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.
they gain power and relevance when printed large.
I don’t know the answer to your question, but I do know I’ve had to go larger with my silver prints to compete at the venues where I exhibit. In the old days, my 20x 24 prints were considered large. Now, not so much...How prevalent are silver gelatin prints in large formats compared to previous decades?
Indeed! There are exact understandings of the viewing phenomenon, and that's why, for instance, a billboard photo can be made from a 35mm negative.I believe that 'some photographers' really believe the 'bull-s**t that a bigger is AWAYS better without realizing that there is a 'proper viewing distance' that is based on the 'linear magnification' of the print from the original negative.
Ken
Didn't mean to offend. But, decor is to art what carpentry is to architecture - - related but with their own unique rationalizations.Indeed, it does... I don't know why some people use the word as a pejorative.
I just made a set of 72 inch wide silver gelatin prints for Larry Towell using the lambda which would have been next to impossible to equal (in my darkrooms) of past. But I do see much more inkjet large prints than silvers for sure.I think it is no surprise that the large print movement (which I assess at larger than 24x30) coincides with the ease of making large prints with large format inkjet printers, and other advances in the digital printing industry. How prevalent are silver gelatin prints in large formats compared to previous decades?
So, you're saying decor can't be art? Or, art can't be decor? That's the sort of comment I was referencing, in questioning why "decor" is seen as derogatory.Didn't mean to offend. But, decor is to art what carpentry is to architecture - - related but with their own unique rationalizations.
I'm not saying either, eddie. I am saying each discipline obeys their own long established doctrines, principles, and values.So, you're saying decor can't be art? Or, art can't be decor? That's the sort of comment I was referencing, in questioning why "decor" is seen as derogatory.
Yes. I'm saying they're no different. Anything visual (photography, painting, sculpture...) evokes an aesthetic response. We may not care for the "art" or "decor", but it doesn't change a thing. Just because it goes well with the sofa doesn't diminish its validity as art. When the Medicis were commissioning Michelangelo, they did so for decorative reasons (as well as an expression of wealth). No doubt, when the primitive painters at Lascaux finished a bison painting, they said, "It goes well with the rocks we sit on."Are you saying they aren't?
Just because it goes well with the sofa doesn't diminish its validity as art.
I think the image is so iconic it can be done at any size. Generally, I don't think there is a right size for a photograph. I think most images can be successfully printed in various sizes. I think "best" size is venue dependent.I'll ask again, "what's the best size to display "Migrant Mother?"
You need to ask Dorthea that question...
It was all there in my opening post. I highly qualified my inquiry, and asked the pertinent question.
I'm not seeing that. Instead, I see a search for some objective guide to print size which doesn't exist.It sounds really as if you have an axe to grind and don't want to hear anything that disconfirms your personal belief that "prints are too big these days" or maybe that "big prints aren't really photographs" or similar.
Threads evolve as people add to them, as people with other views and broader or different experience comment.
You don't own the thread, and you can't control how people respond to it. Trying to drag a thread that's evolving back to where you want it to be is usually a task worthy of Sisyphus, so good luck with that.
It sounds really as if you have an axe to grind and don't want to hear anything that disconfirms your personal belief that "prints are too big these days" or maybe that "big prints aren't really photographs" or similar.
Thank you, sir. I can now confirm that no less than 1 person understand the inquiry.I'm not seeing that. Instead, I see a search for some objective guide to print size which doesn't exist.
My business makes it necessary to offer my work in different sizes to meet various price points. Buyers will purchase the size appropriate to their spacial needs. Big wall- big print. Small wall- small print. The various sizes have nothing to do with the "quality" of the image. It does change the financial value, for both me and my buyers. From a business perspective, size does matter.I am rather trying to discover if there is an explicit qualitative principle at work in printed photographs wherein "size" can be optimized as a quality element.
Some photographs do lose relevance and power when printed small. And many, many photographs just look lousy when printed large.Without some meaningful qualifiers, that statement would apply to any photograph, no? The corollary is that photographs lose relevance and power when printed small
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?