Are big prints just little prints made bigger?

[Ed Richards]

I have been working on the scaling problem - what is the right size for prints and do you print differently as the print gets larger? I print digitally from scanned 4x5 negatives. Sharpening is clearly different for larger prints, and that is different from the wet world, but I suspect that issues of contrast and brightness and the like are the same for silver and ink. (As far as I remember, Ansel did not discuss scaling in this book on printing, although he did discuss how image choice would differ for a large image on something like a room divider. )

What is your experience? Are some images better large? Do you print them differently? I have the prejudice that LF format prints should be large, otherwise why bother carrying the equipment around? (I think my problem with contact prints must be that my eyes are not good enough to appreciate their magic directly and I do not take my magnifier to photo shows. )

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Ed,

This is a good question.

The "right" size for a print is totally up to you as the artist (you knew that was coming). For my work I don't like to print larger than 8x10 as that scale seems to be "right " for the type of images I like to make which are small details of the landscape. I have tried to print larger in the past but the image just doesn't feel correct, so I like small images. Also, I don't sell the images in different sizes, if someone wants a print then they get the size that I think is correct for the particular image.

Of course, there a MANY photographers who like to print large and most will print in multiple sizes, it is a matter of choice and I don't think there is any one right way. I do think that some people print large because they think art has to be big to have impact, and often I feel the image may of had more impact smaller, but again it is an artistic choice.

I do on occasion make contact prints of my 4x5 images if I feel that size will help me communicate my vision of the scene to an audience (whomever that may be). I use a large format camera as it provides me greater control over the image, more options in terms of printing, a more contemplative approach to the work, etc. My camera is just a tool, it does not lock me into any single way of printing or creating, but I use LF as it allows me to capture what I want better , in my opinion, than smaller formats.

On the occasion that I make "larger" prints ( say 16X20) I approach the printing the same as I would a small print. I tend not to make a distinction between large and small, I am going after the same qualities in the prints no matter the size. So my approach and mindset are the same no matter what size I am printing.

Hope this helps.

www.ericbiggerstaff.com

[Kevin M Bourque]

Print size is a very personal thing. Every print seems to have an optimum size. Some look good large and some look good small. It's hard to predict what the best size will be.....you just gotta look (at least I do).

I did a small show a while back and several people commented that the print should have been bigger. I disagreed.

There's a local photographer who prints nearly everything the same size. He uses the same frames and the same mats for everything, and you know what, most of it looks pretty good! Just goes to show it works different for everyone.

I tend to use more contrast as I make the print bigger, but that isn't universal.

[CXC]

I don't contact print my 4x5's because, generally speaking, they are not good enough. For me, 11x14 is the smallest size that has any impact.

I see fabulous pix in magazines all the time, roughly 8x10 (not just photo magazines; fashion, New Yorker, whatever). If I were as good as those guys, I wouldn't have to enlarge so big.

Enlarging is kind of like playing the music louder...

[David Luttmann]

I guess it does come down to the subject matter. I like my landscape work at 16x20 or 16x24. Street photos I like at 8x10 or 11x14 (11x17), and much of my portrait work for clients is 8x10, 11x14 and in the case of group shots, 16x24 & 20x30.

For me the subject is the deciding factor. I wouldn't want an intimate street shot printed at 24x30 for example.

That's just me though.

[neil poulsen]

I think there's a relationship between print size and content. Some images are more intimate and need to be printed smaller. Others scream to be big, although like another responder, I tend to print small.

Take Ansel Adams Moonrise. That image wouldn't have made the same statement if he had made a postcard out of it. It would have made a nice postcard, and that's about it. On the other hand, his photograph of the milk bottle, hard boiled egg and egg cutter would seem to work better as a smaller 8x10, versus a 16x20.

Part of it probably has to do with subject matter size. Yosemite is huge, and prints better as large photographs. Small still-lifes probably print better as smaller photographs.

I don't know if it's the same with others, but when I print smaller digital proof prints, I often miss details that cause me to change the larger print that I want to make. For example, too much white in an area that stands out in a negative fashion in the larger print, but which didn't look objectionable in the smaller print.

Sometimes people print a small print, like a 2.5x4, and mount it on a 16x20 matt board. Cute, but I don't like it. That's a case where I think a print is too small.

Very interesting question. As I mentioned, I tend to print on 8x10. Perhaps it's partly the size of my darkroom, the cost involved, or my choice of content. But thinking about this tempts me to print larger.

[Brian Ellis]

It's a little cynical perhaps but I've always thought there was a lot of truth in the old saying: "If you can't make it good make it big. If you can't make it big make it red."

[Richard Littlewood]

Big prints are well worth doing. From a 5x4 neg a 40" wide print is a real treat. I regularly make prints that size from 5x4 FP4 devd in ID-11 1+2 and assuming the focus is good the prints reveal an amazing amount of detail, tonally smooth, sharp as hell, and still invisible grain. I'm a real fan of big prints - they seem to seperate the image contents better, ie: rocks are 'rockier', textures seem more important and livelier and an increase in scale increases the 'presence' of an image. I also like making 40" prints from my little Olympus Pen negs and with 400 speed film the grain pretty incredible but again the tones are opened up. The worst aspect of printing big is the paper - fibre based stuff is a pig to handle. Character building stuff though.

[John_4185]

You have pointed to an important point that moves beyond the usual "proper viewing distance" issue because very large prints are influenced by their environment, and visa-versa. For example, a picture that includes a person enlarged to larger-than-life interacts profoundly with the things around the picture, even in a plain, white-walled gallery. Nothing in the area is left untouched by the interaction; the environment becomes part of the image experience.

And when viewed from less than "proper viewing distance" (like you can't step back far enough without leaving the room), then the viewer's eyes scan over the print seeking a place to rest or to wonder, so the subject matter becomes something other than the whole - it becomes a matter of experiencing parts.

So you can see that arbitrarily selecting pictures to make very large is (imho) not a good idea. Choose subjects that fit the final print size, environment.

[John Cook]

There is an optical/mathematical rule about subject impact which always escapes me. Something to do with the apex of the angle your eye makes from the top to the bottom of the print at the distance at which you are viewing the print. Compare this angle to the one originally made by the camera lens toward the subject.

For example, everyone has an area around his face which when violated makes him uncomfortable.

Next time you are talking face to face with someone at the office, slowly drift into this space with your face and watch that person become uncomfortable and begin to back up. You will know when you are there because you will feel it, too.

This phenomenon is used with telephoto lenses to optically extend the comfort zone. Best place to see this is the big heads on the cover of Vogue. Note how much more impact they have, even at a ten-foot viewing distance from the checkout line at the supermarket checkout.

This formula seems to state that all things being equal, the longer the lens used the smaller the print necessary or the farther away it can be displayed with the same viewer impact.

Two much simpler rules on how large to print (besides the cost of paper) have to do with wall size and viewing distance.

I cannot make out an 8x10 print hanging on the wall behind the couch from my chair across the living room. If I plan to surround myself with recognizable images around the room, they must be at least 11x14. Actually 16x20 or 20x24 would be better. Any more than that and the place begins to look like a travel agency.

The other simple rule has to do with small prints hanging side by side. Some people artistically call this an assemblage or collage. In my simpler thinking, I find these images fight with each other and cancel each other out, impact-wise. Covering the walls with fewer, larger prints works better for me. Easier to concentrate on one image at a time.

Besides, sometimes I just get a delightful little zing from showing people prints in sizes they can't get at the drug store!

[Paul Butzi]

It might help a bit to define what 'big' is.

Some folks are talking about 16"x20" as being big, and I think of a print with an image size of 16x20 as a relatively small print - the portfolios I just made to carry around and show people are 16x20 prints in 18x24 portfolios, and I don't think of them as small but I don't think of them as large, either.

30" x 38" is getting large. 40" x 50" is definitely large.

Local contrast issues are different for a 40x50 print, but not as much as you might expect. Sharpening is an issue as well, as you point out.

And there are other, more pragmatic issues with large prints. Anything larger than, say, 25x32 is going to require a frame and mat larger than 32x40, which is the largest commonly carried mat board size. Prints larger than 32" x 40" or so won't even fit on the larger, expensive but available 40x60 matboard, and framing and glazing are starting to get really expensive. When you're up to 40"x50", not only is it a challenge to mount and frame (things like mounting on superthick foamcore become really appealing) but most homes don't even have a decent place to display a print that size.

[Richard Littlewood]

Are there any large neg makers out there that like big prints?

[Al Seyle]

I have always felt they should be scaled to the room similar to the way an interior designer scales furniture to the room. For example, 8x10's mounted or not in a hotel lobby would be silly.

[Tedd]

I shoot 12x20 and do mostly environmental portraiture.
Already shoot HP5 and am waiting for 5 boxes of 12x20 Portra 160 NC to arrive.
I, together with a Pro fininshing lab whom specializes in monster prints have almost finished an 20x24 hoirzontal color enlarger here in Stockholm.
My idea of a BIG print is the maximum possible size of 1,2x2 meters for B&W and 1,6x3 meters for color!
When it is finished services with this enlarger are available to anyone.

I find that portraits of people taken with an ULF camera should be enlarged. The persons soul tends to come out more due to the incredible detail.

[Hiro]

IMVHO, the issue of “proper viewing distance (PVD)” jj brought up is quite important.

For the benefit of learning photographers like myself, PVD equals the diagonal of the image, provided no cropping, where you can view the image just like the lens saw it and the photographer saw it on the GG when the image was made, so to speak. PVD may also be dictated by human nature or our brain's processing logic. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

You set the tripod at a particular point because you liked best how it looked from there, then wouldn’t deviating from PVD mean distorting the “perfect” composition? In addition to the “which part to look” or “can’t see the details” issues, perceived convergence is affected by the viewing distance (felt weak if close and pronounced if far). This may be a big issue for certain types of works.

Off course I’m not at all against the views based on artistic interpretations, subject matter, personal preference, etc. I agree with them. I’ve learned certain rules still apply when creating a good/pleasing presentation.

[ronald moravec]

Depends on the image. A snail shell need not be large. But a sailing ship and ocean waves needs to be larger to be effective. Complex images generally need to be larger. Simple ones smaller.

Each one seems to have a size or range of sizes that work well.

[paulr]

"Print size is a very personal thing. Every print seems to have an optimum size. Some look good large and some look good small."

I find this to be very true, and am frustrated by photographers who don't see the interaction between size and a particular image.

what's most interesting to me is that some images do work at different sizes, but when they do, they often become different images ... in the sense that they become about something different. different aspects become emphaized at different scales, and different ways of the viewer interacting become encouraged. only once or twice have i made an image that would look equally good big and small, and that would be equally interesting to me at either size. it's been tough in these cases making up my mind ... it's like having to choose between two completely diferent pictures.

[FpJohn]

Hello: The bigger the print the more information required. My 35mm and 6x9 prints are seldom larger than 6"x9" or 8x12. Anything larger is spreading the butter thin over a larger piece of bread.
yours
Frank

[John_4185]

For the benefit of learning photographers like myself, PVD equals the diagonal of the image, provided no cropping, where you can view the image just like the lens saw it and the photographer saw it on the GG when the image was made, so to speak. PVD may also be dictated by human nature or our brain's processing logic. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

I've read that the nominal PVD is 10" because that's where the human eye can resolve the most detail. In this measure, it has nothing to do with esthetics, but just simple metrics for other purposes.

[Bruce Watson]

Interesting question -- one I've thought about a fair bit myself. What I've found for my work is that much depends on the scale of the subject. Basically, I let the image tell me what size it wants to be printed. So flowers get printed fairly small. Big vista get printed big (up to about 125 x 100 cm (50 x 40 in)).

My experience also is that printing large requires some different techniques over printing small. This has to do with human perception, and how the eye/brain system perceives color differently depending on the area. IOW, large blocks of tone or color seem to be different than smaller blocks of the exact same tone or color. Human visual perception and the spectrophotometer don't always match.

This phenomenon may be familiar to people who have done some house painting. Some paints seem amazingly intense in the can, but much less so on the wall. Some colors seem weak in the can, and are overpowering on the wall.

Consider B&W for a minute. When you scale up the print, you scale up the shadow areas. This tends to "open up" the shadows a bit more -- you can see more detail in the shadows that looked black in the smaller print. This makes that part of the print feel lighter. Interestingly, this isn't always a good thing. Sometimes you don't want that detail, what you want is a black that doesn't distract. Sadly, you don't see these scale-related changes until you proof at full size.

On the highlight end, I find a somewhat similar phenomena. As those little chunks of highlights grow in size, so does their ability to attract the eye. What once added sparkle to the print now adds glare.

What I'm saying is, as your print changes in scale, some of the color and tonal relationships change in scale as well. How you handle this is up to you of course.

[Ed Richards]

> I've read that the nominal PVD is 10" because that's where the human eye can resolve the most detail.

The young human eye. As most of us age, that distance moves out and our ability to see detail diminishes unless we put on our reading glasses, but then those shift our relationship to the image.

> This phenomenon may be familiar to people who have done some house painting.

There was a yellow green that looked pastel on the chip and looked like the inside of tropical fruit on the wall - I was not even allowed to rest before being sent to the paint store for replacement paint.:-)

Bruce has identified one of the things that was bothering my about my B&W - the relative contrast seems to change as the print gets larger. I would add that little black areas become big black areas and that sometimes requires opening them up. Some of this would go unnoticed in the darkroom because you would correct it as you looked for the new exposure value. In digital you can do exactly the same thing, only larger, so you see some things that you not otherwise see.

[John_4185]

Ed Richards: The young human eye. As most of us age, that distance moves out and our ability to see detail diminishes [...]

Oh thank God! I thought my arms were getting shorter.

[paulr]

> This phenomenon may be familiar to people who have done some house painting.

the same thing with fabric swatches. a friend of mine makes custom men's shirts ... we were going through his fabric samples, and the first ones that struck me as interesting were ones that had led to his first disasters (i mean learning experiences). in a 2 inch swatch the fabric looked intricate and beautiful. in a full size dress shirt it looked like a cross between an aerial photograph and a clown costume.

[Ole Tjugen]

Once upon a time (when MF was the biggest I shot) I did an experiment.

I printed the same negative in all sizes from 7x10cm up to 30x40cm, trying all the time to make the best print I possibly could at each size.

Guess what: They were all different. Not just the contrast/density; I changed the crop as well! Where the dimensions of the print had increased fourfold, the size of the subject had increased more like threefold. Bigger print, more "air" was my conclusion...

[paulr]

That's a great experiment, Ole.

if i taught photography, i'd try to turn that into an asignment.

ever since i started proofing my work digitally, i've had more time to play with size experiments. i've saved a lot of time and heartache by making laser prints of new negatives at several different sizes. sometimes i'm surprised by which size ends up working best. i've come up with a few theories about it (similar to a lot of the ones already mentioned) but some aspects of it remain mysterious.

one thing i figured out about printing a series that includes different sized prints ... prints that are ajacent to each other typically work best if the objects in them are depicted at the same scale, or at radically different scales. If the scale is different by a little, the prints fight with each other somehow. As an example, say you have two prints next to each other, and each depicts a car that's about 30 feet away. Those cars either need to be very close to the same size, or radically different from each other. If the car is 50 percent or so bigger in one picture, then the pairing is likely to be jarring ... at least to my eyes.

[CXC]

One final point, that I've made before: IMHO when you print larger-than-life, you've crossed over a very significant border. I happen to consider such prints too large, and suffering from what I call the "poster" effect, which involves false agrandizement through size alone, and entering the realm of the unseeable with the naked eye. Becoming another level of magnitude objectified away from reality. This effect is particularly strong with human imagery.

I happily grant the certitude that others find the effects of larger-than-life imagery perfectly suited to their tastes, and describable in more positive terms. But whichever camp you fall into, I claim that when you step over the LTL line, you get a different type of artifact, which looks different, and "means" different.

[paulr]

"I happen to consider such prints too large, and suffering from what I call the "poster" effect ..."

without getting into debates over the current trend of gigantic prints, isn't it safe to say that giant scale art has been around for hundreds of years? I think of some of the wall sized baroque and romantic paintings at places like the Louvre, hanging in galleries where you sometimes need to stand back 30 feet to take the whole thing in. you're right that it's a whole different kind of thing than small work (i rarely print bigger than 12 inches) but it seems to have a pretty long history predating current photo fashions.

[CXC]

PaulR, you are right, it's nothing new in painting/sculpture, but my comments were directed specifically at photography. The vast majority of photo images are smaller than life; I claim to have a different reaction to those relatively few cases where the image is larger than life. And it's fine with me if you want to do it, I just think you should first ponder the potential implications.

By the way I consider Chuck Close to be a painter, esp. with those thumb-print things.

[Chad Jarvis]

And for something completely different...

I only contact print, so I make the choice up front as to what size I want my final print to be: 5x7, 8x10 or 11x14. Thus in my case a big print is not just an enlargement from a little negative. A big print is made from a negative made with a big camera.