TraditionalPhotographer.NET / General Discussion / Presentation and Marketing / The Importance of Print Size / Latest Posts

RE: The Importance of Print Size

DavidGillanders — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:16:27 GMT

I don't really think that the size of the print matters. I enjoy standing close to a small beautiful print as much as I do standing back in awe of a larger one. It's really the content that is important.

I personally find 12x16 a good size to work with in the darkroom, but am about to start printing an edition of 16x20 which is causing me a bit of grief from a space point of view - but I'm enjoying it.

On that note does anyone know where I can pick up a Seal dry mounting press in the UK? I'm looking for the Seal /Bienfang 210M Commercial Dry Mounting Press - 18.5 x 23" but can't find a distributor/supplier anywhere.

Cheers

David

RE: The Importance of Print Size

JoeV — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:37:14 GMT

As I recall, the popularity of prints by their size has varied over the years; I suppose we are at the equipoise point where large prints are the usual expectation, at least in commercial/gallery settings, and especially with color.

Although it's very refreshing to get nose-in-close to an Edward Weston contact print.

We're at a place in the technological history where a good image file can be printed to almost any size, for a price. So it's really a matter of economics. Many people, like myself, want to own the equipment/system that does the print; this decision ends up limiting their print size by their budget. For instance, in my B/W darkroom I'm limited to 11"x14" enlargements, mainly by counter space for processing trays.

I'm reminded of the independant/low budget film world, where the choice is to either outright purchase a state-of-the-art-for-the-next-five-minutes digital camera, or spend the money on film stock and rent a 16mm film rig, then pay to have the film processed and scanned for post-production. In the long run the decision not to invest in the hardware can be a smart one, if one's goal is to produce a film, rather than dabble with electronic toys.

~Joe

RE: The Importance of Print Size

roteague — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:06:17 GMT

[quote][b]George (4/16/2008)[/b][hr]I'm a bit late to the discussion and have to admit that anyone who paid for one of my pics would be getting a bad bargain but following on Robert's original post here's my [i]dos centavos[/i].[/quote]

I think you sell yourself short, I've seen your work on APUG. It work isn't bad at all.

RE: The Importance of Print Size

George — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:23:49 GMT

I'm a bit late to the discussion and have to admit that anyone who paid for one of my pics would be getting a bad bargain but following on Robert's original post here's my [i]dos centavos[/i].

Robert speaks of one of Richie's pics. Rich takes spectacular color landscapes. I well remember one of Lake Placid that he once posted on APUG. It seems to me that such a sweeping picture demands a large print - otherwise it would be nothing more than a picture postcard from a souvenier shop.

Alternatively, it would be hard to image a B&W "street" or PJ shot being "supersized". It would lend no "added value" to create an enlarged print of a photo such as HCB's "leaping man" or Capra's "Falling Soldier". In fact, I remember in one of Woody Allen's movies ("Manhattan"?) his character has a huge enlargement of the famous (infamous?) pic of the ARVN soldier blowing away some guy's brains in a street execution.

While that "worked" for some aspect of shock value (i.e. why would this early-1980's middle-aged bachelor still have such a "poster" in his apartment if he's wooing a young babe) it actually was less impactful than the original news photo.

RE: The Importance of Print Size

roteague — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:57:52 GMT

[quote][b]PhotoBob (4/11/2008)[/b][hr]I suppose to some degree print size will depend on finances....[/quote]

Yes, I did a framed 30x40 print. If I remember right it cost me around $700 (not counting the cost of the print). I'm not going to do anymore that size, until I can find a way to lower the costs, significantly.

RE: The Importance of Print Size

mallard67 — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:04:19 GMT

I shoot mostly 6x7 black and white and i usually do an initial 8x10 enlargement and live with it for a couple weeks or so, then i decide if there are small areas in the print where i think there is more detail to be extracted and maybe i want to see those little areas of detail--maybe small rocks or an interesting shadow area, I'm really into waterfalls lately. I'll then enlarge it a bit to taste...but not too big ;)

I also don't sell any prints....yet. But i would like to someday, and it's nice to hear what others are doing. I'm not much into color these days but for me i think it would depend on the size of the space the print was going in, and the distance from where I view it from.

RE: The Importance of Print Size

eric rose — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:30:21 GMT

The largest prints I can handle in my darkroom are 20x24, black and white. I have access to a color processor that will handle 36 inch wide prints if the need arises. For myself personally I love a big print, if the subject matter lends itself to it. Some things just don't hang together big.

RE: The Importance of Print Size

PhotoBob — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:06:01 GMT

Yes, I primarily work in black & white.
Although I did pick up some 4x5 E6 today and one of them is just fabulous. I suspect it would print up nicely.
I suppose to some degree print size will depend on finances, purpose, e.g., portfolio, and the environment where it will be exhibited.

RE: The Importance of Print Size

Travis Nunn — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:07:27 GMT

[quote][b]roteague (4/11/2008)[/b]

I'm curious, are more of your prints in B&W or color? The reason I ask is that I have the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that large prints are more widely favored by color photographers.[/quote]

Just throwin' this out. It could have something to do with larger b/w prints being tough to manipulate in the darkroom. I know that some of my color prints I have printed for me go up to 18x22 and there's no way I could print anything that size in my darkroom (which doubles as a bathroom). The largest I'm set up to print in my darkroom is 11x14.

RE: The Importance of Print Size

roteague — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:23:49 GMT

[quote][b]PhotoBob (4/11/2008)[/b][hr]Without considering the marketing angle, perhaps it is the content of an image that is more important than print size.
However, I do have an affinity for larger prints.[/quote]

I'm curious, are more of your prints in B&W or color? The reason I ask is that I have the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that large prints are more widely favored by color photographers.

RE: The Importance of Print Size

PhotoBob — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:52:47 GMT

Without considering the marketing angle, perhaps it is the content of an image that is more important than print size.
However, I do have an affinity for larger prints.

RE: The Importance of Print Size

Travis Nunn — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:42:32 GMT

[quote][b]Jorge Gasteazoro (4/11/2008)[/b]
Travis, just for grins I started carrying my hassy in my car and taking pictures for contact printing. I found that the best conposition was of simple subjects, anything that has too much detail gets lost in a contact print of this size, but a little 6x6 well done is a jewel...[/quote]

That's kind of what I was thinking. I've got some free time this weekend and if the weather is good I'm going to see what I can come up with. Should be fun.

RE: The Importance of Print Size

Jorge Gasteazoro — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:21:32 GMT

Eric brings up a good point, who cares what we think?!? The consumer wants big prints for $30...LOL...

You have no idea how many times I have been asked if I could make a print bigger.

RE: The Importance of Print Size

Jorge Gasteazoro — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:19:21 GMT

[quote][b]Travis Nunn (4/11/2008)[/b][hr]I don't have a preference either way. To me, I think some prints scream to be large and some don't. I can't really say that I think whether it's color or b/w makes a difference to me. I do, however think that some large prints I've seen really shouldn't be as large as they are. Clyde Butcher comes to mind. I like his work, I've heard him speak at the College of William and Mary while they had dozens of his prints showing and I really think that his biggest prints are too big.

It's funny you should bring this topic up. I was just getting ready to start a project of VDB printing some MF negatives (6x7 cm). I think that for prints this small I will need to take a different approach to making my negatives than if I were planning to enlarge them.[/quote]

Travis, just for grins I started carrying my hassy in my car and taking pictures for contact printing. I found that the best conposition was of simple subjects, anything that has too much detail gets lost in a contact print of this size, but a little 6x6 well done is a jewel.

As to print size, I have heard people say it matter, some that depending on the subject it matters, and some that don't. In my case I feel that size is important for the particular subject, things with a lot of detail (like landscapes) usually look better big, as if yo could walk into the print, those that have simple or minimal components looks better small IMO. I don't think a Michael Kenna print would look as good in a 6ftx10ft as it does in 6in.

RE: The Importance of Print Size

eric rose — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:15:56 GMT

Unfortunately in our modern society where bigger is always better (can I super size that print for you?) it appears to sell much you need to make at least 40 inch prints. I understand even Bruce Barnbaum who has always maintained he would only print a particular neg at a specific size and refuse any amount of money to do otherwise is now making large prints.

In our local "fine art photography" gallery only really big prints are selling on a regular basis. It sucks as it seems the buyers have this beamer mentality where they just want something flashy and gaudy to show off how rich they think they are.

These comments obviously do not apply to recognized photographers like Weston et al who only contact printed. The people who shell out big bucks for his prints do so for a number of reasons. Many of which have nothing to do with art appreciation.

I guess it depends on whether you want to appeal to the lowest common denominator and sell or hold to your guns and create art while starving. Just MHO.

Eric (the starving artist)

RE: The Importance of Print Size

roteague — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:16:17 GMT

[quote][b]Travis Nunn (4/11/2008)[/b][hr]It's funny you should bring this topic up. I was just getting ready to start a project of VDB printing some MF negatives (6x7 cm). I think that for prints this small I will need to take a different approach to making my negatives than if I were planning to enlarge them.[/quote]

Hmmm.... perhaps Jorge can give you some tips on this. I know he does a lot of contact printing, which is mostly small sizes.

RE: The Importance of Print Size

Travis Nunn — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:47:55 GMT

I don't have a preference either way. To me, I think some prints scream to be large and some don't. I can't really say that I think whether it's color or b/w makes a difference to me. I do, however think that some large prints I've seen really shouldn't be as large as they are. Clyde Butcher comes to mind. I like his work, I've heard him speak at the College of William and Mary while they had dozens of his prints showing and I really think that his biggest prints are too big.

It's funny you should bring this topic up. I was just getting ready to start a project of VDB printing some MF negatives (6x7 cm). I think that for prints this small I will need to take a different approach to making my negatives than if I were planning to enlarge them.

The Importance of Print Size

roteague — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:48:50 GMT

Is print size important, or is it just something you consider an afterthought?

I've been listening to a Podcast by Brooks Jensen about the issue of print size, and it got me to thinking, is print size important and is it tied to the type of print.

Brooks talks about how he prefers small prints, but I notice that most of the prints he sees are B&W prints. I've also heard other B&W printers say they too prefer small prints.

However, as a color landscape photographer, I love large prints. I have a fantastic print by our very own Rich Nelridge (naturephoto1) that sits behind my desk at home (so I can look at it as I work), which is a 16x20, and I can't imagine seeing this print in any smaller size. It would loose too much of its impact. Even my portfolio consists of prints that are a minimum of 11x14 (and I sometimes carry around a 20x24 print as well).

I'm curious how others see this issue.