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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Fauxtoshoppe
I am surprised (irritated!) at the apparent disregard for describing in truth
...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.
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.
I recently exhibited a print at a local show. I did not have time to make another darkroom print and did not want to put up the one that hangs on my wall. I took that print to a very good local digital shop, he scanned it and printed it. Pretty much indistinguishable from the original. And the original had very deep blacks and subtleties in the shadows. Maybe you haven't seen really good digital work. Or just have a bias.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.
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!
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.
Art Wolfe, a long-standing National Geographic photographer, famously cloned the Zebras in his Migrations book. The image probably didn't run in Nat Geo, but many others have. I don't think they severed relations over it.Bad comparison. Lik is a commercial artist selling his photo art, photoshopped and all. NatGeo presents itself as a science outlet that presents nature as it is, no cloning allowed.
My own substantial background in sales (photography was a moonlight second income) was to sell high quality which didn't need fabricated BS to get it across the threshold. When I look at just about anything made by Lik, I am filled with disgust by how unreal it looks, and in a tacky manner geared to stereotypes. I'm not reminded of real time looking at anything at all, but rather, get filled with disgust by the flagrant cheap whoring of nature.
Art Wolfe, a long-standing National Geographic photographer, famously cloned the Zebras in his Migrations book. The image probably didn't run in Nat Geo, but many others have. I don't think they severed relations over it.
View attachment 410231
It is not difficult for a skilled photographer to present false metadata. Opening an image in Photoshop does not mean that it has been manipulated. Most RAW files are unusable straight from the camera.I don't understand your point. NatGeo, unlike Lik and other artists, has a stern policy that their photographers cannot clone their shots. The following is from a 2016 article:
But, in an article published in the magazine's latest issue, Goldberg (Editor in Chief ) promised that National Geographic's editorial team is working hard to "keep covertly manipulated images out of our publications" — a manual task she admitted has become more difficult in "the era of Photoshop."
"A few decades ago it was easier to spot photo manipulation because the results were a lot cruder," she wrote. These days, spotting a fake requires some "forensic digging," according to National Geographic Director of Photography Sarah Leen.
"Just like we require our writers to provide their notes, we require photographers on assignment to submit 'raw' files of their images, which contain pixel information straight from the digital camera's sensor," Goldberg wrote. If the raw file isn't available, the editorial team asks "detailed questions" about the image, and will sometimes reject it as a result of what they find out.
"We ask ourselves, 'Is this photo a good representation of what the photographer saw?'" Leen said. That answer "always must be yes," Goldberg added.
National Geographic Tackles Photo Manipulation
Keeping manipulated images out of the magazine has gotten harder as of late.www.pcmag.com
Hi, again, Alan. Everybody knows that Lik was following Kinkade's marketing playbook. Besides the obvious slick sales people, both men developed special modes of presentation. Among other innovations, Kinkade developed an especially sophisticated paint by numbers computer program that allowed paintings of his to be mass produced by an assembly line of painters in Mexico, but using colors to match client's own chosen home decor colors.
Lik blatantly rearranged and grossly colorized things using PS. But he did develop a facility able to mount really big prints or transparencies smoothly, targeted to the over-the-top decor audience. But what's the point if it's just oversized feel-good mortuary calendar postcard fare?
I hesitate to phrase all this the way I really feel. I'm understating it. And I don't give a damn how much money anyone makes at it. That doesn't impress me in the least. All kinds of cons make people rich.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?