I was thinking today about print sizes. I know a lot of you prefer bigger print sizes, as in 16x20 and larger. Working with large negatives as we do, our images can stand this sort of enlargement. Sometimes images work well bigger, and sometimes an image really only opens up, as it were, in a larger size. It seems, too, a lot of galleries prefer larger prints. And there's always the expression, If you can't make it better, make it bigger, which I think informs a bit on how we view print sizes in relation to the quality of the work.



That said, for my own work, as well as a lot of work by others that I have seen, I prefer smaller prints. If I had to pick two sizes to print all of my work in for the rest of my life, I'd go 5x7 and 8x10 without a second thought. I like the feel of smaller prints, and I feel that it works for my images. What's more, in addition to the work by others that I've seen in smaller sizes that I liked that way, there has been plenty of work that I have seen that I think would have worked better at a smaller size. Hell, there are Ansel Adams prints that I've seen that I felt were much too large for the given image.



I am not trying to suggest that big prints have no place. Far from it, actually. I just find myself thinking again and again, though, that sometimes we rush to make our prints big. Sometimes smaller works better. As I said, I prefer smaller for my own work.



What about you, though? Do any of you prefer smaller prints for your own work? I'd be interested to know your thoughts on it.