Re: Print size, how does it matter?
Do not forget that acreage in prints is pushed by manufacturers because it sells a LOT more ink and paper.
How does it matter? I think that LF does not make sense, except as some sort of zen penitence, unless you make prints large enough to show a reasonable amount of the detail in the negative.
So 11x14 begins to show detail and 16x20 is great, and 20x24 (image size maybe 17x20) might be a good balance between intimate enough to see up close and detailed enough to show off the media. At that point you are seeing the little details that make LF so rich, and which really change the nature of the experience.
For example, I have some crowd shots at Mardi Gras. In small prints, there is nothing much going on. When the print gets large enough to start seeing expressions on the faces of the folks and all the interesting things they are doing, the viewing experience changes from a quick gestalt experience to one that rewards contemplation.
However, for me at least, there needs to be something interesting in the details, and when the print scale is vastly beyond the detail, it stops working for me. Giant prints of dime stores and the like are lost on me. Giant prints of landscapes with popcorn grain also do not interest me much.
Re: Print size, how does it matter?
I have to agree with Bruce that, in my experience with my prints, each negative seems to demand a particular print size. For me, a more complex image demands a larger print, while a simpler image works better as a smaller print. From my own personal perspective, for example (and this is just an example, chosing pictures which we are all likely to have seen and can recall,) Ansel Adams' majestic vistas of mountains and sky and weather would look ridiculous as 8x10 prints, while Weston's Pepper #30 would be grotesque as a monster 20x24 mural. The Adams image is full of details which enlargement brings to scrutiny, while Weston's, equally complex in its own but different way, lives perfectly happy in, like the pepper it is a representation of, the palm of one's hand. In that vein, I've seen massive enlargements of faces and heads and was left unimpressed. They didn't work for me.
Of course this is a simplification and certainly imperfect at that: my command of English is lacking in many ways and my thoughts not always clear. It seems to me to be a simple observation and since I'm a simple person, it works for me. Your mileage may vary. Also, I've never been prone to wearing black and being morose so obviously, I'd make a poor artist. :)
Mike
Re: Print size, how does it matter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mark Sawyer
And for the contact printers among us, enjoy the irony the "large format" means "small prints"...
Mark:
Good one.
Ray Bidegain
Re: Print size, how does it matter?
I have to strongly echo Bruce's comments about subject size dictating appropriate print sizes especially versus the actual human visual experience. Its nice to see someone else having independently come to some of the same conclusions I did years ago. And like him, my sense of that was apparently influenced in part by looking at closeup images of flowers printed larger that we normally experience them. Of course that is a vague correlation that might not apply to specific cases. I recall one exhibit where Hassleblad images of intensely saturated flowers had been blow up to small billboard sizes. Interesting at times from 20 feet away, but I might have been just as satisfied with the same images printed well at 11x14 when viewed from arms length. Accordingly most of my own wildflower and other closeups are made with my 7mp Coolpix because for that amount of resolution I can make smaller prints that are approximately at life size.
For me at least, a sharp large print output at 300ppi or such looks best when viewed close from less than a few feet. A feeling of being in the scene is something we large format photographers can offer our audience that simply cannot be provided by anything less than sharp medium format. Accordingly as a landscape photographer, the kind of scenery I tend to capture includes lots of fine detail and geometry.
Now some of the newer exhibits with highly detailed prints do look impressive to me if and only if I can get close to the prints without the usual billboard effect of loss of fine detail. However really large prints more than 4 feet across become difficult to get near to because one needs to move back more and more for one's eye's to encompass the full scene. And as prints get larger there also are increasing problems with the print lighting else glare and reflections make viewing the whole flawed. ...David