Digital BW, The Print

Some thoughts about size:
	I teach in Singapore in a university photography program. We just graduated our first class to pass through four years of education and receive a BFA degree. They had their Final Year Project exhibition at a gallery in town. The size of the work they hung is instructive: The smallest was full-bleed 20x24. Others went to A1 (24x30), A0 (33x46), 48x90.
	The print quality was superb. The fact that they can go to one of the big Epsons and push a button (given their files are well prepared) and get high quality prints out seems to me to change the game.
	In the galleries here, which tend to be fairly large, anything less than A1 doesn't seem to grab the audience. Can you say that you will pull the audience closer to the work by keeping it 11x14? Or will they simply ignore it? Is it Singapore? Does the ease of printing any size make it necessary to go as big as you can?
	I was impressed by how differently the viewers reacted to the work relative to the size of the prints. In Singapore it looks like size really matters.
Paul

I only print self-portraits LARGE  :  )  I remember installing those Photo Murals years ago (like tubes of wallpaper). In my place, I have to search for a place to put a 16x20.



*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 6/20/2009 at 5:34 AM paulekohl wrote:
"
..................In Singapore it looks like size really matters.
>Paul
>
"

an increasingly diminishing part of these considerations in this era of easy enlargement- at what point does your image quality begin to look like crap?
Another issue too little considered- what viewing size best suites the viewing experience of the particular image? This needn't be as artsy-f**tsy of a question as it might seem. Many of my disturbingly busy images can't even be seen at less than 16x20. Caponigro's apple though, I love it at about 5x7 in some of the books I have.

Tyler

Agreed.  Croping and print size should be determined by asthetics, not by what some self involved gallery manager wants, or a 'standard' print size.  I always crop as close as possible in the camera.  But, if the image needs a different ratio, heed your instincts.
 
Tom Baker

--- On Sat, 6/20/09, Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:

From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Print Size
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 4:14 PM








an increasingly diminishing part of these considerations in this era of easy enlargement- at what point does your image quality begin to look like crap?
Another issue too little considered- what viewing size best suites the viewing experience of the particular image? This needn't be as artsy-f**tsy of a question as it might seem. Many of my disturbingly busy images can't even be seen at less than 16x20. Caponigro's apple though, I love it at about 5x7 in some of the books I have.

Tyler
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Agreed.  

 

Furthermore, it this day of easy “retroactive composition” via the electronic crop, there is no substitute for careful, thoughtful, seeing.

 

When I can’t crop an image into what I wanted to say, it is usually because I was sloppy when I made the exposure.  I find this happens far less when I am using a 5x7 ground glass or I force myself to put my Canon 5D on a tripod.

 

Sometimes slower is faster………..

 

George

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Baker
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 7:30 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Print Size

 






Agreed.  Croping and print size should be determined by asthetics, not by what some self involved gallery manager wants, or a 'standard' print size.  I always crop as close as possible in the camera.  But, if the image needs a different ratio, heed your instincts.
 
Tom Baker

--- On Sat, 6/20/09, Tyler Boley <tyler@... <mailto:tyler%40tylerboley.com> > wrote:

From: Tyler Boley <tyler@... <mailto:tyler%40tylerboley.com> >
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Print Size
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 4:14 PM

an increasingly diminishing part of these considerations in this era of easy enlargement- at what point does your image quality begin to look like crap?
Another issue too little considered- what viewing size best suites the viewing experience of the particular image? This needn't be as artsy-f**tsy of a question as it might seem. Many of my disturbingly busy images can't even be seen at less than 16x20. Caponigro's apple though, I love it at about 5x7 in some of the books I have.

Tyler

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]