Digital prints, max size

[Mauro]

What is the largest size digital/ink jet print reasonable from an 8x10 and/or 4x5 scanned chrome? Anyone have experience with this?

[StoneNYC]

What is the largest size digital/ink jet print reasonable from an 8x10 and/or 4x5 scanned chrome? Anyone have experience with this?

Is this a joke?

They don't make a digital ink jet printer big enough to max out from a 4x5 scan... At 2400dpi scan (a low scan in the professional scan world) you're talking like 4 foot by 5 foot print...

[paulr]

As big as you want. As long as you're not expecting it to look like a contact print when you stick your nose into it. The eye is very forgiving of the close-up quality of mural sized prints. We tend to back away from them, but even when looking closely we don't have the same expectations we have of small prints.

I find that prints in the range of 24 to 36 inches wide are much more demanding than murals. Big enough to require significant enlargement; small enough that we look at them with our small print standards.

[David Luttmann]

Scans of 4x5 Ektar look great from my Epson V700 up to about 40"

[StoneNYC]

Scans of 4x5 Ektar look great from my Epson V700 up to about 40"

OP said CHROME not CN films.

However Fuji chromes scan better than kodak, but they both scan decently. Kodachrome scans more difficultly. But if you have a 4x5 Kodachrome, I'm very jealous.

[Lenny Eiger]

What is the largest size digital/ink jet print reasonable from an 8x10 and/or 4x5 scanned chrome? Anyone have experience with this?

What does the word "reasonable" mean?

I have done many prints that were over 20 feet. If you want to go large, drum scanning is the better choice. One is limited by the size of papers more than anything. the top papers don't usually exceed 44 inches, altho a few go to 60.

Lenny

[vinny]

Is this a joke?

They don't make a digital ink jet printer big enough to max out from a 4x5 scan... At 2400dpi scan (a low scan in the professional scan world) you're talking like 4 foot by 5 foot print...

Speaking from experience again?




Mauro, do a search to find many threads covering this over and over.

[Drew Wiley]

Here we go again. The CBS outdoor advertising outfit down the street can give you a digital display forty feet wide if you want it. Of course, at the "normal viewing
distance" of two hundred yards it wouldn't make much difference if the shot was taken with an 8x10 or a cell phone. In my case, I rarely like color inkjet prints of
any size. That pretty much simplifies that. There have obviously been certain exceptions. But my own definition of a good-looking print happens to be different than
my definition of wallpaper or a billboard. Other people have different opinions. Do whatever you want.

[StoneNYC]

Speaking from experience again?




Mauro, do a search to find many threads covering this over and over.

Funny... Well if I can make an 11x17 (more than ONE FOOT ACROSS) image at 300dpi without interpolation of a 35mm image then I can certainly make a 4 foot by 5 foot image from a 4x5... It's simple math...

[Kirk Gittings]

Its simple math as long as quality is not a concern.........

[vinny]

Funny... Well if I can make an 11x17 (more than ONE FOOT ACROSS) image at 300dpi without interpolation of a 35mm image then I can certainly make a 4 foot by 5 foot image from a 4x5... It's simple math...

Oh. You've got me there. Just math then. I've got prints that say otherwise so maybe my calculator will make them look better. Now if I can figure out how to mount a calculater on my scanning drum.

[Drew Wiley]

Has anyone ever met a mathematician who took good photographs? Maybe someone has. I haven't. But we all have different ideas of what a good print is supposed
to look like. Some people find the "moth smashed on a windshield" look to be perfectly acceptable. I don't. But like cell phone, calculators do have an analogous
practical application. They're nice and flat, and nice for skipping on ponds.

[paulr]

Here we go again.

The royal we.

[StoneNYC]

Ok I'm out, I'm not going to argue this point, I have a 3 foot print scanned in fuji chrome on my table, it looks great and was shot on 6x7 120 film, I cropped the top and bottom.

Point is, if I can do that with 6x7 it can be done with 4x5...

I did have it printed by Dwayne's which does chemical prints, so the archival quality is much higher, but printers can print at the same DPI (and higher) than my print, so stability aside, the actual image when viewed would be perfectly crisp for the OP if printer on a printer, so you be the judge...

103865

[Leigh]

They don't make a digital ink jet printer big enough to max out from a 4x5 scan...
Sure they do.

At a trade show in New York a few years ago I saw a digital printer that would do an entire billboard in one pass, not in sections.

The size of the individual ink spots was huge, like an inch or more.

- Leigh

[Kirk Gittings]

Dwayne's which does chemical prints, so the archival quality is much higher.

Depends on the particular chemical print compared to what inkjet print. Some chemical prints are not very archival at all.

[David Luttmann]

OP said CHROME not CN films.

However Fuji chromes scan better than kodak, but they both scan decently. Kodachrome scans more difficultly. But if you have a 4x5 Kodachrome, I'm very jealous.

I realize that...I simply shared my experience.....as opposed to attitude. See the difference?

I find the opposite....Kodak scans smooth as opposed to Fuji pepper grain.

[StoneNYC]

I realize that...I simply shared my experience.....as opposed to attitude. See the difference?

I find the opposite....Kodak scans smooth as opposed to Fuji pepper grain.

Sorry, no attitude meant.

Are you talking Kodak E100G chrome film compared to Fuji Provia100F? Or are you talking Ektar100 compared to Provia100F? Because they scan differently and take different types of scanners for best results depending if you're scanning Chrome vs Color Negatives.

Anyway, sorry for the attitude :/

[selmslie]

The limit has nothing to do with the film or sensor format. It is simply a matter of how close the viewer gets to a print.

The first limitation is that the normal viewer cannot distinguish anything finer than 300 lines/pixels/dots per inch at 12 inches. Every time you double the distance you cut that number in half.

Normal viewing distance for an 8x10 image is about 20 inches (1-1/2 times the diagonal) and that requires only about 180 PPI or 2.5 MP. At 10 inches you would need over 300 PPI or about 10 MP.

Each time you double the print size without changing the viewing distance (or cut the viewing distance in half without changing the print size) you quadruple the number of required megapixels. But who is going to get within 20 inches of an 80x100 inch print?

Although 35mm full frame film or digital may be challenged to produce large prints that you can get close to, medium and large format film is not. So the only practical limitation is the printer.

[Leigh]

Normal viewing distance for an 8x10 image is about 20 inches (1-1/2 times the diagonal) and that requires only about 180 PPI or 2.5 MP. At 10 inches you would need over 300 PPI or about 10 MP.
Each time you double the print size without changing the viewing distance (or cut the viewing distance in half without changing the print size) you quadruple the number of required megapixels.
And at 5 inches you need 600 ppi and 40MP just to hit the minimum acceptable quality for "average" viewers.


But who is going to get within 20 inches of an 80x100 inch print?
Anybody who's not physiucally prevented from doing so.

People want to "see what there is to see". They spy a fine detail in the image, and want to see what else is there.

This whole idea of "normal viewing distance" is an invention of the digital imaging industry.

Before digital, when only silver imaging was in common use, that concept didn't exist because viewers could get
as close as they wanted and still find information, not individual pixels.

- Leigh

[vinny]

And at 5 inches you need 600 ppi and 40MP just to hit the minimum acceptable quality for "average" viewers.


Anybody who's not physiucally prevented from doing so.

People want to "see what there is to see". They spy a fine detail in the image, and want to see what else is there.

This whole idea of "normal viewing distance" is an invention of the digital imaging industry.

Before digital, when only silver imaging was in common use, that concept didn't exist because viewers could get
as close as they wanted and still find information, not individual pixels.

- Leigh

BOOM!
Well said.

[paulr]

And at 5 inches you need 600 ppi and 40MP just to hit the minimum acceptable quality for "average" viewers.
Anybody who's not physiucally prevented from doing so.

Meaning, anyone who's not using a loupe or strong reading glasses. I'll happily challenge anyone to a side-by-side comparison to see if they can actually see more detail at 5 inches than at ten. I'll use prints that are easily distinguished when magnified. I'll bet most people in this group's demographic can't even focus at ten inches.

The theoretical numbers I see posited about how many pixels you need to equal film at a certain size have not held up to my own scrutiny. Every large format scan I've ever examined has been highly oversampled. Meaning, the amount of detail lost by downampling has been negligible. The difference, in a print, between using the original 200 megapixel file and 50 megapixel downsample has not been visible under most circumstances. More significant is the signal/noise ratio of the film image itself, which is sometimes pretty good, sometimes not. This determines how useful the finest detail actually is, in terms of creating a sense of tactility and sharpness.

In large prints from 4x5 (40 to 50 inches) I routinely see digital prints at 180 ppi that are sharper and exhibit more aparent detail and clarity than a similar sized darkroom print.

[StoneNYC]

And at 5 inches you need 600 ppi and 40MP just to hit the minimum acceptable quality for "average" viewers.


Anybody who's not physiucally prevented from doing so.

People want to "see what there is to see". They spy a fine detail in the image, and want to see what else is there.

This whole idea of "normal viewing distance" is an invention of the digital imaging industry.

Before digital, when only silver imaging was in common use, that concept didn't exist because viewers could get
as close as they wanted and still find information, not individual pixels.

- Leigh

I'm printing some 20x30 group family shots for some clients soon, I'll try and print something B&W to compare if I can, I suspect the digital will have more information, sadly... But that's my fault, as I don't optically print, only scan, I won't have the kind of info you will :(

Anyone want to make a 20x24 optical print with one of my images to compare? ;)

[selmslie]

...This whole idea of "normal viewing distance" is an invention of the digital imaging industry.

Before digital, when only silver imaging was in common use, that concept didn't exist because viewers could get as close as they wanted and still find information, not individual pixels.
Not quite correct. "Normal" viewing distance is a natural phenomenon and the ability of the eye to distinguish no more than about a 1/2 minute of arc is a human optical limitation. Both concepts apply to oil painting (as well as to film and digital photography), whether you are looking at a mural or a miniature.

The arguments about how many pixels are needed arose from the competition between film and digital and mostly amounts to tortured arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. In other words, it is a lot of nonsense from pixel peepers.

The reality is that most people take in the entire image at a comfortable viewing distance and they might step closer if they are intrigued by the detail. But not all images contain detail, at least not interesting detail.

[Thad Gerheim]

Normal viewing distance for an 8x10 image is about 20 inches (1-1/2 times the diagonal) and that requires only about 180 PPI or 2.5 MP. At 10 inches you would need over 300 PPI or about 10 MP.

Each time you double the print size without changing the viewing distance (or cut the viewing distance in half without changing the print size) you quadruple the number of required megapixels. But who is going to get within 20 inches of an 80x100 inch print?


Sorry, but I don't buy this one bit. Or maybe I have abnormal and not normal viewers looking at my prints. By your figuring, about 5 feet would be "normal viewing distance" for a 40"x50" photo. I have people put their reading glasses to inspect the fine detail and my only regret is that I'm shooting 4x5 and not 8x10! To see the texture and slight nuances in the fine detail is what gives a good photo more feeling.

[StoneNYC]

Sorry, but I don't buy this one bit. Or maybe I have abnormal and not normal viewers looking at my prints. By your figuring, about 5 feet would be "normal viewing distance" for a 40"x50" photo. I have people put their reading glasses to inspect the fine detail and my only regret is that I'm shooting 4x5 and not 8x10! To see the texture and slight nuances in the fine detail is what gives a good photo more feeling.

I think you have "bigger is better" syndrome, I'm capable of it too, but realize, a GREAT photograph should be one of impact, regardless of size, detail, etc, the overall image is what truly matters, not the pixels/grain. Sure grain comes into it, but a fine detailed image can be horrible and a grainy image can be amazing. Even in the sizes you print.

[Kirk Gittings]

Go to any LF show and you will see that the "normal viewing distance" is a myth.

Does one hand out a printed "rules for viewing" at every show that defines for the viewer what normal viewing distance is so they won't get close enough to see how crappy your print is?

I've been showing regularly since 1972 and never heard of "normal viewing distance" until digital and inkjet printing came along. It then became easy to make very large prints from small files-hence the invention of the NVD concept.

[Thad Gerheim]

I think you have "bigger is better" syndrome, I'm capable of it too, but realize, a GREAT photograph should be one of impact, regardless of size, detail, etc, the overall image is what truly matters, not the pixels/grain. Sure grain comes into it, but a fine detailed image can be horrible and a grainy image can be amazing. Even in the sizes you print.

You're right. I think it could be different for what the subject is. I shoot mostly landscapes that are large and finely detailed and of course they have better impact if they are printed large and have fine detail. Even though I scan my 4x5 film with a Tango drum scanner to a 980mb. file (16bit) and sharpness holds up well when printed, say 36x45 to 40x50 I can see a difference in the detail compared to 8x10 film. (Mostly in the yellows and greens)

[StoneNYC]

You're right. I think it could be different for what the subject is. I shoot mostly landscapes that are large and finely detailed and of course they have better impact if they are printed large and have fine detail. Even though I scan my 4x5 film with a Tango drum scanner to a 980mb. file (16bit) and sharpness holds up well when printed, say 36x45 to 40x50 I can see a difference in the detail compared to 8x10 film. (Mostly in the yellows and greens)

Oh certainly we can tell the difference between one vs the other, but for the public we only display one image, or one version of the image. So the impact that it "isn't good" doesn't get compared in grain vs another copy, only in overall impact, that's what I meant.

And even at the Yale art gallery, I saw massive prints, some grainy, some fine, both same sizes, I did put my nose up to it, but that actually made me think the grain images were more interesting, because they looked different close up, the fine grained ones looked the same lol.

The eye of the beholder and all that...

[paulr]

I see lots of really big prints regularly, made by every method. What I find striking is how good most of them generally look. This is only partly due to the way that I naturally stand back from a big print (so I can see the thing at all). Even when I stick my nose in it—and I'll be the only person in the gallery doing so—I'm surprised by how good it looks, subjectively. I find that my standards are altered, significantly and unconsciously, by the size of thing.

Here's an example. If I have a 40" print made of one of my images, I know it will look great. To me and to anyone else. But when I do test prints at home, where I print a smaller size crop of that image, I find myself looking at it as if it were a small print, and I much more easily find faults with it.

I think this is a universal phenomenon, but it doesn't get talked about much. And it's why I find the mid-sized prints, like 20 to 36 inches wide, to be generally more demanding of the source than much larger prints. Murals just tend to look fine under most circumstances*. Small prints don't put very big demands on the source. Those middle sizes, though, require a lot of enlargement, but are still small enough to invite our small-print scrutiny.


*I'm talking about sense of sharpness / detail, not esthetics of the image. I actually think the snarky addage "if you can't make it good, make it big" is a load of crap, because most images don't work big. Szarkowski made this observation years ago. Big images are their own challenge.

[Thad Gerheim]

Here's an example. If I have a 40" print made of one of my images, I know it will look great. To me and to anyone else. But when I do test prints at home, where I print a smaller size crop of that image, I find myself looking at it as if it were a small print, and I much more easily find faults with it.

I think this is a universal phenomenon, but it doesn't get talked about much. And it's why I find the mid-sized prints, like 20 to 36 inches wide, to be generally more demanding of the source than much larger prints. Murals just tend to look fine under most circumstances*. Small prints don't put very big demands on the source. Those middle sizes, though, require a lot of enlargement, but are still small enough to invite our small-print scrutiny.


I understand what you're saying. It's like this rock wall I'm trying to build around my foundation.:( As I try to set each individual stone, the mortar line doesn't look perfect, but when I step back to normal viewing distance, the curb, (which at our house is more than 200 feet) it looks great! But that is the difference between an amateur mason, which is me, and a "good" professional who's every mortar line looks good. And the bad thing is, I now go around sticking my nose up close to inspect other people's rock work!

[Lenny Eiger]

I think you have "bigger is better" syndrome, I'm capable of it too, but realize, a GREAT photograph should be one of impact, regardless of size, detail, etc, the overall image is what truly matters, not the pixels/grain. Sure grain comes into it, but a fine detailed image can be horrible and a grainy image can be amazing. Even in the sizes you print.

Dan - not directed at you. I hear this a lot here…. and its a pet peeve of mine.

"Impact" was the favorite word of my Dad, a commercial photographer. It might be that I am too close to this but I have always considered impact a very commercial concern. It appears to be required within a commercial context. However, when it comes to the art side of things, there are many "great" photographs that I don't think are about impact at all. It is just one possibility. There are plenty of images, for instance, where the glow of the print is an important part of the experience.

It's true that the image should be "strong". However, there are many things to talk about in photography. Strength in a given image could be its softness. I want to learn something. I don't necessarily want to be hit on the head. Sometimes, the image is contained within the print. There are plenty of Steichen images that would fit in this category, and some Caponigro's as well. A print that is decidedly rich can move you just as much as something with "impact".


Lenny

[selmslie]

Sorry, but I don't buy this one bit. Or maybe I have abnormal and not normal viewers looking at my prints. By your figuring, about 5 feet would be "normal viewing distance" for a 40"x50" photo. ...
I put "normal" in quotes because I agree with your basic premise - there is no normal. It is only a starting point for taking in the whole image.

The problem for printing is that, each time you cut the viewing distance in half, you need to double the resolution and thereby quadruple the megapixel requirement.

A similar trade-off goes with large format photography. If you half the viewing distance you need to progress from 35mm to medium format then to 4x5 and 8x10, etc. Each halving of the viewing distance imposes a significant burden in terms of equipment and expense.

In neither case is there a significant improvement in the image as a whole, just in the amount of detail you can see.

[paulr]

I understand what you're saying. It's like this rock wall I'm trying to build around my foundation.:( As I try to set each individual stone, the mortar line doesn't look perfect, but when I step back to normal viewing distance, the curb, (which at our house is more than 200 feet) it looks great! But that is the difference between an amateur mason, which is me, and a "good" professional who's every mortar line looks good. And the bad thing is, I now go around sticking my nose up close to inspect other people's rock work!

That's not quite what I'm saying. The best way to see what I mean is to look at big print you've made that looks good by any standard. And then print a small crop from it. Same magnification, same process, but on an 8x10 sheet of paper. See if your impressions stay the same.

[Drew Wiley]

We could eventually put all this theory and math into a giant textbook, and about all it would really be good for is a soggy temporary boat anchor. And some of the
most important variable you can't quantify.

[sanking]

"I've been showing regularly since 1972 and never heard of "normal viewing distance" until digital and inkjet printing came along. It then became easy to make very large prints from small files-hence the invention of the NVD concept."

You must have been doing something more interesting back in the day. I can recall reading articles about resolution and normal viewing distances from the earliest days I became involved in photography.

Sandy

[StoneNYC]

Dan - not directed at you. I hear this a lot here…. and its a pet peeve of mine.

"Impact" was the favorite word of my Dad, a commercial photographer. It might be that I am too close to this but I have always considered impact a very commercial concern. It appears to be required within a commercial context. However, when it comes to the art side of things, there are many "great" photographs that I don't think are about impact at all. It is just one possibility. There are plenty of images, for instance, where the glow of the print is an important part of the experience.

It's true that the image should be "strong". However, there are many things to talk about in photography. Strength in a given image could be its softness. I want to learn something. I don't necessarily want to be hit on the head. Sometimes, the image is contained within the print. There are plenty of Steichen images that would fit in this category, and some Caponigro's as well. A print that is decidedly rich can move you just as much as something with "impact".


Lenny

Well said, however I have to stress again, I am NOT Dan Stone, I am Stone NYC or just simply Stone :) I don't know why but everyone keeps calling me "Dan" lol

[Kirk Gittings]

"I've been showing regularly since 1972 and never heard of "normal viewing distance" until digital and inkjet printing came along. It then became easy to make very large prints from small files-hence the invention of the NVD concept."

You must have been doing something more interesting back in the day. I can recall reading articles about resolution and normal viewing distances from the earliest days I became involved in photography.

Sandy

Yes I was busy doing photography for a living. :)

[Drew Wiley]

"Normal viewing distance" is a term that should be reserved for the fence around the tiger enclosure or alligator pond at the zoo. So unless you find a way to make
a print unapproachable ... like when someone enters the gallery door and you attach a bunji cord to their pants?? Yeah, the expression has been around a long time,
and might legitimately apply to reproductions in books and magazines; but for these kinds of applications, it rapidly devolves into ideological nonsense.

[Taija71A]

"I've been showing regularly since 1972 and never heard of "normal viewing distance" until digital and inkjet printing came along. It then became easy to make very large prints from small files-hence the invention of the NVD concept."

You must have been doing something more interesting back in the day. I can recall reading articles about resolution and normal viewing distances from the earliest days I became involved in photography.

Sandy

____

Yes, I remember reading of this 'concept' in the early 1980's... In Ansel Adams' book -- "The Print".
--

-Tim.
________

[Drew Wiley]

So that makes Ansel the final word? HA! Ansel printed his "mural" sized work deliberately soft and nonglossy, and relatively warm, and used that kind of terminology simply because his film, camera, and darkroom gear wouldn't allow him to produce a particularly sharp print that size. I've seen a lot of those prints up close, and they're basically fuzz. So his strategy was to print them poetically rather than in that crisp bold manner he is stereotyped for, even with the same classic negs. It worked. But I do get tired of people quoting Ansel as the expert about this or that. He's earned his place in history. But lots of us here know far more technical tricks than he ever did, and have way better equipment too.

[Kirk Gittings]

Interesting point Drew. There are in fact some people on this forum more technically proficient I suspect. But to give him his due would be to acknowledge the base of knowledge he created and shared.

[Taija71A]

So that makes Ansel the final word? HA!...

... But I do get tired of people quoting Ansel as the expert about this or that...

____

The subject of 'Normal Viewing Distance' is only a 'concept'... "Nothing More and Nothing Less!"

con·cept
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion.



... He's earned his place in history. But lots of us here know far more technical tricks than he ever did, and have way better equipment too.

Most certainly. 'Time Marches On'... :)



... But to give him his due would be to acknowledge the base of knowledge he created and shared.

Excellent point Kirk!
Agreed in full 110%.

Yes, before the internet... Many Photographers only had Magazine Articles and Books like Ansel Adams' -- 'The Camera', 'The Negative' and 'The Print' -- As a 'basis' for an introductory learning to Photography.
--

-Tim.
________

[selmslie]

"Normal viewing distance" is a term that .... the expression has been around a long time,
and might legitimately apply to reproductions in books and magazines; but for these kinds of applications, it rapidly devolves into ideological nonsense.
I remember visiting the Ringling Museum in Sarasota in the 1950's and seeing the immense (they were to me at the time) Rubens paintings. The lasting impression with which I was left was that the room where they hung was simply not big enough.

I have seen similar paintings at the Prado in Madrid and other museums as well as tapestries that have left me with the same impression - that museums need to put these huge works in larger rooms so that we can see the entire image, not just the details.

So "normal" viewing distance really is a natural phenomenon, even if we can't nail it down to a specific ratio.

[onnect17]

I'm sure more than a few in the forum are familiar with the terms lightness and chroma. The human eye is unable to resolve color to the same degree than BW (actually these studies helped to design Color NTSC back in the 50's), so color prints are different than BW ones. Also, the printing technology brings the "entropy" concept to the equation (as information theory term). Too complex for this thread.
At the end just enjoy the shot. Think that a simple instant film foto with fp3000 sometimes remains in your memory better than the 4x12' canvas.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes Kirk, AA was a good teacher, so we should be appreciative that at least some of the tricks in our tool kit came from him in the first place. But regardless of what he preached as theory, that "normal viewing distance" formula never worked for him either. People walked right up to those big mural prints and put their noses in them, just like they did with my prints, but apparently for a different reason. ... and actually, they were astonished just how different his images looked on large scale, and how little fine detail was actually present. It was more like they were studying antiques. But I'll walk smack up to a huge abstract expressionist painting too. Of course, I'll assess it at a distance as well. But I've displayed with some of those guys also, and frankly find the notion that color work is somehow viewed differently to be utter nonsense. So I don't buy into any diecast manifesto about print size. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Too many times these kinds of threads turn into an episode of Big Bang Theory, where all the mental gymnastics have very little to do with the real world.

[StoneNYC]

So that makes Ansel the final word? HA! Ansel printed his "mural" sized work deliberately soft and nonglossy, and relatively warm, and used that kind of terminology simply because his film, camera, and darkroom gear wouldn't allow him to produce a particularly sharp print that size. I've seen a lot of those prints up close, and they're basically fuzz. So his strategy was to print them poetically rather than in that crisp bold manner he is stereotyped for, even with the same classic negs. It worked. But I do get tired of people quoting Ansel as the expert about this or that. He's earned his place in history. But lots of us here know far more technical tricks than he ever did, and have way better equipment too.

This kind if proves my point they details don't matter as much as the overall impact lol :)

[Drew Wiley]

Not necessarily. Extreme detail can be an inherent part of the overall impact. It's a strategy I often use. Details can grow on you, as one keeps discovering new
things year after year. "Gotcha" images might instantly attract your attention like effective advertising fodder, but can grow old quickly or appear gimmicky. There are no rules to this. And I obviously use a very different set of strategies myself when working with small format versus big, for example. Things don't have to be
quantified or even adequately articulated to make them visually real. Do what works best for you. Jackson Pollock wouldn't have made a very good Vermeer,
and visa versa.

[ROL]

This kind if proves my point they details don't matter as much as the overall impact lol :)

+1.1

[ROL]

But lots of us here know far more technical tricks than he ever did, and have way better equipment too.

Of course, that makes "us" better photographers too. :D

[ROL]

Really?!? The never ending arguments of size vs. distance vs. quality. Carry on… People are attracted to the artist, the image, and money. Everything else is justification and self serving b.s.

[StoneNYC]

If I were a better photographer I would be too busy with my shows and books and photo adventures to even be on this site ;)

[Jody_S]

If I were a better photographer I would be too busy with my shows and books and photo adventures to even be on this site ;)

+1

[Drew Wiley]

If you were a career fine art photographer you wouldn't have any time for this nonsense because you'd be too busy rummaging thru the dumpster behind the local
pizza dive.

[Kirk Gittings]

If you were a career fine art photographer you wouldn't have any time for this nonsense because you'd be too busy rummaging thru the dumpster behind the local
pizza dive.

:)

[StoneNYC]

If you were a career fine art photographer you wouldn't have any time for this nonsense because you'd be too busy rummaging thru the dumpster behind the local
pizza dive.

Well that's basically my life now... AND I'm "supporting" myself with my acting career... Yes... It's not a joke, but if it were, the jokes on me...

[john borrelli]

I do think the nature of the subject of the image matters, as others have suggested.

An image that is a silhouette at sunset (as pictured earlier in this thread) will enlarge better than other subjects. As an amateur landscape photographer I have to say that my typical subjects of rocks and in particular trees and branches are very difficult to render sharp at great enlargement sizes. I won't even include leaves as subject motion will negatively affect their sharpness dramatically. I am using the term "sharp" loosely to refer to how the enlarged print appears relative to the original piece of film.

Sure lighting makes a difference, a tree that is a black silhouette or lit with some form of side lighting may appear more contrasty in the print. People images don't need a ton of sharpness and can enlarge well. Images of man-made structures always look a little sharper.When I go to test a lens I just purchased, I go out on a day without wind and in diffused lighting, I shoot landscapes with trees then view the film of trunks and branches with a loupe.

In enlargements beyond these sizes I begin to notice that images are beginning to looked "stretched" in comparison to the original piece of film, the sizes are 5X7 inches from a 35mm negative or slide, 8X10 inches from 6X7 and 11X14 from 4X5 film.

[Randy]

I'll bet most people in this group's demographic can't even focus at ten inches.I can squint down to about 20"...closer than that I need someone else's eyes.

[TXFZ1]

Has anyone ever met a mathematician who took good photographs? Maybe someone has. I haven't. But we all have different ideas of what a good print is supposed
to look like. Some people find the "moth smashed on a windshield" look to be perfectly acceptable. I don't. But like cell phone, calculators do have an analogous
practical application. They're nice and flat, and nice for skipping on ponds.


Not to argue but Bruce Barnhaum was a mathematician and took some pretty good photographs.

David