Does Size Matter...?

[Paul Coppin]

This thread is prompted by a decision process that I am wrestling with that appears to be timeless - how to get the biggest bang for the buck, without compromising your aspirations. I need to upgrade a "giclee" (chortle!) printer and I'm faced with the inevitable question of what to buy, given the ongoing "starving artist" syndrome that appears to be my true destiny.

From the perspective of saleable prints (as opposed to media sales) does size matter? In the overall big picture of producing "photographs as art", does the size of the image actually drive the saleability of prints in a meaningful way? All of us have seen beautiful miniatures that are exquisite in their delicacy, likewise magnificent "poster" art that seemingly only can be appreciated in an amphitheatre. But on balance, do large format prints have more appeal in the marketplace because they are presented as large images, or is more the intrinsic clarity the medium affords? Every photo artist looks to find a niche or vision that promotes his craft - some do it big, some contacts, some, I presume, do it small. But, overall, which carries the day in merchantability? Big, or not so big?

I'm regularly reminded of an experience in the '60s when I first started to get "serious" about photography - I had spent hours and hours in the darkroom, perfecting 16x20s from 35mm with Tri-X and Microdol, yielding very very fine even grain and smooth tones, and being quite successful with it... I attended a showing at a local gallery at about the same time featuring a "well-known" photographer's travelling exhibit (whose name I can no longer recall, itself perhaps instructive). None of the mounted photos were bigger than about 4x6 - they might have been 4x5 contacts, even. But, they were remarkable in their clarity (of course) and tonality, and I walked away wondering whether I had gone off entirely on the wrong track. I never quite got over that experience (which probably explains the "starving artist syndrome").

How are those of you who sell an eclectic mix fairing, with regard to image size?

[Will Strain]

Mine it depends greatly on the image. I have a few that sell better as large pieces, but as a rule - my smaller works sell the most. I'm sure that is price driven... most people are more comfortable paying for the small works - the big ones get pricey. Also my large works are usually pretty non-standard (made up of 10-25 very small works, in an assemblage) - so I don't use that as a reliable indicator of anything.

Do your images invoke sweeping vistas, or grand patterns and such - or are they more introspective. Match the size to the image, not your best guess at the market.

[Ted Harris]

Yup, size does matter. For the bulk of my 40 years as a working photographer I stuck pretty much to prints no larger than 16x20. Ovewr the past few years I have been watching keenly what sizes sell best. My observations, my own sales and my conversations with others on this forum led to a change in my approach. While I still do not print larger than 16x20, and usually stay with 11x14 for black and white my color prints have gotten larger and larger. I now find that 16x20 is usually the smallest size I consider for exhibition or sale. The range of 20x30 actually seems to sell even better. There are some variables here, one of the major ones being your sales venue. What I have said is true for gallery sales where the potential buyer has some expectation of paying a reasonable price for a larger work of art. I also sell a lot of greeting/note cards at craft shows and fairs. At these venues I also always have a lot of 8x10's available at low prices and they sell well too but that is a different product for a different audience. Finally, I can remember at least two instances in the past year where people who bought cards and/or a small print at a craft fair came back and ordered a large print for several hundred dollars.

[Sammy_4293]

Fred picker would tell you that it doesn't matter. You are not selling the carpet by Sqft, are you?

[Bruce Watson]

Size matters to the art itself. Some images want to be printed smaller (say, flower closeups). Some images want to be printed bigger (say, the view from a mountain top). If you print the art outside the range that it wants, the prints look weird. If too big they look surrealistic. If too small they look claustrophobic. At least that's the way it works for me.

Size also matters to the marketplace. Smaller sizes often do better in bigger cities, where smaller apartments with smaller wall spaces are the rule. In markets that can also support large paintings, similar sized prints often do well (that is, art repro. prints the same size as the paintings, and fine art prints from photographs of a similar size).

Size matters to the venue. Small sizes (less expensive) tend to do well at art fairs. Bigger sizes tend to do better at galleries.

I suspect too Ted's observation on color vs. B&W images is also right on the money.

What I do, is what Will suggests - I try to be true to the image, and print it in sizes that best match the image.

[Ellen Stoune Duralia]

Interesting topic...

I enjoy looking at large prints that are nicely done. In other words, as others have pointed out, some images look good big. But for my personal work, I tend to stick to sizes around 8x10, with a few 11x14's. I just enjoy working with the smaller sizes for some oddball reason.

So, I don't think there are any hard and fast rules other than please don't make a large print for the sake of making a large print. Make sense?

[Paul Coppin]

Just to clarify, I am gainfully employed in somewhat more prosaic work, mercifully not dependent on my photography sales to live. The question has been one that has intrigued me for a long time. I expect the responses about keying the work to the subject, etc, but have wondered how much a factor the size of the image, in presentation, actually makes to its acceptance broadly. It harkens back to the idea that people buy imagery to fill a space, as much as they do to assuage an aethesthic need, and if that reflects in the sales of work. I'm looking at the purely pragmatic issues, rather than the "artistic" ones.

[Ralph Barker]

I agree with the observation that different images will "want" to be printed at different degrees of enlargement, notwithstanding the associated image-quality issues. My personal preference is for more "intimately-sized" prints, with 11x14s being toward the large end of the scale.

Buyers, however, may have completely different tastes, so one should pay attention to what the person signing the check prefers. The buyer's demographic also plays into this question. I always found the observation made by a famous wedding photographer a few years back rather interesting. His experience was that less well-to-do clients often wanted large prints of one or two key images (16x20 or 20x24), while wealthier clients often considered 8x10s to be large. I'm not sure if that still holds up, but I suspect it does.

Bottom line? Catering to one's market is seldom a bad idea.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

In response to the original question. I read an article about printers not long ago. The auther made a convincing argument that a printer like the epson 4000 was more economical in the long run than the epson 2200 that I have. When you figure the cost per ml It doesn't take that many refills to overcome the larger expendeture. You can buy a $600 printer and $2000 in ink or $2000 for a printer and $600 in ink. In the long run ink is going to be the largest outlay.

[David Luttmann]

Ralph,

I can echo your experiences. I find that weddings I do for wealthier clients have an 11x14 or two and an entire book of 8x10 (8x12). For clients that have less money, they will order a few 16x20 & 11x14 but concentrate mainly on 4x6 and 5x7 for their book. In the end, I make far more off a book of 8x10 than a couple of 16x20.

As well, most of B&W is 11x17 or 16x20.....while the color is 16x20 to 24x36. People seem to like large color shots more than large B&W.