsense is your game plan? ... Not the kind of gallery to go to if you want to see sensitive quality work.

Keith Tapscott. said:

I remember reading that Robin Bell made an enlargement print on paper size of 30x40 inches from a 35mm negative.
It was a portrait of Mick Jagger titled 'Diamond Geezer ' because Mick has a diamond embedded in one of his teeth. I don't know what the film was.
Tri-X perhaps?
That print must be in a Gallery somewhere.

Click to expand...

Or it could have sold, be in a collector’s home or museum. Or in a drawer somewhere.

DREW WILEY said:

Going back to Taylor's earlier post, I once stumbled into Peter Lik's former Lahaina Gallery. I've also encountered his Las Vegas gallery. Some of the worst tourist trash I've ever seen. Yeah, he had his fancy sales people with their baited "investment" hooks. I chatting with a couple of them, and told them they'd have to pay me $50,000 dollars to hang one of those abominations on my own wall, and then I'd reserve the right to drywall over it so I didn't have to look at it. Those big things are so blatantly Photoshopped and falsely colored that it's hard to even call them photographs with a straight face. And now with Ai on the horizon, why bother with a camera at all, if that kind of nonsense is your game plan? ... Not the kind of gallery to go to if you want to see sensitive quality work.

Click to expand...

Yes, true, things have changed (sorry Bob Dylan...), but there was a time, now in the distant past, when his photographs, printed by us in South Australia, were pure, unbridled and absolutely beautiful Ilfochrome Classic (Linhof 6x17) prints that sold for a fortune. Somewhere along the line he got hooked (badly!) onto the Fauxtoshoppe gravy train in the somewhat deluded belief that adding floss and fantasy would also add value. Well, it did not. Personally I do not like any of his work, and it is a bit of a shame knowing his history that generated so much wealth for him; besides which, Australia has a large number of photographers of the landscape genre — producing, in Mr Wiley's own words, "sensitive, quality work" —to who dedicate their life and effort to producing much better work than expat-Mr L, free of floss, artifice ... without touching a thing. We let the landscape speak for itself, not as an exhibition piece for the falsetto tune of Adobe software.

If Ilfochrome Classic was still available, I would still be printing to it. It has been gone 15 years, and I now print to RA4 or giclée (when wider gamut is required). Dr Seuss once said, "Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened". And that is the philosophy a lot of us fall back to comparing the heady days of the past with the subdued but ever-hopeful days of the present and future..

_______________________________________
Postscript:
I just had a recollection that somewhere around 2007-08 we were being provided with digital files from Peter for printing to Ilfochrome. I did not see many of these as my production was entirely analogue, not digital-to-analogue — a separate operating area; it was a new service introduced as a result of experiments and consultation with Switzerland.

DREW WILEY said:

Going back to Taylor's earlier post, I once stumbled into Peter Lik's former Lahaina Gallery. I've also encountered his Las Vegas gallery. Some of the worst tourist trash I've ever seen. Yeah, he had his fancy sales people with their baited "investment" hooks. I chatting with a couple of them, and told them they'd have to pay me $50,000 dollars to hang one of those abominations on my own wall, and then I'd reserve the right to drywall over it so I didn't have to look at it. Those big things are so blatantly Photoshopped and falsely colored that it's hard to even call them photographs with a straight face. And now with Ai on the horizon, why bother with a camera at all, if that kind of nonsense is your game plan? ... Not the kind of gallery to go to if you want to see sensitive quality work.

Click to expand...

If I recall correctly one of Liks pictures, the one with the moon, was proven to be blatantly photoshopped. Kind of like that Nat Geo where entire pyramids were moved!

thomascn6113 said:

If I recall correctly one of Liks pictures, the one with the moon, was proven to be blatantly photoshopped. Kind of like that Nat Geo where entire pyramids were moved!

Click to expand...

Yes, it was a composite. Likely one of the A-to-D outputs (before entirely digital work); he shot a number of moon scenics though, and some were in-camera – the Linhof 6x17, rather than stripped and composited through Fauxtoshoppe.

I am surprised (irritated!) at the apparent disregard for describing in truth the making of those many ULF photographs. This may be a contributing factor to a marked uptick of aversion to viewing and splurging on his big and overpriced works, IDK. We see similar follies and travesties with Ken Duncan prints in Australia e.g. the series he did on Norfolk Island in the South Pacific with TV talking head, Ray Martin, were absolutely false in their overzealous colouring and gaudy HSB twerks. But pundits still bought the prints.

Taylor Nankervis said:

Fauxtoshoppe

Click to expand...

Taylor Nankervis said:

I am surprised (irritated!) at the apparent disregard for describing in truth

Click to expand...

Would you like to talk about it?
Seems like your perspective would be an interesting counter-point to the general tendency of "whatever it takes if the artist feels it's necessary". It would especially be interesting to discuss what the basis for a more normative stance on the matter would be.

Pieter12 said:

...some photographers would rather not print that large. Michael Kenna and Robert Adams come to mind. Why get hung up (pun maybe intended) on print size? There can be some really terrible large prints on gallery walls, the size certainly does not work to their advantage.

Click to expand...

What’s wrong with being interested in big prints? The OP is clearly interested in print-making and the particular look of large analog prints. That’s a legitimate part of the ‘craft’ and it’s not in itself a value judgement on one photograph vs another, one size vs another, nor one technique vs another.

Large analog print making is a whole different proposition to making small analog prints. Printing large involves working from rolls, with very different tray arrangements, drying techniques etc etc. it’s a distinct craft and is simply different to deciding whether to print an image to A4 vs A1 size on an Epson. I’ve done a bit of mural sized fiber printing in the past. Once you’ve struggled handling huge chemical sodden sheets of fiber paper in the dark without getting any paper kinks, you’ll never mistake those prints for anything else. It’s where I recognize my limits. I’m about to send a 4x5 neg to master printer JP Bauduin in Brussels. An older guy who can effortlessly turn out a 165 x 125cm toned fiber print for me. That’s a lifetime of experience.

And all due respect to the lab owner from Toronto but labs have been convincing photographers that digital is indistinguishable from analog for as long as there’s been digital. They are absolutely different to an educated eye. And that’s not a film Luddite speaking. Ask Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Epson etc if they are different and they’ll all agree with me. You can try to make them look the same but they are not the same. And that’s not a value judgement.

Nearly all the Lik picture's I've seen were ridiculously PS'd. Not only things in the scene blatantly rearranged, but ludicrously colorized. Hence my old joke that he probably hired kindergartners, put them on LSD, and handed them cans of fluorescent spray paint. That's not photography.

In one of his galleries, it was nearly all big inkjet prints, and rather poorly executed ones, technically. And loud, loud, loud ... I literally got nauseated, and had to exit after a few minutes. The disrespect for natural light was absolutely appalling ... taking nature and making a street whore out of it.

The other gallery, in Lahaina, was all relatively large sample images backlit transparency mode. Somewhat better done, but equally gaudy or tacky. Tasteless tourist fare for those who want something scenic opposite their black velvet Elvis rug.

One thing his production facility in the Vegas area is highly skilled at is mounting really big print media flat. And charging significantly for that is realistic. Throw out the print and keep the frame.

Well, to exit my rant with something a little more objective : Size should be relative to what works best for the image as well as the viewer. Not every image works well small on a book page, for example; and many sensitive classic images sure as heck don't work well when they're blown up large, big for sake of big. If someone just wants a big splash of color above their sofa, that's a legit decor decision, but so is the choice of wall paint.

I've deliberately limited my own color print size capacity to 30X40 inches (plus overall framing) for logistical reasons - size of my darkroom space, largest size that can be conveniently crated and shipped by ordinary carriers, largest mounting equipment I wanted to invest in, etc. But regardless of big or small, I fill them with relevant hue and detail content generally involving large format originals. MF comes into play as well, but certainly not in the largest prints. I don't believe in any of that "normal viewing distance" nonsense. That might be fine for airport lobbies; but I like my prints to be fully rewarding right up close too.