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

[Michael Heald]

Hello! I've been using 4x5 for about two years. I've been toying with the idea of contact printing using silver and alternative processing and I've been trying 8x10 in pinhole and a 150mm hyperfocal camera (cuts off the corners).
When I see what I have hanging on my walls, I gravitate to larger sizes, generally about 16x20. When I hang 8x10s, they are in groups rather than in isolation. If I purchase an 8x10 camera but never hang the contact prints, it would be a waste of money. Now I scan my 4x5s with a 4990, so 8x10 negatives would yield some improvement (?amount?) in 16x20 prints (from what I've read in the forums) over 4x5s.
However, if I never hang 8x10 contact prints (because my asthetics turn to larger prints), I don't think I can justify the expense and weight of a larger camera.
So, what do folks hang on their walls? Do you hang 8x10s? In isolation or in groups? Can you give some guidance as to why a certain size appeals to you individually (not to sell, that is) Or do you display 8x10s in albums? Best regards.

Mike

[Ole Tjugen]

There are prints down to 4x5" on my wall. The largest is 20x28", enlarged from a 5x7" original. The majority is 9.5x12".

I don't have very large solid wall surfaces, but lots of smaller areas. Anything much larger than the 9.5x12" looks too big for the space.

Incidentally I also use a 9.5x12" camera as well as 4x5" and 5x7". The 8x10" and 12x16" cameras get a lot less use.

[Bruce Watson]

So, what do folks hang on their walls? Do you hang 8x10s? In isolation or in groups? Can you give some guidance as to why a certain size appeals to you individually (not to sell, that is) Or do you display 8x10s in albums?

My wife and I renovated our current house. We had long fights with the architect over walls. He wanted as few as possible (the so called "open plan") and we wanted large uninterrupted wall spaces for hanging art. We won of course ;-)

I've actually got four large prints from 5x4 hanging in the house right now. Three are printed on canvas and stretched. The biggest of those is 150 x 93 cm (about 59 x 37 in) and the other two are 125 x 100 cm (about 50 x 40 in). The fourth one is 80 x 100 cm (about 32 x 40 in) on paper in a conventional frame.

There are a fair number of prints by others hanging also. Most of these are 20 x 16 inches with a few 24 x 20 inches. I don't have anything as small as 10 x 8 inches.

So... why so big? The images are typically of large landscape and this is the size that seems to work best with these images. Where the image works at this size I don't see any reason to go smaller. And with 5x4 film, I'm still below 12x enlargement for my biggest print. All these big prints are really sharp and nearly grainless even from very close.

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.

[MIke Sherck]

I live in a small house so anything larger than 16"x20" (matted to 20x24 and framed,) looks a little overwhelming. That said, I have one large oil painting (wedding gift from in-laws 20-mumble years ago and I still love it,) which is somewhat larger than that and takes up the only possible space for something that large. There are two photographs 16"x20" matted to 20x24, one 15"x8" (a 5x7 tryptich,) several 11x14, quite a few 8x10, a few 5x7 contact prints and several 4x5 contact prints in platinum. We do have decorating issues... :)

Mike

[Scott Davis]

I've got a gallery of sorts going up my staircase, which has some nice big wallspaces, and I've got a number of 16x20 framed to 20x24 prints there. I've also got a number of smaller (8x10-ish) prints framed to 11x14 or thereabouts. My house is suffering, like many of ours, from art clutter- I've got something in every room. The biggest piece is in the bedroom, over the bed. It's a mixed-media abstract piece about 30x48 framed. The smallest piece is an etching about 1x3 in size, framed to about 8x10. I need to knuckle down and finish matting and framing a bunch of work I have sitting in my basement frame-shop. This is the real problem with having an artist's eye- you end up collecting all this work of your own AND of other artists of all media, and before you know it, you need 2000 sq ft of gallery space to display it all.

[Ron Marshall]

Different images are suited to different sizes of print and aspect ratio. But more importantly for me at the moment is my lack of wall space, since I am in a moderate sized apartment. I found that 8x10 or 11x14 is all that my current wall space can handle; there are many small wall areas. Anything larger, with the addition of mat and frame, and the walls would seem very crowded.

I do print larger, but those go into storage until we move.

[roteague]

Like Bruce, I like big pictures. I generally go for 20x24 or even larger. However, I don't like canvas printed images, which pretty well limits me to the biggest size of photographic paper available.

[George Stewart]

My living room has all paintings, of various sizes, from other artists. Just because I photograph does not mean that my work is appropriate for every spot and every decor.

Most of my own work is from MF-LF printed at 11x14. I have some smaller ones and one 10x24 from the 4x10 format. All else being equal I prefer going larger. I have one wall that is empty, and this winter, I think that I'll do a 40x50 B&W taken with the 8x10. I'd like more wall space so that I can show off more of my LF work , printed as big as I can go; I'll have to wait for that, however.

[Dominique Labrosse]

I live in a fairly narrow row-style townhouse so big art does not function that well. That said, I have one large painting that was a gift from a friend. I also have one 8x10 print from an Adams 8x10 neg. I have an 8x12 from 35mm transparency (was not going to bring my Graphic View rock climbing with me).

My wife keeps bugging me to put more of my work on the wall but I don't seem to like my own work after staring at it a while. Though a nice panoramic would look good above the bed. Hmmm, maybe I should go rent a Noblex...

[Jeremy Moore]

I just have small images matted to 16x20 max up on the walls. Wall space is at a premium.

[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.