Has Photography Gotten Too Big?

[blockend]

One useful guide to size is to look at an image in a book, and see if it exhausts the information and aesthetic potential of the photograph. Coffee table books rarely have an image size larger than 10 x 8", and most are smaller. I have a reasonable collection of photo books by famous and less well known photographers, and none of them lack anything in appeal through lack of size.

The distance we view a book at is typically the same as, or slightly closer than someone inspecting a framed photograph on a wall. The other appeal is the surface of the image, which will look different behind glass, but is irrelevant to the question of size. It's really a question of how we want the work viewed. Is it something that bears close inspection, a picture to look at and consider. Or is it ambient, a kind of background theme or wallpaper to the room.

For images intended to be looked at, almost any size will suffice that gives pleasure to the viewer.

 

[Mark Minard]

Gallery space is unlimited? Maybe if you're Julian Schnabel, or the Starn Twins, but not where I'm from.
I'd rather hang more of my work than less. And if you're using Nielsen frames w/glass you're familiar with the cost, right?

 

[FujiLove]

I realised when viewing some of my partner's Polaroid images, that photographs become more like objects when you print very small. They become items which beg to be handled and interacted with in different ways than, say, an 8 x 10 print.

There's definitely something beautiful and interesting about very small prints.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

then the wall size, back-lit Ilfochrome with life size elements and/or human figures will be much more likely to overwhelm.

Agreed.
Therefore, any of the multitude of photographs featuring 'people in everyday life' would only be properly appreciated in wall size too? And pictures of buildings would only be appreciated when in life size? The Ladybug?

Let's try a thought experiment. We ask a dozen members here to supply a contact print of their choice. We take the dozen contacts to our 10-member Sizing Committee, a group of esteemed photographers, critics and judges, with the request to please determine the optimum size for appreciating each individual photograph to the fullest for an exhibition of the dozen photos.

-How do they go about the job? Using what criteria?
-Will the owners of the smallest and largest prints agree on their size?
Chaos.

Photographic integrity is preserved jn the captured image itself, just as the integrity of a novel is preserved in the words. "Moby Dick" doesn't become a better or more significant novel when printed in coffee table size. Nor does anyone get less from it when they read it in a cheap dime store paperback.

But I agree with you entirely that large things overwhelm us. But being overwhelmed in that way is an easy trick (just ask Jeff Koons!) Remember iMAX theater? Oh man, talk about being overwhelmed! But, the movies were shallow and devoid of the emotional grit that storytelling needs to have. It was just a simple trick - eye candy - and not a better story.

Bigness doesn't discriminate - it makes good and bad things seem overwhelming.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

AA said"if you can't make it good, make it big";certainly works for Gursky!

 

[ReginaldSMith]

I realised when viewing some of my partner's Polaroid images, that photographs become more like objects when you print very small. They become items which beg to be handled and interacted with in different ways than, say, an 8 x 10 print.

There's definitely something beautiful and interesting about very small prints.

I love shooting INSTAX for that very reason.

 

[Chan Tran]

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.

I don't think there is any printer that can print billboard size. I think the billboards are printed in strips and not as a whole.

 

[Bob Carnie]

72 inch colour processor is the largest I have heard of for Cprints. We now may have some inkjet flatbeds that can print larger ,

 

[Luckless]

Gallery space is unlimited? Maybe if you're Julian Schnabel, or the Starn Twins, but not where I'm from.
I'd rather hang more of my work than less. And if you're using Nielsen frames w/glass you're familiar with the cost, right?

I think this makes for an interesting talking point to look at between different photographers: How much of your body of work do you actually display?

Personally I tend to drift towards the view of "Less is more", and get extremely picky about which photos not only make it to print, but also which of those prints are allowed on the wall. I have maybe four spaces that would work well for larger 24+" prints here in my one bedroom apartment, up to six prints larger than 8x10s, and then no more than a dozen 8x10 or smaller. Much more than that and I expect it would start to feel overly cluttered and busy, and likely to distract from an individual piece more than offering any kind of enhancement. Of course I'll also be sharing this space with my girlfriend and her paintings, plus anything either of us buys from other artists, so that means culling and careful consideration needs to take place.

But it also means that we should be able to easily build up a bit of a catalogue of work that hides away in storage and can be brought out to change things up every now and then. A handful of pieces will likely earn a spot as permanent display, while the rest will have a few pieces rotated out every month.

 

[BradS]

I think excessively large prints have been a thing for a while...so, I don't think this is a new thing at all. I recall seeing a Galen Rowell print in person - it was in the lobby at the old Calypso Photo lab in Santa Clara. The print must have been 4 X 6 feet. They said it was made from a 35mm color negative.....of course, it looked like shit up close but from across the room, it was ok.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

I went to Rowell's gallery in New Mexico. I felt it was like well done wallpaper. Very pretty in that Thomas Kincaid way.

 

[BradS]

I went to Rowell's gallery in New Mexico. I felt it was like well done wallpaper. Very pretty in that Thomas Kincaid way.

Although his huge prints did not appeal to me, I had enormous respect for the man. He was quite an inspiration.

 

[MattKing]

Therefore, any of the multitude of photographs featuring 'people in everyday life' would only be properly appreciated in wall size too? And pictures of buildings would only be appreciated when in life size? The Ladybug?

You have reversed the logic.
Large prints have certain strengths and many challenges and weaknesses. Those who work with them successfully make careful choices about what and how they photograph with those strengths and challenges and weaknesses in mind.
Those who don't work successfully with the medium create wallpaper.

 

[guangong]

I am often surprised by the diminutive size of so many famous paintings created during the renaissance, not to speak of the little etchings by Rembrandt. There are also quite a few iconic photographs that are not that large.
On the other hand, remember the Grand Central Station Kodachrome pictures.
There really is no rule, but as Ralph hinted in his comment, making it bigger doesn’t make it better.

 

[MattKing]

I am often surprised by the diminutive size of so many famous paintings created during the renaissance, not to speak of the little etchings by Rembrandt. There are also quite a few iconic photographs that are not that large.

On the other other hand, if you consider Velazquez' Las Meninas or Michelangelo's David, you may very well realize that the intended, large size of the work can be very important.
And on the other, other, other hand, Gayle Stevens' tiny tintypes of individual bees are wonders in themselves.
Essentially, size is a choice, and it helps to choose wisely.

 

[slackercrurster]

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.

OP...concur.

I look around at the NYC galleries and most of what they sell are oversized crappy photos. Their credo...if it is big it must be good!