Format size and what size prints you hang on your walls?

[Jim Jirka]

I have most of mine printed to 12x15 matted to 20x24.

The type of images that I make look good around these sizes.

[Harley Goldman]

I live in a small house. I print 16x20 prints and frame them 24x30. I used to use 20x24 frames, but they seem a little tight on the matting. I have prints up in every room. Have a 4800, so I have to justify it.

[Eric Woodbury]

The problem with big prints is that eventually you have to store them. They are heavy and voluminous. I like smaller prints. They don't have to be in groups, they need to be in small places, which I have. Start with the bathroom. I have 4x5 and 5x7s in the bathroom, laundry room, around the desk, kitchen, and hallway.

[Donald Miller]

It's interesting the tastes that people have. More to the point, how my tastes have changed over the years. I used to enjoy large prints...have several printed to 16X20 on the walls of my home. My recent prints are mostly 8x10 with a few at 12X16. I have come to appreciate quality over quantity.

[Capocheny]

8x10 matted on 16x20 or 11x14 matted on 16x20...

Am going to start printing some 5x7 and matt on 11x14 in the near future.

Cheers

[bruce terry]

Several 8x10 p/p contact prints matted 16x20 in 3/16" narrow-face Nielsen frames. I double overmat with a 7.5x9.5 cut over the image and a 9.75x11.75 cut for the overlay. For me, this breaks the massive expanse of white and give more depth to the image.

Couple of approx 4x6 35mm prints in 10x12.5 Nielsens.

13 original paintings large and small, most framed, some not.

In our little seaside hut, that's enough ... til it isn't.

[David_Senesac]

I've got a few dozen of old expensive archivally framed prints that have hanged on my walls 15 years that I will soon be tossing in the trash. Frames I should have trashed years ago. All are from the 1980s Lasercolor Lab laser scan/print process at 14x20 inch print size from 35mm KR64. The color prints are darkening and losing saturation as print media had a short life back then and the white mats are starting to show a bit of yellowing. A few of those old slides that have been drum scanned then reprinted on a Lightjet, look far better. Then I have a dozen huge prints hanging on my Armstrong exhibit display panels that regularly change. Unlike many photographers selling images on their internet web sites, I have large master prints of all images I market on my home page so have quite a lot to choose from. Many are stored in big poly bags just mounted on white foam core without a mat since framing 32x40 inch prints is otherwise a huge expense, bulky, and awkward logistically. ...David

[Michael Kadillak]

My Durst 10x10 enlarger that is capable of producing any number of large prints sizes has not been used in over two years. I am in the process of getting it to a home where it will be used.

Although I have seen large sized work that is very good, for me there is nothing quite as stimulating as a well executed contact print (silver and alt process) and 8x10 contacts in a 13x15 mat and 8x20 contacts in a 13x25 mat covers my bases. I have big walls but these sizes work well by themselves. In my experience any form of projection takes a bit away from the visual impact possibilities but that is just my $0.02. I plan to contact print with my 5x7 camera soon.

Cheers!

[Michael Heald]

Hello! What type of shots work better for 8x10 compared to larger formats for folks? From the posts above, it seems that folks like larger sizes for landscapes and smaller sizes for images that would not have as much to focus on, say a flower. Is this correct? Best regards.

Mike

[Bruce Watson]

I guess the bottom line here is that I print them huge because from an artistic point of view that's the size the image wants to be, and because I can.

I've thought about this a little more and think I can elaborate a little more. In landscape work I tend to want to show both the broad-brush beauty and the fine detail that makes that beauty possible. For example, the broad sweep of red and yellow leaves, and the pattern of tiny branches that locate the individual leaves inside that broad sweep. The complex to make the simple if you will.

This is one of the ways that photography differs from painting for me. Few painters have the ability and are willing to take the time to show the fine details. Early in his career Thomas Moran painted a few that did, for example. But mostly the brush artists just show the broad sweep. If they deal with the underlying complexity at all it's just to hint at it.

What I've found for my own work is that I have to make fairly large prints to show this underlying complexity to the viewer. Most of my images don't work well below 50 x 40 cm, so I print them that size and larger (depending on what the image wants of course).

I hope this explanation makes some level of sense to this crowd.