Richard A. Johnson
(K=15) - Comment Date 2/4/1999
|
Russel-
Richard Johnson again.
You bring up another very good point that sends me spinning.
For me there are so many decisions involved in determining print size. That is one of the reasons that I posed my question for group discussion.
1. Exterior influences. I have art consultants that handle my work; they sell to corporations who want BIG PRINTS 90% of the time. Most consultants that I've worked with determine the value of a print by its size. I have to think about whether a negative will hold up for 20" x 24" enlargement (my largest possible print size). If the neg won't hold up to that size, I either won't show it to them, or tell them that it can only be print up to a certain size.
2. Exhibitions and shows. This is another pandoras box that one finds oneself in. When someone offers you a show, you may have to make decisions about print size based on the size of the space. If you only make small prints and you are offered a large space, you must make a hell of a lot of prints. I have a show right now at Culver-Stockton College in Missouri, and I sent 75 prints out for that show. Only 14 out of the 75 were small, 10" x 12" with 16" x 20" mats. The rest were larger, 20" X 24". I felt pressured to print large for impact. Let's face it, people are impressed with big prints.
3. Then there is what I call "Photo Ego" WHICH WE ALL HAVE. The question is: How do we separate ourselves from the point-and-shooters. They do by the way sometimes make very good images on the fly. They know little or nothing about the craft of photography and don't care. They drop the film in what I call "the black hole" and voila, the prints appear. Competing with them may have an affect on the size that you make your images.
That's just a little of the external concerns that I think about when determining print size.
On a personal and internal approach, I tend to be theme or project oriented. As a B&W landscape photographer I like to spend lots of time in a place. When I feel that I have a good crop of negs , I edit them down to 10 or 20. After making contacts of everything, editing and laying everything out, then and only then do I know what size to make the prints.
I then try to print the series, keeping everything uniform. I try to keep the print size in line with a standard mat size to fit a standard portfolio box. Example: prints 5" x 7" to 7 1/2" x 9 1/2" fit 14" x17" mats. Prints 8" x 10" to 11" x 14" are on 16" x 20" mats. Anything bigger than 11" x 14" is on a 20" x 24" mat. This gives me some freedom to make prints within standard paper sizes without necessarily conforming to a limited size.
I never know, when I'm in the field, what size the image will be. I'm too wrapped up in the moment. I can previsualize what the image will look like but not the size.
Well, Russel, there you have it. That's what I do. I'm interested in how others come to this point.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/4/1999
|
A pretty comprehensive response Richard, you didn't leave much to say, but that's never stopped me before.
I absolutely concur. Print appropriate to the size of the venue or veiwing context (veiwing distance), not to exceed the capability of your negative or to small for the eyesight capability of your audience.
At the time of exposure, I, too, am thinking of other issues...t
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 2/4/1999
|
Some people seem to be much more thoughtful about print size than I am. For years, I printed everything at 8x10 because that was the maximum the bathroom darkroom my father built could handle. Recently I started printing at 11x14, but I print color at 16x20. I also put two to four contact prints (6x6 and 6x7) with torn edges onto watercolor paper and add words.
I think the *BIG* print thing is very American. In other countries, many of the prints I have seen are small. I have never seen a Bravo print for example over 11x14, even in the museum in Mexico bearing his name. And I didn't see big prints in Europe.
The Misrach show that may be traveling right now is interesting. He has both 8x10 contact prints and 30x40 (I think) prints. People looked at both of them, and it didn't seem to make a difference to them which they were looking at. It takes a big space to see the big prints properly.
|
|
|
|
robin dreyer
(K=45) - Comment Date 2/8/1999
|
On the other hand, Keith Carter (If you're not familiar with his amazing work, by all means head for the library) prints everything 19" square on 16x20 paper. He says he likes to simplify things and so he has standardized a lot of his practices. Of course, most of us see them smaller in the books, but his exhibitions are wonderful despite the fact that he's not somehow tailoring print-size to subject matter.
I'm not disagreeing with the idea that different kinds of pictures work well in different sizes; I'm just pointing out that if a photographer chooses to standardize the way they work, it's not necessarily a detriment to the work.
Robin Dreyer
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 2/9/1999
|
Keith Carter must be more amazing than you have suggested - I'd like to see how he prints beyond the borders of the paper. Very interesting...
|
|
|
|
John Wall
(K=15) - Comment Date 2/9/1999
|
Lately I've been printing everything in 8 X 12, because I shoot 35 mm and an 8 x 12 image has the same proportional dimensions as a 35 mm image.
Knowing I am going after that size final image I try to compose with that in mind. Seems to work for me better than trying to find the 8 x 10 or 11 x 14 or whatever size image inside the photograph I take after I take it.
Helps to have a camera with a 100% viewfinder.
On the other hand, I have seen many very effective photographs that were small and many that were very big.
|
|
|
|
e. a.
(K=77) - Comment Date 2/13/1999
|
for me print size has a lot to do with economics, specifically mine. 5x7 paper is much less than 8x10 or larger per sheet. often i barely can afford film, developer, time and such. when money is tight 5x7 is the way i go and when i go shooting i keep that in mind and look for things that convey a sense of intimacy, where i want to get in closer. tends to be the rule of thumb in using that size. i have never printed anything over 8x10 baically because i can't afford it.
|
|
|
|
Steve Bingham
(K=384) - Comment Date 2/25/1999
|
Russell,
When to decide? When you print it, of course.
Seriously, size is use dependent. So decide it's use and then print it. Subject size has very little to do with anything other than subject size.
I love my stuff as big as I can afford to make it - or to fit the use. It's an impact thing. I use to mount action photographs on hollow-core doors. What fun.
Clusters are also an option. I have a few "pairs" (diptrics) hanging in my home.
Steve
|
|
|
|
jan jarosz
(K=17) - Comment Date 4/2/2000
|
Bigger is'nt always better.......there is something intimate in holding a small print....what seems to be important is what the photographer is attempting to convey.....if you accept a visual/verbal connection then some things need proclaiming.....others reflecting on......some things may be just noticed in a very marginal sort of way. I think Clifford Still made some comment about not wishing to pay these times the compliment of graphic hommage. Things now as then are pretty large, noisy and brash. The photographer is under no obligation to add to the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
Kerry Keays
(K=126) - Comment Date 5/20/2004
|
When you say that 8 x 12 prints are in the same proportions as 35mm, does that mean an 8 x 10 print shows (strictly speaking) distorted elements in the image? For example is someone actually fatter or taller than they are in real life?
Kerry
|
|
|
|
Bobbie C.
(K=1425) - Comment Date 5/25/2004
|
Kerry, 8 x 12 is a full-frame of 35mm. When you get an 8 x 10 from the lab, 2 inches are cropped, not distorted. I usually compose for full frame, and have 8 x 12's made, but choices in ready-made mats and frames are limited. But sometimes cropping ruins the image. If I'm thinking about it, I'll leave some room for cropping (especially when doing portraits). For nature and landscape shots, though, I like the extra 2 inches - doesn't sound like much, but it can make a big difference. If you need an 8 x 10, it's better to get the 8 x 12 (usually costs the same) and crop it where you want, rather than letting the lab decide where to cut it.
|
|
|
|
