Small Prints

I don't think it's an issue of detail at all- you compose for the final product. A well conceived and executed small print will offer lots of detail, you won't miss a thing. I mean, look at Kertész, I have a book of tiny prints from him and they are amazing. And if the size causes you to hold the print a bit closer, to move it around in your hands... well that the whole point of making an intimate print. You can't hold a 16x20 in your hands and appreciate it in the same way- a print that large is fundamentally a gallery print to be viewed by many at once from a distance. That distance between the work and the audience is what troubles me about large prints- and it's not just a physical distance. I am just picturing some of Weston's intimate prints at 20x24, that would probably be quite awful.

Now, I have some captures that would absolutely suck in very small print (6x9cm or smaller), but that is an issue of composing for the print. The compositions aren't intimate so of course neither is the print, and I didn't shoot them to be printed small.

Incidentally, I thnk this touches on the problem of how to make prints that look appealing in web format. Did you ever notice how some people here seem to be masters at creating prints that look gorgeous even as thumbnails?! Frustrating for me Like your chapel, Paul. That thing holds up at any size. I betcha want to print it huge, right? Don't.

Printing small

After many years of making only enlargements, I have rediscovered the joys of contact printing, that I had not done since my college days. I'm currently working in mainly 8x10 with occasional 5x7/4x5 and 6x9cm. It's been quite a revelation. The qualities of a contact print - sharpness, tonality, etc are always slightly degraded when making an enlargement, not to mention the fact that contact prints generally are easier to make - i.e. less dodging and burning. I must qualify my opinion and state that I am not burdened with making prints for customers - they are purely for my own pleasure. So I can print exactly as I desire with no one to please but myself. I also feel that viewing a small print is a much more intimate, personal experience due to the close viewing distance. Just my .02
Tim

keithwms said:

I don't think it's an issue of detail at all- you compose for the final product. A well conceived and executed small print will offer lots of detail, you won't miss a thing.

Click to expand...

I completely agree -- but that sort of proves my point that some subjects do work better or worse than others for a small print. I completely agree that small prints can be more intimate -- but if the primary subject matter is invisible at that print size, then what is the intimacy worth? Obviously the output should be conceived at the time of composition / capture -- but that concept negates the point made above that subjects that work well large also work well small. My 300 person graduation photo example may be extreme, but can you imagine a worse subject to print at 4x5? Ok, maybe a 500 person graduation photo

When I was at a very memorable Ansel Adams exhibition, there were a number of his prints that were utterly breathtaking at 8x10 inches, i.e. small for him. But some of his grand landscapes, especially a huge enlargement of his famous shot of the Snake River winding its way past the Tetons, just needed to be grand, it needed to envelop you. In other words, I think intimacy would be an incongruous feeling for a subject that should make you feel tiny.

Incidentally, I thnk this touches on the problem of how to make prints that look appealing in web format. Did you ever notice how some people here seem to be masters at creating prints that look gorgeous even as thumbnails?! Frustrating for me Like your chapel, Paul. That thing holds up at any size. I betcha want to print it huge, right? Don't.

Click to expand...

Hah, I'd love to -- but the sad thing about 8x10 is I can only print it at 8x10 right now -- no bigger, no smaller. It does look pretty cool even as my avatar. But I still think that a minimum size of 8x10 is needed, because at that size you can just barely read the writing on the sign on the door if you squint and contort your eyes to do it. The sign is a nice compositional element that would be lost at a smaller print size. But as such, the print is intimate even at 8x10, because the tiny details draw you into it.

Printing small, can be a very intimate experience for the viewer.
I did a book once, where I made 3"x5" prints on 8'x10" paper.
Before each photograph I had a nice piece of paper where I wrote some text about the photograph that followed.
The "book" was about the birth of my son, the preceding it and proceeding it.
The subject matter aside I'd say it is some of my most intimate work.
I also did some large prints of these photographs, 16"x20" and they didn't have as much impact.
In some way it was almost like holding my son when you look at the book.
Brian

I think that print size comes down to personal taste. Print subject matter is and always will be the most important factor in a print, in my opinion. Whether the print is small or big, the same message should be conveyed. How different people react to subject matter is different. Some may like to view it small, others may like to view it large.
I think from a technical standpoint, anything larger than 5x7 from 35mm and it starts to lose a lot of sharpness. Larger than 8x10 from medium format - same thing. Prints larger than that can and will often still look nice, but there is a lack of impact, a lack of sharpness that just can't match the smaller print. That's how I see it.
My personal preference is smaller prints. I love to see a 3x5 or a 4x6 or 35mm work in a large mat. I rather view that than a mural.
I have to agree with Paul that some images don't do well as small at all. I have a couple of them that just don't open up until printed larger. But for me that's the exception rather than the rule.

Thought I'd share my two cents...
- Thomas

I shoot on XP2 35mm and usually get dev only at a local lab and print my own 8 x 10 upwards. Recently I decided to get 6 x 4 inch machine prints as well for a roll and was delighted. These are now in an album and it has changed my approach. I now want to make albums of small prints, doing the odd one here and there for my wall and lectures at my local photo club.

Les

Sportera said:

... I still prefer the small print.
It forces the viewer to study it closer,
large prints have the impact but smaller
one are more intimate and personal.

Click to expand...

Small prints are portable. Large prints are not portable.
If portability is sought for, print small. Wallet size is the
classic example. Dan