Scale v Content

cliveh · Dec 20, 2014

When producing any artwork, the scale of reproduction is very important. However, I cant help thinking that in photography especially, where we have the ability to more readily enlarge or reduce an image, that sometimes a mediocre image is given more emphasis by larger scale, as compared to a more dynamic image at a smaller scale. I am being simplistic here as this is a very complex area, but thought it may be worthy of discussion.

Sirius Glass · Dec 20, 2014

To me content dictates scale and scale dictates content.

youngrichard · Dec 20, 2014

I know what you mean. Some unpromising negs or contacts when printed small e.g. 5 x 7 are disappointing, but look terrific at 20 x 16; and vice versa. Problem is, printing 5 x 7 costs little and takes little time; but if we blow everything up to 20 x 16 to see if it is any good, it takes lots of time and gets very expensive. I don't know the answer.
Richard

Arklatexian · Dec 20, 2014

cliveh said:
When producing any artwork, the scale of reproduction is very important. However, I cant help thinking that in photography especially, where we have the ability to more readily enlarge or reduce an image, that sometimes a mediocre image is given more emphasis by larger scale, as compared to a more dynamic image at a smaller scale. I am being simplistic here as this is a very complex area, but thought it may be worthy of discussion.

Thirty or forty years ago, in our Photographic Society, we had a saying. "If you can't make it good, make it big. If it is still not good, make it big and glossy". I guess that still goes. A really good smaller picture is always better than a poor large one. Even enlarging a good, small picture too large can be sometimes detrimental. As always, it depends on the individual picture.......Regards

snapguy · Dec 20, 2014

oldtimes

The old time guy is exactly right. We had the same saying in photojournalism "back in the day." I have a photograph, though, of the Beatles in a Secret Press Conference during their first tour in Hollywood. It's the Fab Four sitting at a small table and they are surrounded by about 200 members of the press (the "select few" who got invited to the press conference. There was a real press frenzy over them at that time). The photo is not worth a darn unless I blow it up really, really big because in a small print the four guys are almost invisible although they are the center of attention and the lighting is focused on them. Content drives size requirements and all that.

frank · Dec 20, 2014

To expand on Cappa's famous quote: If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough, or they aren't enlarged enough.

RalphLambrecht · Dec 20, 2014

cliveh said:
When producing any artwork, the scale of reproduction is very important. However, I cant help thinking that in photography especially, where we have the ability to more readily enlarge or reduce an image, that sometimes a mediocre image is given more emphasis by larger scale, as compared to a more dynamic image at a smaller scale. I am being simplistic here as this is a very complex area, but thought it may be worthy of discussion.

if you csnnot do it better, make it larger.

Sirius Glass · Dec 20, 2014

Bigger is not always better. That is why some tall women prefer short men. There is a good reason. Ask them.

JackRosa · Dec 20, 2014

Not The Same

Sirius Glass said:
Bigger is not always better. That is why some tall women prefer short men. There is a good reason. Ask them.

Taller is not necessarily the same as "bigger" ... and shorter is nt necessarily the same as "smaller" . . . if you know what I mean!

horacekenneth · Dec 21, 2014

Everyone seems unanimous that mediocre images can look better big. I'm a beginner printer but I've always found the opposite to be true. Things like composition, distracting details, how sharp or resolved the image is or if there is some blurring, often these can be hid in a small image.

I had a photo of wide expanding tree roots I printed small, looked great. Then I printed it about 11x17 and I started noticing all these hot spots that took the whole image apart.

andrew.roos · Dec 21, 2014

horacekenneth said:
Everyone seems unanimous that mediocre images can look better big. I'm a beginner printer but I've always found the opposite to be true. Things like composition, distracting details, how sharp or resolved the image is or if there is some blurring, often these can be hid in a small image.

I had a photo of wide expanding tree roots I printed small, looked great. Then I printed it about 11x17 and I started noticing all these hot spots that took the whole image apart.

I agree. I think that while large images might make a strong initial impression, in the longer term they also show all the faults. A few weeks ago I had an image that I thought was quite good at 8x10. I printed it 12x16 and now realize that it's actually quite rubbish!

Bill Burk · Dec 21, 2014

I find that I am captivated by vintage amateur contact prints from 6x9, and some of my 6x9 work reflects that fascination - they are best seen at same size as negative because they don't hold up to enlargement. For example I may have captured the decisive moment well, but not held camera steady enough for critical sharpness.

Other than the well-captured-but-technically-flawed picture that looks good contact printed, I strive for a level of quality where everything comes together and the negative stands up well to 11x14 enlargement.

JackRosa · Dec 21, 2014

Agree with Bill

Bill Burk said:
I find that I am captivated by vintage amateur contact prints from 6x9, and some of my 6x9 work reflects that fascination - they are best seen at same size as negative because they don't hold up to enlargement. For example I may have captured the decisive moment well, but not held camera steady enough for critical sharpness.

Other than the well-captured-but-technically-flawed picture that looks good contact printed, I strive for a level of quality where everything comes together and the negative stands up well to 11x14 enlargement.

I agree with Bill . . . strive for a quality image / quality negative! If a negative enlarged to 11x14 or larger shows problems (unwanted details - a la an empty pack of cigarettes on the ground), lack of sharpness front to back, fuzziness of certain parts of the images (branches that were moving because of the wind), empty shadows that should have had detail,.a boring image altogether, ... use this experience to improve your picture-taking technique, versus using smaller enlargements to hide the problems.

I personally use 8x10 as my "proof sheet". Anything worthy of refinement (unsharp mask, dodging, burning in, toning, whatever) is enlarged to a minimum of 11x14. If I really like the image, it gets enlarged to 20x24 and if I really/really like the image, then 30x40 is the size it will be enlarged to.

JackRosa · Dec 21, 2014

PS

JackRosa said:
I agree with Bill . . . strive for a quality image / quality negative! If a negative enlarged to 11x14 or larger shows problems (unwanted details - a la an empty pack of cigarettes on the ground), lack of sharpness front to back, fuzziness of certain parts of the images (branches that were moving because of the wind), empty shadows that should have had detail,.a boring image altogether, ... use this experience to improve your picture-taking technique, versus using smaller enlargements to hide the problems.

I personally use 8x10 as my "proof sheet". Anything worthy of refinement (unsharp mask, dodging, burning in, toning, whatever) is enlarged to a minimum of 11x14. If I really like the image, it gets enlarged to 20x24 and if I really/really like the image, then 30x40 is the size it will be enlarged to.

P.S. - the enlargements mentioned above apply to my 8x10 negatives. When working with 4x5, anything worth refinement gets an 11x14 (or larger) enlargement. When working with MF (6cm x 7 cm), I usually enlarge to 11x14

Bill Burk · Dec 21, 2014

JackRosa,

Not enough rally behind that simple idea: If a negative shows problems use the experience to improve...

Gerald C Koch · Dec 21, 2014

There is a visual game that I sometimes play when looking at another photographer's large picture. That is to find one or more smaller pictures in the larger one. Often the smaller pictures are better than the larger one. Less can be more.

frank · Dec 21, 2014

Bill Burk said:
JackRosa,

Not enough rally behind that simple idea: If a negative shows problems use the experience to improve...

Doesn't that go without saying?

Bill Burk · Dec 21, 2014

frank said:
Doesn't that go without saying?

Too often.

DREW WILEY · Dec 23, 2014

This is about like asking which is more important, you right hand or your left? Scale is just another creative option, but with technical repercussions. Right now, really big prints seem to be a bit of fad, both in commercial galleries and in museum collections. The really nice
thing about these immense color prints is that nobody will be store them in nice little drawers or portfolio boxes, and that leaves them
susceptible to high-UV display lights or sunlight the whole time... and that is great news because it means a lot of these wretched images
which mistake sheer size for intrinsic interest will fade out faster. There's nothing quite like a kid on a tuba when you want to attract attention.... But give this a few more years and everyone will be sick of it, and everyone will be displaying 35mm contact prints with mat
margins three feet wide.

ME Super · Dec 23, 2014

You wanna see if something looks good big - shoot it on reversal film. Project it on a screen, a white wall, the side of the garage (easy in 35mm and medium format, less so for large format)... If it looks good, then print it big - IIRC you can use a direct positive paper, or reversal process B&W. Or you can make an internegative and print from that.

If we're talking B&W 35mm or medium format, you can also do a contact print on film, essentially getting your positive for projection that way while still having the original negative to print from.

chelseaphoto · Jan 5, 2015

JackRosa said:
If I really like the image, it gets enlarged to 20x24 and if I really/really like the image, then 30x40 is the size it will be enlarged to.

Hello Jack, this is my first time posting here. I have been trying to find the right thread for advice on how best to build an enlarger table/stand for my Beseler MXT. I have made up to 30 x 40 enlargements by projecting on the floor and taping down. I prefer projecting down to the neck ache of wall projection. You mentioned printing 30 x 40. Do you have a special setup you'd be willing to share?

Kind Regards,
Chelsea

Scale v Content

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency