Sal is very wise. :-)
Sal is very wise. :-)
"I've gone through the exercise of printing one image in various sizes just to see how it does. What I found it that print size is dependent on image."
my feelings exactly. the image tells me what size to print it, and that's the end of it. sometimes it's not so clear and i try it at a few sizes (here's where a a nice cheap inkjet printer comes in handy for proofing). some images work at different sizes, but i find they always work in different ways. the 16x20 version will be about something different than the 4x5 contact version. if this is the case, i need to decide which one is more intersting to me.
as far as the original question, i've always loved small prints. i like the way they invite you up close and personal, where the big ones command you to stand back and gape. some of my work is 4x5 contact prints, and i hang them as part of the same body of work as larger prints. i also go against convention and price them the same as larger prints. this has worked against me, from a practical standpoint ... no one ever buys the little ones. but i'm stubborn about it.
especially since the huge prints have been fashionable for so long, i like to go out of my way to root for the runts.
> I cring sometimes when I see some of my prints in peoples collections that I made in the 70's.
Another reason to not worry about whether inkjet prints are archival.:-)
Ed Richards
http://www.epr-art.com
Count me in this group. I shoot nude portraits in 4x5 and 5x7. I contact-print the 5x7s and enlarge the 4x5s only slightly, to about the same size (both on 8x10 paper). I like the intimacy of the size. I appreciate the impact of a large print, and agree that the larger print shows texture and detail that is lost in the small prints. Still, the smaller print seems well-suited to my subject, and I like the idea that in an inkjet world of monster-big images, a small silver gelatin print has its own charm.
Sanders McNew (www.mcnew.net)
I, too, prefer smaller print sizes. These days, I'm strictly a 5x7 contact print guy. I think 4x5 contacts look nice, as well, depending on the image. When I enlarge 4x5, it's rarely bigger than 8x10.
The viewing experiences are distinctly different. Smaller prints are typically viewed at handheld distances and tend to be a very quiet, intimate viewing experience. Larger prints encourage one to stand back to view the whole composition and thus tend to create a physical (and sometimes emotional) distance. Yes, people do get up close to large prints also to look at the details etc but I think the moment of viewing the entire print is an experience of its own - sort of the 'full, immediate contact' kind of idea. Looking at details and then integrating them into a whole does happen but I think that is a quite different experience, both in terms of the cognitive processes involved and the feelings one has.
The usual way large sizes tend to be used is to create a sense of awe - the 'awe' approach is sort of like a good commercial - grabs attention but can't really engage one full. I do think there are some artists who use size for very different (and, I think, more interesting) ends e.g., Struth. I find these more interesting because they reveal a bit more about our visual reactions to things.
As for the image requiring its own size, I suspect this might be the case when enlarging because you are compressing detail initially into a smaller negative - enlarge too little and the details are too small in the print. Enlarge too much and details are destroyed by artifacts of the enlargement process. So it makes sense to try a few enlargements and see the sweet spot where details emerge but maintain their fidelity - I mean this in both the technical sense of sharpness etc as well as the aesthetic one of the relation between the large forms and detail. But if your plans are to contact print from the beginning, and if your seeing at the moment of exposure was good, this need not be an issue. If your seeing was good, then assessments were made on the GG as to whether there was enough detail in the various areas etc. So while there may well be more detail in the neg that could emerge from an enlargement, it is superfluous to what was 'seen' at the moment of exposure.
Cheers, DJ
My stuff looks best in the 11x14 to 16x20 range. I consider this to be an expression of the limits of my skills -- currently my goal is to produce 8x10 prints that don't suffer from under-enlargement.
11x14 is about the largest size that works for hand-held viewing, on a table, or in your lap. The 5x7 to 8x10 range is ideal. My 2 cents.
"As for the image requiring its own size, I suspect this might be the case when enlarging because you are compressing detail initially into a smaller negative - enlarge too little and the details are too small in the print. Enlarge too much and details are destroyed by artifacts of the enlargement process."
these factors do come into play, but they're not the ones i was thinking of. independent of technical considerations, there's a different relationship to the emphasis placed on details vs. the emphasis placed on overall form, at different sizes. this, combined with the ways different sized prints tell you to look at them, means that prints tend to work in completely different ways at different sizes.
it probably stops being an issue with contact prints, because if you know you're making one, you're going to be looking at the ground glass as you would look at the print. consciously or not, you'll compose in a way that works for you at that size.
I wonder if small prints are about to come into vogue.
I have a friend in retail marketing. She tells me that the "home decorator" phase of buying is over. By that she means people don't buy stuff to decorate their homes anymore. I would think large prints hanging on the wall fit that criterea.
Instead, she says, people are buying more intimate things for themselves. I wonder if this would include small, more intimate, prints? Prints one gets close to and holds in the hands?
She says as a result of the buying change her company has changed the kinds of stuff sold in it's stores. So, this seems to be a real change in buying - not just theory.
Anyway, I contact print my 8x10s and 4x10s. To hell with them if they don't like the size.
juan
MAS tells us that Paula is doing 6x6 on their next trip to Europe, and she will most likely be
contact printing them, although I am unsure if that is the only way she will deal with the MF neg.
I have seen some MF prints contact printed and overmatted on 16x20 and framed, and was not carried away with the experience.
On the other hand, good pictures 4x5 can be really great.
I think the subject and the mental reaction to the subject is what a good picture maker is about,
and sometimes small is better, sometimes not.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks