Has Photography Gotten Too Big?

Are burgers this big in Arizona? Here in Canada the volume is the same or less. They make it three patties, but volume is same as old time burger. This is the marketing scam.
So are huge prints. Getting normal sized prints required a lot of work in the field and in the darkroom. Now with help of marketing people (arts directors and critics) take some conceptual dross, print it in paperwall mill and instead of multiple pictures present one oversized flat patty.

Ko.Fe. said:

Are burgers this big in Arizona? Here in Canada the volume is the same or less. They make it three patties, but volume is same as old time burger. This is the marketing scam.
So are huge prints. Getting normal sized prints required a lot of work in the field and in the darkroom. Now with help of marketing people (arts directors and critics) take some conceptual dross, print it in paperwall mill and instead of multiple pictures present one oversized flat patty.

Click to expand...

One also needs wall space to hang it.

John I was meaning in that its easier to view that way. To me you should be at least initially able to see the whole picture with out moving your eyes around, then you can focus on to what ever you want......but I personally am a hopeless glancer, if I dont find the picture engaging at a brief glance I will wonder on. I can spend ages looking at a single picture or walk through a gallery in a brief moment, that's the way I am, shouldn't blame the viewer.
As for super sized prints, mostly I find them over bearing. Prefer something more intimate.

Making large pictures by embedding an optical image into a sensitive surface and gazing at the marks that result is difficult.

In information theory geek-speak this is a parallel process where a very large amount picture forming energy and information has to be sent simultaneously and instantly from one place to be received in another. The bandwidth required is enormous and it is a lucky thing that light rays have a very high frequency and consequently a very high information content.

Printing processes where dots are placed one after another onto a substrate to form a picture are serial operations and are very easy. Provided one does not run out of dots and substrate the final picture can be indefinitely large without practical limit. There are no bandwidth problems as the dots can be placed as slowly as one pleases. They just accumulate until all the picture information is downloaded.

Parallel and serial processes are different at a fundamental level. That's why making big enlargements in the photographic darkroom is physically and technically challenging but making big prints could be no harder than going out for a coffee while the printer, having been set into motion, buzzes its way to the end and then stops.

Large prints, almost always framed or dibonded, are statement pieces to showcase the beauty of the scene. It matters not to me that photographs have become bigger. The work showcased by such prints are very deserving of having a wall to themselves just for impact alone.

Today's prints are far, far bigger than anything that could be produced in a darkroom (but once-upon-a-time 3 metre wide mural Ilfochrome Classic prints were all the rage amongst the glitterati who could afford the $3,000 price tag). I would love to print more of my work above 1m (the Epson I output to goes up to 3 metre max), but the cost of specialist framing and a shortage of wall space put the brakes on this. Probably stashed away are 5 or 6 very large prints that will one day necessitate a giant cash splash to get them framed (4 inch oak molding, likely). But not yet. There is no space in the studio to hang them, and upstairs walls are reserved for the aboriginal art collection.

Apple Co.. took a well known photograph of Einstein, made it 10 stories tall and pasted it on tall building walls. I saw it many times. The tall one was not one bit more photographically interesting than an ordinary 8 x 10 of the same image. Ok, people could see it for blocks, but that's nothing but billboard advertising, and hasn't got squat to do with intrinsic photographic properties.

Still wondering what photographic property improves with gargantuan size?

ReginaldSMith said:

Printed photographs just keep getting bigger. I mean REALLY bigger. Yes, there is Gursky with his 12 foot photos,. but even less accomplished photogs are printing out ever larger images now that dot printers can come in billboard sizes.

Does size make pictures better? Is 16 feet by 20 feet somehow really better than 16" x 20"? I guess so. Or maybe not.

Size of photographs seems to be correlated to the size of hamburgers, which now have four patties, plus bacon, plus a chicken breast or two.

Personally, I think it is a stretch.

Click to expand...

Reginald, what you have brought to our attention has been going on for decades. In the 1950s there was a saying at the photographic clubs and societies. Its went like this: "If you can't make a good photograph, it will be better if it is "bigger". If that doesn't work, make it even bigger and glossy. If that doesn't work, make it BIG. BLUE, AND GLOSSY and no matter how bad it is, some judge, somewhere, will like it. The sad thing about it was that it was true. I think we have all been through the phase of photography that says "bigger is better". I know I have. 11x14 is now my maximum with 8x10 my new norm. Not ready to down-size to 5x7 yet. A really good 8x10 can be beautiful. Gonna make one some day if I don't die first..........Regards!

Arklatexian said:

Reginald, what you have brought to our attention has been going on for decades. In the 1950s there was a saying at the photographic clubs and societies. Its went like this: "If you can't make a good photograph, it will be better if it is "bigger". If that doesn't work, make it even bigger and glossy. If that doesn't work, make it BIG. BLUE, AND GLOSSY and no matter how bad it is, some judge, somewhere, will like it. The sad thing about it was that it was true. I think we have all been through the phase of photography that says "bigger is better". I know I have. 11x14 is now my maximum with 8x10 my new norm. Not ready to down-size to 5x7 yet. A really good 8x10 can be beautiful. Gonna make one some day if I don't die first..........Regards!

Click to expand...

Agreed. Photographs that rely on size for their effect are not something I'm interested in. I imagine a long exposure seascape hanging on the boardroom wall of a petrochemical company headquarters. They're posters basically, innocuous, undemanding, vaguely feel good images to cover a blank space. Can't remember last time I saw a really large print of something exciting happening. An 8 x 8" print from a 120 negative on the other hand...

Sirius Glass said:

No, not really. You print the size you want and they can print any size they want. It is not like they need your permission.

Click to expand...

I depends, here in Germany the legal situation is that actually an artist can decide on the final size. And typically an artist does not hand out a negative. And making a larger print out of a smaller one would form a copy anway, which is prohibited.

About 10 years ago I saw in an Antwerp art-photo gallery photographs about postcard size. They were the smallest I remember having seen at such place.
(http://www.gallery51.com/index.php?navigatieid=9&fotograafid=61)

mooseontheloose said:

I prefer the smaller print experience - I feel like it's more immersive, since it's just me and the photograph - ...

Click to expand...

Same here !
I just bought 12 tiny vintage prints from the 1950's (6.5 x 11.1 cm = 2.56 x 4.37 inches) from the Hautes-Alpes / France -
it's a pleasure to look at.

OP are you talking about big city galleries, pro-am local galleries, amateur print showing or printing for home use? Personally I think a 10x8 (9.5x7.5) behind a 14x11 overmatt looks great for viewing in our small UK houses, maybe next size up in the US where you typically have more space. I can admit though that a really large immersive print in a big gallery can be something a bit special to behold. Ultimately you are not the arbiter of others taste.

ReginaldSMith said:

I was speaking of photography specifically.... Just so we don't go of the rails.

Click to expand...

I can't see how it makes sense to consider photographs as somehow intrinsically different from any other representational medium.
"Purely photographically" only makes sense if there is a clear and unambiguous set of aesthetic criteria available upon which to base an assessment ('technical' criteria are irrelevant).
It's certainly not going "off the rails" to consider photography in the wider context of representational media.
Distinctions that are both arbitrary and rigid about what's under discussion, by contrast, are rather like a model railway: it doesn't go off the rails (if you're careful) but it also goes round and round returning to the same points over and over.
In the question "Has photography gotten too big", that phrase "too big" is doing a lot of work.
In response, I want to know "Too big for what?"

NJH said:

Ultimately you are not the arbiter of others taste.

Click to expand...

I'd like to clear this up. I am not trying to be the arbiter of others taste, nor am I saying that making huge prints is "wrong" or "bad" or "shouldn't be done." That's not my point at all. I am asking the question, "what photographic property or principle is enhanced by huge size that can't be understood in small size?" (And again, I am not concerned or interested in the angles regarding decor. (Yes, I do understand the interior design people like to fill big walls with big pictures.)

I don't believe there is any enhancement in photographic principles at all. I think the single reason for ultra large prints is: They can be sold for more money that small prints. The exact same reason as this....

Poisson Du Jour said:

Large prints, almost always framed or dibonded, are statement pieces to showcase the beauty of the scene.

Click to expand...

hi pdj
the ones i have sold have been printed on canvas and look absolutely spectacular ..
the problem of making these giant pieces is the crating and shipping. the ones i have had
printed cost between 300-500$to crate (custom) and ship (freight company). good times

pdeeh said:

I can't see how it makes sense to consider photographs as somehow intrinsically different from any other representational medium.
"Purely photographically" only makes sense if there is a clear and unambiguous set of aesthetic criteria available upon which to base an assessment ('technical' criteria are irrelevant).
It's certainly not going "off the rails" to consider photography in the wider context of representational media.
Distinctions that are both arbitrary and rigid about what's under discussion, by contrast, are rather like a model railway: it doesn't go off the rails (if you're careful) but it also goes round and round returning to the same points over and over.
In the question "Has photography gotten too big", that phrase "too big" is doing a lot of work.
In response, I want to know "Too big for what?"

Click to expand...

It was all there in my opening post. I highly qualified my inquiry, and asked the pertinent question. I'll repeat it here for you: "Printed photographs just keep getting bigger.......Does size make pictures better? Is 16 feet by 20 feet somehow really better than 16" x 20"? (emphasis added).

When someone poses a specific it's not always useful to redefine it as a general condition. You persist on posing a question about "representational media" when that was never the subject. So, now that we have brought it back to the specifics of photographs: What property or principle of a very large photograph is not obvious in a smaller version? I discount immediately the use as an advertising billboard (e.g. Apple) because the answer is merely "commercial gain." I also discount immediately the arcane demands of interior decorators to fill wall space because that results in completely arbitrary size. No, none of that. For example of typical criteria for assessing a photograph, here's the criteria of one organization: https://nmra.org/national-photo-contest-judging-guidelines. There are many others, but I have never seen a set which made size a virtue.

ReginaldSMith said:

It was all there in my opening post. I highly qualified my inquiry, and asked the pertinent question. I'll repeat it here for you: "Printed photographs just keep getting bigger.......Does size make pictures better? Is 16 feet by 20 feet somehow really better than 16" x 20"? (emphasis added).

When someone poses a specific it's not always useful to redefine it as a general condition. You persist on posing a question about "representational media" when that was never the subject. So, now that we have brought it back to the specifics of photographs: What property or principle of a very large photograph is not obvious in a smaller version? I discount immediately the use as an advertising billboard (e.g. Apple) because the answer is merely "commercial gain." I also discount immediately the arcane demands of interior decorators to fill wall space because that results in completely arbitrary size. No, none of that. For example of typical criteria for assessing a photograph, here's the criteria of one organization: https://nmra.org/national-photo-contest-judging-guidelines. There are many others, but I have never seen a set which made size a virtue.

Click to expand...

size always makes things better. you put 10 people in a room that has a large photograph on the wall 16 feet by 20 feet since you used that here ... and then you put them in another room with 16x20 inches on the wall, and then another one with 8x10s on the walls and then another with 4x5 contact prints from the negative .. all pefectly printed ... most people will be wow'e by the 16x20 feet because ... its huge

i don't think there is any philosophy involved or aesthetics or anything other than the fact that people like big-stuff, the bigger the better ...
to quote max bialystock: when you got it baby, flaunt it !

and

to quote jr "bob" dobbs head of the subgenius church "too much is always better than not enough"

OP - I'd like to clear this up. I am not trying to be the arbiter of others taste, nor am I saying that making huge prints is "wrong" or "bad" or "shouldn't be done." That's not my point at all. I am asking the question, "what photographic property or principle is enhanced by huge size that can't be understood in small size?" (And again, I am not concerned or interested in the angles regarding decor. (Yes, I do understand the interior design people like to fill big walls with big pictures.)

I don't believe there is any enhancement in photographic principles at all. I think the single reason for ultra large prints is: They can be sold for more money that small prints. The exact same reason as this....


Large prints are sold for more due to production costs involved, from initial gear to capture , perfect Large Prints, Mounting , Framing, and probably the most underrated cost is shipping of work. - In my town Ed Burtynsky is at the head
of the heap, he uses very good large format capture devices, he has built a lab to personally print his work to his vision, as well he mounts and Frames his work. We are seeing his work being shipped worldwide for exhibit. Many local photographers are influenced by him and try to make the large print , but always seem to compromise in the production stages and the work is then considered (Stretched beyond what it should).
This is where I agree with those who knock big prints... but done properly I love big prints.

I work with some photographers where we are making life size images of tree planters, in this project the photographer exceeds all expectations in the production stages and the super sized, life size images of these tree planters at close distance make you think you are in the scene.
This is where huge size works for this particular body of work, when we make smaller test print the effect is not the same and not what the photographer wants to convey with her work.

The tipping point is the new digital devices that are capturing monster detail, I believe we are going to see much more large work, where it may common to see life size objects in some of the larger gallery's at full image resolution.
I am one of those people who can walk in a large gallery and appreciate a beautifully crafted Large Print and not wish it was smaller.
The first time I saw Salgado's main show at the GEH, there were two sizes of prints in the show.. 16 x 22 inches and 24 x26 inch prints. IMHO the larger prints were much better than the smaller prints, in fact I think two printers were commissioned and the printer who made the big prints was much better.

Someone mentioned Gursky and Jeff Wall as influencers, I think there are many top photographers showing the younger students and now the technical cameras are able to be put more in photographers hands. I know of groups of artist that save their money and put aside time and together rent out these digital cameras and do short bursts of work . Every two or three months they are able to concentrate on their projects and make hay while the sun is shining .

Don't get me wrong , I too adore small prints, in fact Paul Paletti has what I consider two of the best photographs I have ever seen, one by Brett Weston (small) and one by Gerry Winograd (five people on park bench) again small. I find it amusing that there are such strong opinions on this subject..

Put me in the camp of liking both small and large images..

I've been doing 32x40 inch darkroom prints recently. I also print the same images at smaller sizes. While I don't think there is anything better about the larger prints, they do have a positive effect on my income (and ability to exhibit them). In talking to gallery owners, every one was quick to point out that they could make more from one 32x40 than 4 16x20's taking up the same amount of wall space.

eddie said:

I've been doing 32x40 inch darkroom prints recently. I also print the same images at smaller sizes. While I don't think there is anything better about the larger prints, they do have a positive effect on my income (and ability to exhibit them). In talking to gallery owners, every one was quick to point out that they could make more from one 32x40 than 4 16x20's taking up the same amount of wall space.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Yes, it's easy to see the pure commerce angle. I noticed recently that Ken Rockwell is flogging 48" prints. This all falls under the rubric of décor.

Thanks for that. Yes, it's easy to see the pure commerce angle. I noticed recently that Ken Rockwell is flogging 48" prints. This all falls under the rubric of décor.


Decor has its place, in fact all the banks , large corporations are buying big prints at big price to decor their offices. Some purchase as investment pieces as well.

If the viewer can become immersed in a huge print but not the small photograph printed small, then the choice to print large was entirely justified IMHO.

ReginaldSMith said:

This all falls under the rubric of décor.

Click to expand...

Only sometimes.
Again I reference Jeff Wall.
And Edward Burtynsky is another good example. Salgado in some cases as well.
Some photographs are suited to being printed larger - they gain power and relevance when printed large. Many other photographs don't benefit materially from being printed larger.
I know that likely final image size is one lf the factors that are at least in the back of my mind when I am setting up to take a photograph.

Bob Carnie said:

Thanks for that. Yes, it's easy to see the pure commerce angle. I noticed recently that Ken Rockwell is flogging 48" prints. This all falls under the rubric of décor.


Decor has its place...

Click to expand...

Indeed, it does... I don't know why some people use the word as a pejorative.

Bob Carnie said:

Decor has its place, in fact all the banks , large corporations are buying big prints at big price to decor their offices. Some purchase as investment pieces as well.

Click to expand...

you forgot car dealerships ! they spend HUGE $$ on decor whether it is beautifully crafted chairs and tables that cost as much as a luxory car
or artwork for their walls...

eddie said:

Indeed, it does... I don't know why some people use the word as a pejorative.

Click to expand...

me neither ! seeing if it goes on a wall as something giant, or small in a tiny frame or on a table it is a decorative element.
and there is a whole print on demand industry that makes it easier and easier for people to make giant prints they made themselves look look pretty amazing.

we live in a me-based world these days and nothing says ME better than a 48'x200" panorama you took out of the tourbus window in venice.