Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Ray on February 09, 2006, 12:09:47 am
-
This is a topic which greatly interests me. Anyone who's visited an art gallery can't help noticing that paintings come in all sizes. The smallest, when taking frame into consideration, is about the same size as the satandard photographic 8x10" print. As Alain says, an intimate, precious hand-holdable item.
The largest, especially if in the impressionistic style, seem designed for rich peoples' homes. Close up they look like cr*p. Nobody in their (his/her) right mind would buy such a painting to to be appreciated on the wall of the average suburban home.
Photographs, in my opinion, have for far too long been relegated to the small. 'precious' size. Let's branch out and produce some 'decent sized', 'appropritately sized', 'satisfyingly large' prints.
Here's an example of a recent shot I took in Cambodia that cries out to be writ large. (Now where is that shot? Was it in the folder, 'last 2 days at Siem Reap'?, or ' Angkor Wat digital blending"? Okay! Got it!
[attachment=221:attachment]
The print of this image at 23x35" looks just great. I'm very impressed. It's definitely going to hang on my wall, and I don't care if I'm the only person in the world who thinks it's great .
-
Nice photo! I belive this taken at the same location as som of the shots in this article?
Portfolio: Christian Houge (http://www.fotografi.no/portfolio2.php?RECORD_KEY%28portfolio%29=ID&ID(portfolio)=11)
I rembered the article from a photo magazine (norwegian) when I saw your photo.
-
Yep! Same place! A photographer's paradise if you can contend with the high humidity and poor services (offset of course by the low cost of everything).
-
A very important aspect which I think should have been mentioned along side shooting for size is also shooting for crop. I believe that it is just as important.
-
A very important aspect which I think should have been mentioned along side shooting for size is also shooting for crop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57788\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can you expand on this concept?
Alain
-
Size has always been more of a problem for photos than for paintings, because photos are "of something" and paintings aren't. When we're dealing with "something," most of us want to be able to see it clearly and to understand what it is. With older equipment, photos started to break up after a certain amount of enlargement -- if you can look at it comfortably at 12 feet, it looks fuzzy at four feet.
With paintings, the problem's not the same. Last summer I was at the National Gallery in Washington, and the long hall leading to the American wing was dominated by Whistler's White Girl, a 7' tall painting that looks as good at 100 feet as it does as six, and vice-versa. Paintings don't have to worry about resolution...
IMHO one of the problems in comparing photographs with painting is that photography is a different art form; it is to painting what sculpture is to the polka -- not better or worse, but distinctly different.
All that said, Alain is absolutely right in his article; size is critical to photographs, and digital techniques like uprezzing, combined with high-density sensors and long-lasting pigmented inks, give us a lot more options than we had not even ten years ago.
JC
-
Size has always been more of a problem for photos than for paintings, because photos are "of something" and paintings aren't. When we're dealing with "something," most of us want to be able to see it clearly and to understand what it is. With older equipment, photos started to break up after a certain amount of enlargement -- if you can look at it comfortably at 12 feet, it looks fuzzy at four feet.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57808\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As they say "I concur" (with the side remark that I do believe paintings are "of something." They are simply "of something" seen differently than a photograph is seen, but "of something" nevertheless).
I think that the approach to print photographs in a limited number of sizes comes from contact printing, which was the only way to print images in the early days of photography (that and the direct creation of the image in the camera, which doesn't let the photographer enlarge the image either). This approach restricted print sizes to a few formats which were those of the cameras used at the time.
Paintings don't have to worry about resolution...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57808\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is one of the central points of my Art & Science essay. Things are starting to come together.
Alain
-
i guess in a certain way, painting's can be considered to have 'resolution'... but it contributes in different way's to the final image (an image by Monet has a lower 'resolution' than one by Wyeth). From a view's perspective, the lack of resolution is more 'acceptable' than most photographs. There's an aesthetic to the actual layering and texture of the paint from a close distance. This can be, but rarely is the case with photographs
When talking about a painting you seldom hear the discussion of 'proper viewing distance'. In order to allow for a decrease in viewing quality, we (mostly photographers) bring up this as an excuse. (yes.. my 3Mp/APS image looks *great* blown up to 40x50"... you have to view it from it's proper viewing distance though.) When in a museum, you see a painting from across the room, and then you walk up and look at it as close as the guards will allow you to.
As they say "I concur" (with the side remark that I do believe paintings are "of something." They are simply "of something" seen differently than a photograph is seen, but "of something" nevertheless).
I think that the approach to print photographs in a limited number of sizes comes from contact printing, which was the only way to print images in the early days of photography (that and the direct creation of the image in the camera, which doesn't let the photographer enlarge the image either). This approach restricted print sizes to a few formats which were those of the cameras used at the time.
This is one of the central points of my Art & Science essay. Things are starting to come together.
Alain
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57809\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
When talking about a painting you seldom hear the discussion of 'proper viewing distance . . .When in a museum, you see a painting from across the room, and then you walk up and look at it as close as the guards will allow you to.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do not concur with this statement. I think you assume that all paintings are large and are made to be seen from a distance. While some certainly are, many are not. Have you tried to view a miniature from accross a museum hall? Even the Mona Lisa, which is neither a miniature nor a large painting, has to be seen from relatively near. And again, paintings are only one of many forms of 2 dimentional visual arts. Among other medium we find engravings, drawings and lithographs, all of which have been, and are still, being used by painters when the need for reproduction, and for smaller sizes, sufaces.
One of the things we studied at the Beaux Arts, was the concept of viewing distance (regarding paintings since this is the medium we worked on) and the importance of sizing a painting in the context of the location where it is going to be displayed.
Another frequent eroneous assumption is that paintings are created to be hung in museums. They are not. Paintings end up in museums because museums work very hard to build their collections. However, very few paintings were, or are, actually either created for a museum or originally acquired by a museum. For example, most of the paintings in the Louvre were originally displayed in other locations, either private residences or public buildings (a few were originally displayed in the Louvre). The Louvre itself was originally a Royal residence which later became a museum. The paintings in the Louvre were, for the most part, sized to be displayed in specific locations other than the Louvre.
Alain
-
A piece of art should bear examination at a close distance. If a photograph does not bear satisfactory examination at a close distance then it is too big.
I personally don't think a serious photographic print should ever be bigger than it's inherent resolution and subject matter will allow.
Paintings have no resolution, there are what they are. Some may show more or less detail but that is part of the art, not a weakness of techique.
This size issue also raised an interesting question related to Editions.
In the painting world, an Edition is generally a number of reproductions of a original work and all will be the same size, usually the same size as the original but not always. A subsequent but different sized reproduction would be a different Edition.
In the photographic world, an Edition is usually a specific number of prints off an original negative, trannie or file. The sizes can be different from print to print as long as there are no more than a specified number of prints.
This clashes with the art/painting world and I wonder whether this is yet another reason that photography is struggling to be taken seriously as an art form.
-
Alain,
Interesting essay indeed. Stressing the fact that print size is an important variable in photography definitely has value.
There is however one aspect of this discussion that you didn't really cover in your article though, and which might become important in the coming years.
This aspect is differentiation. Large print, and the ability to make a large print for an image, have long been used as a differentiator by some photographers. Rather than being a pure artistic decision, the decision to print large was aimed at producing art work that others couldn't produce, and at addressing a more profitable market segment.
Until now, the decision to differentiate oneself meant shooting Large format. The ability to shoot LF was mostly a matter of choice requiring knowledge, shooting skills, logistics, and a certain level of physical ability (LF gear is heavy). There wasn't that much economics related to the use of LF. It was for sure more expensive than shooting smaller formats, but the gap wasn't that huge in absolute terms.
I personnally feel that print size is one aspect of the quality of an image, but that it isn't the most important element in deciding whether an image is good or not.
Isn't this currently changing?
The very release of your essay at this point of time makes me think that it is changing.
My take is that it is changing because of digital high end devices mostly.
Medium format digital backs have reached a level that is close to 4*5 quality, and the curve is such that it will have overtaken within 3 years or so.
The "decision" to shoot for the largest prints, or to print largest, will then stop to become a choice that any photographer can reasonnably make, it will become an option only for those that can afford it. In other words, economics will become a central part of high end fine art prints. That is, if print size becomes an over-rated factor in considering the value of a photograph.
An this is finally the point I was trying to make. Over-emphasizing the importance of print size will in the end make the ability to invest a lot of money in gear a key aspect of fine art printing, up to levels way higher than it currently was.
I am not sure that this will contribute to making photography more respected as an art form, and therefore think that we shouldn't go there as a collective force.
One could argue that the overall increase of quality of digital gear does contribute to the democratization of large print sizes, but this would be missing the point I am trying to make. I am not just speaking of large print sizes, but about the "largEST" print size technically achievable by reasonnable means. High end digital will be making this a moving target.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Alain,
There is however one aspect of this discussion that you didn't really cover in your article though, and which might become important in the coming years.
This aspect is differentiation. Large print, and the ability to make a large print for an image, have long been used as a differentiator by some photographers. Rather than being a pure artistic decision, the decision to print large was aimed at producing art work that others couldn't produce, and at addressing a more profitable market segment.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57835\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are correct, large print sizes have been used for years by "certain" photographers to impress or make the point that their work was superior. The point I make in my essay, although I do not directly mention these "certain" photographers, is that this is superficial and that print size needs to be decided based on what one wants to express in each specific image, in short, that print size needs to be decided based on the content of the image.
The "decision" to shoot for the largest prints, or to print largest, will then stop to become a choice that any photographer can reasonnably make, it will become an option only for those that can afford it. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57835\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't see anything new here. This has always been the case. We forget that 4x5 gear was expensive, even though it today sems much more affordable in comparison to 30k MFDB. Equipment required to make the largest prints, was, is, and most likely will continue to be expensive. This is true not only of cameras but of printers, paper, mounting presses, frames, display space when rented, etc. All the costs involved in the production and display of a photograph are multiplied proportionally to the increase in print size.
But my point is not that one must make big prints. My point is that one needs to consider print size in relationship to subject matter. Certainly, if you create work that calls for very large print sizes, and all you have is a 3mp camera, you are in trouble and you will need to invest in the appropriate equipment. But, not everyone is in this situation. Thus, what I am saying is nothing else than the necessity to match the tools to the goal. What is of primary importance is therefore defining this goal. Once this goal is defined, one may realize that the equipment needed is more expensive than they thought, or one may realize that this equipment is far less expensive than they thought.
The very good news is that if your subject matter does not call for large print sizes, you may be spending much more money than you have to.
Alain
-
Thus, what I am saying is nothing else than the necessity to match the tools to the goal. What is of primary importance is therefore defining this goal. Once this goal is defined, one may realize that the equipment needed is more expensive than they thought, or one may realize that this equipment is far less expensive than they thought. Alain
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57839\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is a critical comment and is something that many photographers miss.
1. Commercial photographers usually know their goal - the client will have told them the end use. They therefore use appropriate gear.
2. Fine Art photographers often shoot with no clear plan beyond the subject and the image itself. The goal that Alain mentions is often lacking in that thought process, and I must include myself here.
Define your goals and use the appropriate equipent to achieve that goal - good advice which I for one will take.
-
I don't see anything new here. This has always been the case. We forget that 4x5 gear was expensive, even though it today sems much more affordable in comparison to 30k MFDB. Equipment required to make the largest prints, was, is, and most likely will continue to be expensive. This is true not only of cameras but of printers, paper, mounting presses, frames, display space when rented, etc. All the costs involved in the production and display of a photograph are multiplied proportionally to the increase in print size.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57839\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
On this, the scale introduced by MFBD is completely different isn't it? And I am not just speaking about the need to re-invest the same amount every 3 years to stay on top.
The absolute gap in price between a new top level LF kit with 5 lenses, and a top 35 mm film setting with 5 lenses, has remained basically the same. Speaking about new equipment, it is around 2000 to 4000 US$. If anything, 35 mm film gear has dropped in price more than LF actually, just compare a F6 with a F5.
The gap is even smaller if you speak about average gear.
Add scanning to the equation, and LF does indeed become more expensive than 35 mm or 220, but then again, the gap is in the several thousand US$ range.
Anyway you look at it, a trend towards larger print sizes becoming the norm in high end fine art landscape will result in only those selling large amount of images being able to get the gear. And I am not sure that the overall quality in this segment (speaking about the value of images) will progress thanks to this.
Photography would end up being another area of human activity where the law of increasing returns plays heavily, the richer you are, the richer you become. I would prefer it to stay "the more talented you are, the richer you become".
We pros or amateurs in the landscape community do IMHO have the power to go, or not to go, that way, and it is happening now.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
One of the things we studied at the Beaux Arts, was the concept of viewing distance (regarding paintings since this is the medium we worked on) and the importance of sizing a painting in the context of the location where it is going to be displayed.
Another frequent eroneous assumption is that paintings are created to be hung in museums. They are not. Paintings end up in museums because museums work very hard to build their collections. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57829\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is very apparent to me when I visit an art gallery. Some impressionist paintings appear to consist of such a crude technique, the 'impression' the painter is trying to convey can only be fully appreciated from a great distance' a distance which is sometimes greater than the width of the average suburban living room. As one approaches such paintings close-up, the brush strokes or daubs of paint begin to dominate and conflict with the over all impression.
I have had the experience of walking into a gallery of very large photos, not realising they were photos. A 4ftx6ft blow-up of 35mm film can look like a painting from a distance of 10 metres or more (depending on the subject matter and one's eyesight of course). At a certain closer distance it becomes clear the picture is a photograph and from really close up it becomes clear the photo is a blow-up from 35mm rather than MF or 4x5.
I don't really see why we should be so obsessed with ascribing size limitations to certain camera formats, for example, that the 1Ds2 is only good for prints up to 20x30". If the camera has sufficient resolution to capture the salient details of a composition, then surely the print can be as big as it needs to be for the viewing environment. The fact that details that are not salient to the composition, such as the fine texture of a concrete wall, or the vein structure in a leaf, are not visible from close up, matters not.
If I can get a little disturbed by crude daubs of paint when viewing an impressionistic painting from closer than is was designed to be viewed, then I see nothing wrong with, at most an experience of slight disappointment, viewing a large photo from close up to discover that the fine texture of the concrete wall is not resolved down to the individual grains of sand.
-
I tend to think that there is a good size for flat art, like paintings, prints, photographs, etc. You can't say what it is, exactly, except that it should be appropriate for its setting. It shouldn't be too crowded, nor should it look like a fly on the wall. People shouldn't have to put their nose against it to see it, either. So the appropriate size is different for different articles, in different spaces. Small is fine, for the right space. (I have a four-inch square engraving hanging next to a toilet; it's just fine there.)
The problem with photography was that it couldn't be too large and still maintain acceptable resolution. It was sort of arbitrarily small. That's why people were so awed (I believe) by the giant Polaroid prints that were fashionable for a while -- they were so close to perfect that you could see things about faces, for example, that you couldn't see in real life, with the naked eye, or would be embarrassed to look at.
There were ways around the problem, but they were very expensive and not very practical -- using 8x10 or larger negs, with an enlarger the size of an automobile. And what if you wanted to shoot a basketball game...? I believe only a few of the over-sized Polaroid cameras were ever made, for example, and they were sort of shipped from one fine-art photographer to the next, or were set up in one space by Polaroid and then the photographer was invited to come to the camera...
We may now be breaking free of that that problem. Once we get to four-foot prints of acceptable resolution, done with affordable equipment, I think photography will begin to challenge painting for high-end wall space. And people who complain about the cost should realize that high end photography was never cheap. I suspect a professional Hassy kit (body, backs, Polaroid back, a half-dozen lenses) would have pretty much taken all of a typical American family's annual income in 1960. A P22 & a decent Hassy kit would cost just about a typical American family's income in 2006. (But I really haven't looked it up.)
JC
-
I suspect a professional Hassy kit (body, backs, Polaroid back, a half-dozen lenses) would have pretty much taken all of a typical American family's annual income in 1960. A P22 & a decent Hassy kit would cost just about a typical American family's income in 2006. (But I really haven't looked it up.)
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57852\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There's a statement that says that "expenses will always rise to meet income." I think your example is a perfect demonstration of the accuracy of this statement.
Alain
-
And people who complain about the cost should realize that high end photography was never cheap. I suspect a professional Hassy kit (body, backs, Polaroid back, a half-dozen lenses) would have pretty much taken all of a typical American family's annual income in 1960. A P22 & a decent Hassy kit would cost just about a typical American family's income in 2006. (But I really haven't looked it up.)
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57852\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There were also times when nobody could afford a TV, and I am sure that we all agree that going back to those days is not a good idea.
I see the current huge surge in price of high end gear as something similar.
There are a few people who are interested in preventing competition that will benefit from this, but most of us won't.
Regards,
Bernard
-
There were also times when nobody could afford a TV, and I am sure that we all agree that going back to those days is not a good idea.
I see the current huge surge in price of high end gear as something similar.
There are a few people who are interested in preventing competition that will benefit from this, but most of us won't.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57862\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In my view this situation is temporary, at least as far as the cost of MFDB is concerned. The drop in prices are just as dramatic as the surge in prices. The P25 is currently priced around 12K, unless I am mistaken. It was originally 30k. That's a drop of 18k just after the introduction of a higher-resolution model.
I agree that the cost of these backs is extremely high. I don't have one myself for several reasons, the initial cost and the quick depreciation being some of them.
ALain
-
From someone who has the deepest respect for your knowledge, involvement and understanding of art...
Does the size of a painting or of a photopgraph has anything to do with the emotion it will give me or with it's intrinsic value? If I had the opportunity (the chance) of owing a truly meaningful piece of art, no matter it's size, would not it be my responsibility to place it in it's proper surrounding? Any technique has it's own limitations, but art should not, in my humble opinion, bother with them. Small or large, technically perfect or not, speak to my soul.
Mimi
-
In my view this situation is temporary, at least as far as the cost of MFDB is concerned. The drop in prices are just as dramatic as the surge in prices. The P25 is currently priced around 12K, unless I am mistaken. It was originally 30k. That's a drop of 18k just after the introduction of a higher-resolution model.
I agree that the cost of these backs is extremely high. I don't have one myself for several reasons, the initial cost and the quick depreciation being some of them.
ALain
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57863\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Alain,
I don't want to look like I am arguing with you, because I am very much in agreement with your initial point, and the content of your essay.
However, on this one point, even if it is true that the P25 has indeed become cheaper, the current P45 high end is still priced just as high as the P25 initially was, isn't it?
I would be convinced if the price of the highest model were going down as well, but I just don't see such a trend as we speak.
I hope that you are right, and that the prices will indeed keep going down, but we haven't entered that era yet IMHO, and we won't as long as the top of the range keeps selling at the current price point.
Regards,
Bernard
-
I think you assume that all paintings are large and are made to be seen from a distance. While some certainly are, many are not. Have you tried to view a miniature from accross a museum hall?
Alain
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57829\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
that wasn't really what i meant.. i understand that paintings (like photographs) come in all sizes and shape. Some of my favorite images are small 4x5" contact prints. I guess i think there are number of 'distances' when viewing an image (painting or photograph). There's too far (the Mona Lisa from across the room). As you move closer, you eventually arrive at what would be the optimum distance (hopefully the painter/photographer has sized it apropriately, and the purchaser has displayed it so that this distance is easily maintained).
But people get closer to images.. and although i love Van Gogh's work and the 'right' distance.. i love getting as close as possible to see the texture and movement of the paint 'up close' It seems that paintings still hold together at this close distance, even when the 'resolution' of the image is exceeded. Some photographs do this (usually those that use grain to enhance the image), but for the most part, if you view a photograph at the optimal distance, and then move in very close.. if there is excessive grain/digital noise that is not intentionally there as part of the aesthetic.. then it is disappointing.
-
From someone who has the deepest respect for your knowledge, involvement and understanding of art... Does the size of a painting or of a photograph has anything to do with the emotion it will give me or with it's intrinsic value? If I had the opportunity (the chance) of owing a truly meaningful piece of art, no matter it's size, would not it be my responsibility to place it in it's proper surrounding? Any technique has it's own limitations, but art should not, in my humble opinion, bother with them. Small or large, technically perfect or not, speak to my soul.
Mimi
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57866\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that size has everything to do with the emotion created by a work of art. I tried my best to explain that in my essay. I wonder if you do not confuse creating the art and enjoying the art. For the person who creates the art, such as myself and my students, how the art is created becomes very important because we must know what effects our decisions have on the final outcome, the final appearance of the artwork. For the viewer, how the art was created can be somewhat unimportant, or even simply boring, depeding on how much interest they have in the creative process.
So my question to you is this: are you an artist, a creator, or are you a collector, an admirer of art? If you are an artist I don't see how you cannot have an interest in how art is created, including the relationship between subject matter and print size. Regarding appropriate viewing distance, both artist and collector need to be concerned with that, as it directly informs the enjoyability of the work.
Alain
-
Alain,
I am mostly an admirer of art, with a growing interest in the techniques of photography.
I certainly agree that size has a lot to do (if not everything ?) with the emotion created by a work of art. For example, "les murales" of Diego Rivera could not possibly convey their author's intent in a small frame. Lanscape photography, by the very nature of the subject, probably lends itself to larger size more than any other subject. And I would think that any artist, wishing to do justice to his subject and share his intent in producing a large frame, should preferably use the most adequate equipment and certainly learn how to master its use. Everyone has to thank you for your contribution and expertise on that matter.
But I am quite certain that you would stress that thechnique complements and does not replace inspiration. I would anyday choose an imperfect but inspired work of art over a perfect large size postcard. Am I wrong in thinking that emotion and beauty can also be conveyed by artists who do not own the best equipment and that they should be encouraged in doing so?
Michel
-
The drop in prices are just as dramatic as the surge in prices. The P25 is currently priced around 12K, unless I am mistaken. It was originally 30k. That's a drop of 18k just after the introduction of a higher-resolution model.
Alain,
i think you're making a mistake, no even ebay salling in such low price
Blas
-
Does the size of a painting or of a photopgraph has anything to do with the emotion it will give me or with it's intrinsic value?
Yes, it does. There's a new book out called The Judgment of Paris (I don't have the author's name handy) which talks about the parallel lives of Manet and another painter named Messonier, in the second half of the 19th century in France. Messonier was the most famous French painter at the time, and was widely considered (at the time) to be the best French painter that the 19th century had produced. By the second decade of the 20th century, he was forgotten. Anyway, he spent ten years painting his masterpiece, called "Friedland," which showed Napolean and his staff at the moment of a great victory. Unfortunately, he painted small -- the painting was three or four feet across, when it demanded (given the topic, the public interest, the competition, etc.) to be treated in a larger, more sweeping size. As a result, the painting fell flat, and the man who signed up to buy it demanded his money back. (It now hangs in the Met, outside the Manet rooms.) The point of all this is, Size Matters. It's part of an art work's aesthetic, and it has a major effect on the viewer. It's very difficult to put a sweeping, triumphant scene ona paostage stamp. Imagine "The Thinker" being the size of a matchbook -- the whole weightiness of the subject would be lost.
If I had the opportunity (the chance) of owing a truly meaningful piece of art, no matter it's size, would not it be my responsibility to place it in it's proper surrounding?
Maybe. Or maybe you wouldn't need a proper surrounding. Maybe you'd be involved enough in the artwork that any place would work. I think I read someplace that Di Vinci travelled with the Mona Lisa for 30 years...he could look at it anywhere. But most art works (in my opinion) are designed for a particular kind of place. You probably wouldn't want to put one of Monet's huge water lily paintings in a hallway, because you couldn't see it.
Any technique has it's own limitations, but art should not, in my humble opinion, bother with them. Small or large, technically perfect or not, speak to my soul.
I think you're simply wrong about this. Technique is an intrinsic part of art; in's inescapable. If a piece of art speaks to your soul, ask yourself it would still speak to your soul if it were a different size, or the painting were sloppier. One of the shortcomings of art photography is that it sometimes makes a fetish out of technique, and skips the art, but it's very difficult to get to great art without an appropriately great technique. Bach was one of the great innovators of the piano (See the Well-Tempered Clavier), in addition to being a great composer; Picasso and van Gogh were master draftsmen, though you might not see it in their paintings. All the great artists have technique; it's part of what makes them great..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57866\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
One of the shortcomings of art photography is that it sometimes makes a fetish out of technique, and skips the art, but it's very difficult to get to great art without an appropriately great technique.
John,
I must admit that my comment was very crude and rather superficial for such a complex issue. I think you have described in a much more to the point way the problem I was aiming at. I must thank you for your elaborate answer. Very respectful and helping.
Michel
-
Alain,
I am mostly an admirer of art, with a growing interest in the techniques of photography.
(. . .) I am quite certain that you would stress that thechnique complements and does not replace inspiration. I would anyday choose an imperfect but inspired work of art over a perfect large size postcard.
Am I wrong in thinking that emotion and beauty can also be conveyed by artists who do not own the best equipment and that they should be encouraged in doing so?
Michel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57901\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, if I have to pick one out of technique and inspiration, I personally will pick inspiration, based on my belief that there's nothing worse than a technically perfect uninspired photograph. But, this being said, the basis of my first essay in my Reflections on Photography and Art, as well as of the introduction to this series, is that art is a combination of art and science, and that A-it is easy to sway towards one or the other, and B-a masterpiece is truly a combination of both. I recommend reading both the introduction and the first essay unless you already have. This series is organized in a logical fashion, progressing from foundational concepts towards the application of these concepts. I am doing it this way so we avoid going over the same things over and over again and, instead, progress towards a better awareness of issues rarely addressed in the context of landscape photography.
Equipment is only one of many variables. In photography, the quality of the equipment is often stressed more than the quality of the inspiration. That's unfortunate, and in my estimate evidence that more photographers favor science than art. However, this being said, you need good equipment. As the French saying goes " The fine craftman uses fine tools." You wouldn't expect building a fine piece of furniture using dull chisels, a chair as a workbench and rusty saws. Same with photography. It does not mean you have to buy the most expensive equipment available, but it does mean that good equipment -or rather equipment appropriate to achieve your artistic goals- is necessary. This is not elitist, this is not aimed at preventing anyone from being a professional photographer, this is just a fact. Good equipment is expensive, and this expense shows your level of commitment to your art. As is often the case, it is a matter of priorities.
Alain
-
I'm going to be a bit contrairian here.
I read your article with some interest. I'm not a professional photographer, just an amateur, and an admirer of fine photography.
As of late I find I have a problem with the number of people that now have the ability to print large and do so in a way that is all too frequently unnecessary. Just because you can go large doesn't mean you should. For whatever reason, your the article came across to me as a rather long treatise on why one should go large. I know that the article was ostensibly about printing the right size for the image (which should also mean not printing large). But it came across more as an explanation why the author chooses to go large.
My problems with going large are the following:
- The art is frequently target at the wealthy or businesses only, because large is often used as a reason for charging prices that are unattainable by average people.
- How many photographs greater than 16x20 can a household physically support? Yes a buisness lobby, a gallery or a museum can support many. But once again, are those the only clients you're interested in?
I guess what I'm saying is that I find the ever increasing sizes and costs of artwork as giving off a feeling that the artist is above the normal guy who might be an art consumer, that those of us who can't afford a $x000 photograph are beneath them ane are of no concern. I know that nothing like this was said in the article, but yet that is the feeling I get from so many current photographers.
I would like to point out that I've never even seen an Ansel Adams print in real life. And that the largest reproduction of his that I've seen is only about 16x20. Yet those limitations on my ability to review and appreciate his artistry did not stop me from being bowled over by his work. Of all my favorites I've probably studied him the most (he wrote the most), and yet no modern artists work I've seen (whether large or small) has reached the same level. My other favorites (very standard I know) like, E. Weston, Cartier-Bresson and Dorothea Lange, have been on displays that I've seen in real life. Again, nothing larger than 16x20 and yet mostly uneclipsed by modern photographers.
The world is a varied place, and certainly there is room and need for extremely large photographic prints. Yet my world, and that of most everyone else is limited by the realities of family life and budgets. There was an editorial recently by Brooks Jensen in his magazine LensWork which conveys some of my thoughts in a more well written sort of way.
Derek
-
I would like to point out that I've never even seen an Ansel Adams print in real life. And that the largest reproduction of his that I've seen is only about 16x20. Yet those limitations on my ability to review and appreciate his artistry did not stop me from being bowled over by his work. Of all my favorites I've probably studied him the most (he wrote the most), and yet no modern artists work I've seen (whether large or small) has reached the same level. My other favorites (very standard I know) like, E. Weston, Cartier-Bresson and Dorothea Lange, have been on displays that I've seen in real life. Again, nothing larger than 16x20 and yet mostly uneclipsed by modern photographers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Derek,
I got to see the recent big Ansel Adams exhibit at Boston's Museum of Fine Arts twice, and I sympathize with your point of view. Interestingly, the exhibit dis show a few of Adams' photos that were larger than 16x20 (primiarily a couple of mural-sized ones on room-divider screens), but most were 8x10" plus a few 11x14" or so. To my eye, the large prints were generally much weaker than the small ones -- even though most of Adams' subjects seem to call for a "grand" presentation.
I also own four Adams prints, two Westons, and one Lange (unfortunately, no Cartier-Bressons). These are all 8x10s mounted to about 14x18", and I have never wanted them any larger.
My own photography is generally aimed at a "home" market. Since I've gone digital, I print on an Epson 2200, which can go up to 13x19", but for exhibits and for sale I seldome print bigger than 10x15".
That being said, I do agree with Alain's main point: one should consider the eventual size of a print before taking the picture. But my range is more compressed than his.
Eric
-
My 2 cents on the painting viewing distance sub-discussion.
Unfortunately I can't remember the artist (Alain probably knows) - but I think early Renaissance - anyway he was the first practitioner of "sharpening" as we know it - ie increasing accutance to give his images a more 3d look. He would outline the boundaries he wanted to accentuate with a thin white line (the pre-cursor of today's halos I can't imagine he envisaged anyone comming up close enough to notice this.
I think when we approach a painting closely it's to gain an understanding of technique - brush stokes etc - not to judge the esthetic quality of the work. Same with a picture - when we poke our nose against it we are looking to see how deep the detail goes, not to judge the compositional quality of the image.
I remember seeing Van Gogh's Bedroom at Arles when I was a teenager (Van Gogh was one of my favourites) - I got as close as I could and was amazed at the dimensionality of the way the paint was laid down and the resulting 3d texture. Same experience a few years ago with a Seurat at the Barnes exhibition.
Bottom line, I think paintings or photographic prints ARE (or at least should be) intended/designed to be viewed at a certain distance, although there are good reasons for getting closer.
-
I think when we approach a painting closely it's to gain an understanding of technique - brush stokes etc - not to judge the esthetic quality of the work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57971\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I totally agree. We are studying the "facture" of the painting (French term describing the "touch" of the artist") more than we are enjoying the work as art. If we go back to art & science, we are studying the science behind the work, as it comes through the technique and facture (I reallly like the word facture for which I find no equivalent in English. I'll expand on it in a future essay).
Regarding large prints being expensive or taking lots of space (Derek's comments), it's all true. But, proportionally speaking, my smaller prints are not that affordable either. They are not aimed at being cheap anyway, they are aimed at being as good as I can make them, and that takes huge amounts of time, equipment and supplies, all of which are expensive. It's quality vs quantity, and I make quality. I used to make quantity (see my Artist in Business article) but changed when I realized quality decreased below acceptable levels in my view.
Regarding the work being elitist, I don't think so, at least that is not my intention. Because something is expensive doesn't mean it's elitist.
Alain
-
Same with a picture - when we poke our nose against it we are looking to see how deep the detail goes, not to judge the compositional quality of the image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57971\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree. But the question still arises, 'How significant is that fine detail to the composition at the size it (the print) is displayed? If there's detail that looks as though it might be significant but we can't quite make it out because of blurriness or distortion due to an inadequate number of camera pixels, then the print has been enlarged too much, perhaps. It's something I'm not too clear about in my own mind because making really large prints is expensive and troublesome and I haven't done it yet.
Just as an experiment, I searched on my database for a recent shot of the Duomo in Siena (a cathedral with a very ornate and detailed facade). The shot was taken with my Sigma 15-30 at 15mm on a 20D. After cropping, the file size was less than 17MB, so this can be considered an image from a 6MP camera.
I wondered what the detail would look like if I were to blow up this image really large, say 7 1/2ft x 10ft. I used Genuine Fractals and the file size became about 1.6GB at 240ppi.
Here are the results.
[attachment=235:attachment] [attachment=236:attachment] [attachment=237:attachment]
The problem I have with this degree of enlargement is, it's difficult to see exactly what the guy reading the book is doing. Is he holding the book with a piece of cloth because it's a sacred document, or is that just a shadow?
The bicubic interpolation provides no more detail and is actually slightly blurrier. GF at least produces clean edges although it tends to distort shapes, giving them a sort of angular appearance. No halos though .
-
What I gather from the discussion:
There is probably always an optimal size that will better give justice to the subject and to render the artist's vision and intent;
it is an artistic decision, but which can be limited for technical reasons;
any artist should strive at his best to attain perfection in both the technical and artistic aspects of his work (which encompasses using the best possible equipment);
but the fact that the size was not optimal does not mean that some justice cannot be given to the subject and that the artist's vision and intent cannot be shared, although to a lesser extent;
even if the technical habilities of the artist or the equipment he owns have limitations, that does not mean that he should deprive us of the emotions and pleasure we could get from seeing a part of his vision.
Michel
-
Nick Rains wrote:
A piece of art should bear examination at a close distance. If a photograph does not bear satisfactory examination at a close distance then it is too big.
I personally don't think a serious photographic print should ever be bigger than it's inherent resolution and subject matter will allow.
Alain Briot wrote:
they are aimed at being as good as I can make them
Ray wrote:
If I can get a little disturbed by crude daubs of paint when viewing an impressionistic painting from closer than is was designed to be viewed, then I see nothing wrong with, at most an experience of slight disappointment, viewing a large photo from close up to discover that the fine texture of the concrete wall
Ray: There seems to be quite a divergence of opinions on this subject from those who have posted here. The carton of beer I bought yesterday proclaims to all and sundry: "To create a masterpiece no compromise may be tolerated". Nick, Alain, and Jim Collum seem to be examples of people who lean in the direction of valuing craftsmanship for its own sake, of feeling pride of worksmanship. From this perspective "good enough" simply isn't good enough. If a picture can be viewed from the distance of a single foot and doesn't radiate sheer perfection at that distance, then the picture isn't one that such a person would want to sign his or her name to (and it would be a poorer world without people like that in it).
The matter gets a little complicated at this point because there is a vast spectrum of differences in people's eyesight. [Meandering anecdote excised.]
*
On a different topic Michel wrote:
even if the technical habilities of the artist or the equipment he owns have limitations, that does not mean that he should deprive us of the emotions and pleasure we could get from seeing a part of his vision.
Michel: sometimes it is just the fact that there really are a few people like you in the world that keeps me going. Among all the people I know there is exactly one who derives unqualified emotion and pleasure from looking at pictures. When I finish a picture and get all excited looking at the print that has just popped out of the printer, it is her that I look forward to showing it to.
Most people look through the picture to the subject - "Isn't that a 1967 456 cc Honda 4-stroke outboard on that sailboat?" - or in the case of artists and photographers they look at a picture through the filter of their own style. - "Pictorialism, eh? How quaint. I thought Pictorialism went out of style a hundred years ago."
-
even if the technical habilities of the artist or the equipment he owns have limitations, that does not mean that he should deprive us of the emotions and pleasure we could get from seeing a part of his vision.
Well, I think what is important is what is the vision. If the vision is poster sized prints that are sharp all the way across and must show fine detail throughout, then it might be neccesary to acquire equipment that has a lot of resolution. There may also be some other way of pursuig that vision.
I do not think that commitment is directly proportional to the amount of money that is spent. In my opinion, someone that is truly driven to create something, and is creative, will do so with whatever they have. It would be nice to have a lot of expensive gear, but I don't think I am any less capable of creating something beautiful because I do not have it. Feeling otherwise would most likely be a reflection of my personal limitations than anything else.
-
I wanted to mention one aspect of resolution and painting and how it differs from a photo.
In a painting there are many levels of resolutiom because we focus on the texture of the paint at a close-up POV and it is sharp to the eye. The painter knows this and uses it as a technique. Monet used this to his advantage in creating a mood in the intimate closeup of the study one does of, say his signature or the brush strokes.
At a mid distance, there is another relationship to the work and at a distance, another.
The fine detail or crudeness of the brushstroke is not a comparison of quaility but a tool used for purpose as is the canvas or paper.
We as photographers are limited(for good or bad) by the mediun we work with. The mind seems to want to "make" a photograph sharp in the focus of our mind. When it is not, or the pixels blur , we have a problem accepting this as a purpose of the artist.
These are just my observations, not a comment on any POV or posts. Thanks Wyndham
-
We as photographers are limited(for good or bad) by the mediun we work with. The mind seems to want to "make" a photograph sharp in the focus of our mind. When it is not, or the pixels blur , we have a problem accepting this as a purpose of the artist.
These are just my observations, not a comment on any POV or posts. Thanks Wyndham
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58011\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To enlarge a bit on what you said (which I mostly agree with):
Photography and painting are different arts. In painting, everything is constructed, even the most "realistic" painting; even the most realistic painting is adjusted for impact, color, form, size, and sometimes, because of what the competition is doing. If you look at Renoir's Luncheon of the Boating Party, you can be quite sure that that precise image never existed. If you'd been there with a camera, you could never have taken that image. It was created from a wide variety of pieces, and put together in Renoir's head -- and he and Monet were probably two of the greatest on-scene artists who ever lived.
With photography, as Roland Barthes says, "the referent adheres." You can't get rid of the original, machine-taken image. If you get rid of it entirely, then what was the point of taking the photograph in the first place? You can manipulate it, cut it up, re-color it, adjust it, and the referent adheres. Ultimately, at the most basic level of a photograph, there is a machine/chemical event which can't be eliminated.
There's nothing wrong with that; it's simply a different art form, and perhaps the most powerful art form that's ever been invented, because it claims to have something about it that is "true."
Paintings are usually objects of their own: they are looked at, rather than through. Photographs always have a window quality about them; they are not only looked at, they are always looked through, to some extent, to the original image beyond.
JC
-
A few things I have noticed about "art:"
- The limit of an artform or media is in the mind of the creator and audience.
- There is at least one example contradicting any statement of what "Art" is.
- Art is not practical.
And last but not least, the eternal paradox:
- All generalizations are false.
We also have a philosophical problem of "if I can think it, the idea must be valid." Philosophy itself has rid itself of this idea in the 19th century. Except for exploration of logic and language, there is not much left for philosophy to do.
Science on the other hand is a harder master. Science requires a hypothosis to be tested. In other words, there must be a way to prove a claim false. If the method cannot prove the claim false, then we can form a theory. Theories stand until they are contradicted. Science has not been able to prove any absolute existence to "art" except it is subjective.
While it is nice to share ideas and to inspire each other, we should not confuse "opinion" with "truth." Just because an "artist" makes a claim, does not make that claim "true." The only subject that we can discuss with any certainly is imaging science, but even that is usually tainted with personal/subjective interpretations.
Anyway, this has been an interesting thread. One thing I found with the article that was strange was changing print size on an enlarger is hard. I have never found that. Actually, it is quite simple. Even to compensate for exposure.
-
sometimes it is just the fact that there really are a few people like you in the world that keeps me going.
May I add that sometimes the fact that there really are a few artists (seeking meaning and working hard to convey it) that keep us, art admirers, going.
Michel
-
Science on the other hand is a harder master. Science requires a hypothosis to be tested. In other words, there must be a way to prove a claim false. If the method cannot prove the claim false, then we can form a theory. Theories stand until they are contradicted. Science has not been able to prove any absolute existence to "art" except it is subjective.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58021\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Also, in mathematics, the opposite is the case - mathematicians do not seek to disprove a hypothesis, they must demonstrate a rigorous proof for a theory to be considered 'true'.
Neither science nor maths will ever prove the existence of art - as the man said, I may not know what it is, but I know it when I see it :-)
-
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That is called "metaphysics." A rather slippery slope.
I am not denying art, but pointing out that subjective statements are not science. There are some very firm statements made in this thread that have been presented with some authority. But that don't make 'em true. (and I am aware of the paradox of my statements.)
You may find math very close to art critism. Math is a game. It makes the rules and proves itself true by those rules. It does not need to describe any "reality." Art critism is the same for the most part. (Science on the other hand, must deal with the reality of the universe.)
Is art just a catagory of thought? Does it change with the whim of the artist, critic, or audience? Then its "reality" is simply subjective. No absolute statement can be made about it as you point out with the "I know it when I see it" statement.
Now, I don't mean you should give up on art. Or that it is unimportant - it is extremely important. But statements about it are like math, they are word constuctions to support subjective rules or limits and have no requirement to support a "reality," but simply support the "logic" of the "argument."
-
Gee, and here I thought the original article was about considering ultimate print size during the capture stage!
Anyway, just wanted to add in my .02 and offer my compliments on this thought-provoking article!
When I first saw the title, my first thought was why make this complicated? Just capture assuming you are going to print big, and then you can always print it small and it will still look great. And in fact, this is how I've been shooting all along...
But in reading further, I feel a credible case was made for having final print size in mind during the capture phase and set me to reflect on some of my own images. I have a multitude of expansive landscape images, shot with normal to wider view lenses, that when printed large look great. Yet when printed so they fit the pages an 8-1/2 x 11 portfolio, many look like simple postcards, lacking the ability to evoke the emotions the larger print does. By contrast, most of my isolations -- simpler views taken with longer lenses -- display very well at the letter size, though when these are printed large, much of the time they simply look like larger versions of the smaller image with no added impact...
This realization on ultimate image size now brings up some questions on matting:
Alain, could you please share any insights you may have on how matte size and/or frame orientation come into play with regard the overall display of an image?
Thanks,
-
Alain, could you please share any insights you may have on how matte size and/or frame orientation come into play with regard the overall display of an image?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58070\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is a good suggestion, and rather than write a short forum post I will try to expand my answer to a complete essay, a reflection, on the subject of matting & framing in relation to the content of the photograph and its intended effect. This will be a welcome change of mind and a logical continuation to this essay.
Regards,
Alain
-
That will be great -- I'll look forward to reading it!
PS: I would also be interested in hearing your thoughts on framing a horizontal image in a vertical matte and frame -- it seems to be gaining popularity in many fine-art photographic presentations...
-
PS: I would also be interested in hearing your thoughts on framing a horizontal image in a vertical matte and frame -- it seems to be gaining popularity in many fine-art photographic presentations...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would be interested, too. I have in fact done that very thing a very few times, but only when something about the direction lines in the image made it "feel" better on a vertical mat. (But I've never found a vertical image that felt right on a horizontal mat.)
My own generalization is that such decisions should be conscious, with some good reasons for them, rather than simply because somebody else has done it. And the same thing applies to the decision about size. I find Alain's arguments quite convincing that one should at least consider the size of the final image while shooting.
Eric
-
But in reading further, I feel a credible case was made for having final print size in mind during the capture phase and set me to reflect on some of my own images.
This realization on ultimate image size now brings up some questions on matting:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58070\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jack,
Not only on matting, but on DoF considerations and even whether or not one should bother taking a particular shot at all. If one is going to take the attitude that digital images should not be interpolated beyond their native resolution, or at most interpolated only slightly, then we are left with the prospect that a camera such as the 5D is only good for 12x18" images or, at most, 16x24".
One could then find oneself gazing upon a scene and realising that one's 12MP camera is not adequate. Nothing less than a P45 or 4x5 film format, and perhaps even 11x14 film format will do. So one doesn't waste one's time taking the shot.
I tend to think this is a slightly absurd position to take. Have we really become victims of a false dichotomy between art and photography?
During the Renaissance, many painters used lenses and mirrors to project real life forms onto their canvas. As a result they were able to get the perspective, proportions and light and shadow falling on what they painted, exactly right. I guess they didn't advertise their technique much at the time. They no doubt tried to keep it a trade secret. But the fact is, much of the allure of such Renaissance paintings lies in their 'true to life' properties; the extraordinary attention to detail and the amazing accuracy with which the painters seem to have wielded their brush.
After the camera was invented (of course lenses came first) painters naturally became dismayed at the great precision of the camera, which they couldn't hope to compete with. I guess most of us have heard of Picasso's comment (apocryphal or not) regarding this, "I've discovered the camera. There's nothing left for me to do. I might as well commit suicide."
Whilst I'm no expert on the history of art, it seems irrefuatable that the emergence of the camera has had a profound effect on styles of painting. In a sense, painters have been freed from the tedious and painstaking chore of providing accurate fine detail in their paintings. But we photographers are still in straitjackets. We feel compelled to abide by the rules of public perception that the camera's true role is to provide accurate detail and that whatever else it provides (by way of artisitc inspiration, for example) should not be at the expense of any sacrifice in detail.
To return to my example of the Duomo at Siena, if I were to blow up this 6MP image to really huge proportions, say 20ftx26ft (too big for one's living room, but maybe right for a convention centre or airport) and, if Dale Cotton were to walk towards the right side of the print, take off his glasses and study from close up one of the 2 ladies sitting on the steps, he would see the following.
[attachment=239:attachment]
Now I ask you, is this worse than the confusing mess of brush strokes one might see on an impressionistic painting from close up. As a painter, one might find such close examination informative. As a non-painter one might be amazed at how the painter is able to create an impression that's appealing and meaningful from a distance of say 20ft, but almost incomprehensible from the distance that the painter would appear to have painted it.
On the other hand, as a photographer looking at the above image, one might also be impressed with the nature of the interpolation algorithm that is able to turn such photographic detail into something reminiscent of Picasso's cubism or at least an impressionistic painting.
And as for the client, he/she gets a huge photograph that looks sharp form an appropriate distance, and lots of little impressionist paintings from close up, thrown in for free .
-
Ray wrote:
if I were to blow up this 6MP image to really huge proportions, say 20ftx26ft
I read recently that the standard resolution of commercial billboards is 15 PPI.
if Dale Cotton were to walk towards the right side of the print, take off his glasses and study from close up one of the 2 ladies sitting on the steps, he would see the following.
... And he would be neither appalled or offended, because his eyes have long since become inured to such graphic crudity by the blotchy stick-figures (http://www.globalgallery.com/enlarge/034-55934/) in the landscapes of Cezanne and Van Gogh. ;)
Ray: I suspect you did not misread my last post as advocating, as opposed to defending, the micro-detail approach, but others may have done so. That would be ironic, since my own stuff has gradually mutated to be anything but detail-centric. That said, my own position for my own prints - and I enlist no one else to march in lock step to the beat of an eccentric drum - is that the close-in experience should be as satisfying as the middle distance and far distance experiences are (with thanks to Mr Wyndham Potter for his tri-partite insight).
I guess most of us have heard of Picasso's comment (apocryphal or not) ...
Another Picasso quote, even more diametric to the spirit of the camera: "To copy nature is to draw toenails".
-
You may find math very close to art critism. Math is a game. It makes the rules and proves itself true by those rules. It does not need to describe any "reality." Art critism is the same for the most part. (Science on the other hand, must deal with the reality of the universe.)
Is art just a catagory of thought? Does it change with the whim of the artist, critic, or audience? Then its "reality" is simply subjective. No absolute statement can be made about it as you point out with the "I know it when I see it" statement.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58034\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know this is slightly off topic but I can't resist a comment because it's such an interesting subject, ie. that maths is very close to art criticism because it makes the rules and proves itself true by those rules.
I can think of at least a couple of examples from general reading in science where maths 'appears' to have uncovered a reality that has later been substantiated by experimentation and other evidence.
Einstein, as we all know, was not a great mathematician. He got help from other mathematicians to consolidate (if that's the right word?) his theory of relativity. One of the problems he had was that the maths he used indicated quite clearly that the universe is expanding. Einstein believed at the time that this was just a mathematical quirk or aberration. He had no reason as a physicist to believe the universe was expanding. So he introduced a constant into his equations to cancel the effect of an expanding universe.
A few years later, Edwin Hubble showed that galaxies are moving away from us at a speed proportional to their distance. Einstein realised his error and considered it one of his major mistakes. However, Einstein's maths also indicated that there would exist 'singularities' in the universe, commonly known as Black Holes. Until his death he continued to believe that Black Holes were a myth; a mathematical aberration. I believe there's now a consensus of opinion amongst physicists and astronomers that black holes really do exist.
The second example is just as fascinating. The British physicist, Paul Dirac, unlike Einstein, was both a brilliant mathematician as well as brilliant physicist. Whilst trying to reconcile Einsteins theory of special relativity with quantum theory, Dirac also came across a disturbing problem of a similar nature to Einstein's. The maths that 'worked' also indicated that anti-matter should exist. In fact, his equations required that ant-matter exist.
It seems that Paul Dirac was rather embarrassed at this finding because there was no empirical evidence to suppport the existence of anti-matter, so he kept it as a secret for a while, afraid his reputation might be damaged. However, friends pointed out that if he didn't publish, someone else might beat him to it and get all the credit. He took the risk and just a few years later the first example of anti-matter, the positron, was discovered in experiments.
As I understand, there are now groups of physicists who are trying to determine what the subtle differences might be between matter and anit-matter. Since both destroy each other on contact, why has matter prevailed? Why indeed should we, or anything, including art, exist?
Sorry for that digression .
-
I read recently that the standard resolution of commercial billboards is 15 PPI.
Dale,
That seems about right. It's quite surprising how sharp and clear some of these billboards appear from a distance, yet from close up you can see the individual dots with spaces in between. This is definitely not a satisfying experience. The uniformity of the dots tends to emphasise the mechanistic nature of the print production process. My theoretical example of a very large billboard of the Duomo in Siena is at 240ppi. I much prefer the smooth tones and sharp edges seen from very close up, even though there are a few distorted shapes suggestive of a painterly effect. A blurry effect, or over-sharpened effect would be less satisfying. I think GF really distinguishes itself when interpolating relatively small files into relatively huge files. For normal size prints, the difference between GF and bicubic, or many other interpolation algorithms, seems insignificantly small to me.
my own position for my own prints - and I enlist no one else to march in lock step to the beat of an eccentric drum - is that the close-in experience should be as satisfying as the middle distance and far distance experiences are (with thanks to Mr Wyndham Potter for his tri-partite insight).
If that's your position, then I take it you are either in favour of fairly large prints or live in a very small room .
I would say that most prints smaller than 24"x36" cannot be fully appreciated from a 'far' distance, ie. the other side of an average living room.
-
It's quite surprising how sharp and clear some of these billboards appear from a distance, yet from close up you can see the individual dots with spaces in between. This is definitely not a satisfying experience.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=58125\")
But it can be -- see the photo-realistic paintings by Chuck Close on this website:
[a href=\"http://www.chuckclose.coe.uh.edu/life/gallery.html]http://www.chuckclose.coe.uh.edu/life/gallery.html[/url]
The interesting thing about Close is that he works from photos, and he takes each "pixel" or "grain" and makes something of it. When you stand back, you see the overall image; when you stand six inches away, you see dozens of pretty interesting individual abstract paintings -- the "pixels."
The idea that Impressionistic paintings are not satisfying when viewed close-up seems odd to me; I find them very satisfying to view that way. I've been warned by museum guards that I'm standing too close, sometimes. I will admit that I find many so-called "impressionistic"-style photos less satisfying, because there's a difference between "impressionistic" and "out of focus," and too often, photographers excuse out-of-focus paintings as being impressionistic. They're not. They're out of focus. When I think of *real* impressionistic photos, I think of something like Robert Capa's very grainy, but sharp, photos of the Normandy landings; photos that might look quite good blown up to billboard-size, and that also could be profitably viewed on a postcard sized print. In that case, the black-and-white nature of the photos, the clumped grain, the skewed horizons, the motion-blurred bodies, all add to the feeling of urgency, grimness, death and war. In other words, the technique ADDS to the impact of the photos; it's not at all annoying. It makes them feel more real.
Impressionism, especially in painting, doesn't mean "soft." The Impressionists were not trying to paint objects per se, they were trying to paint light.
JC
-
The Impressionists were not trying to paint objects per se, they were trying to paint light.
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58132\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That was the goal for some of them, Monet for example, as demonstrated in his quote featured in my latest essay. For others, the subject was people, or a specific activity (dance for example) and so on.
The goal of impressionist painters was, and still is, to create an impression. The goal is to create the feeling that one is not only, or so much, looking at a scene depicted in a painting, but also becomes a participant in this scene. This goal is achieved in various ways, from pointillism, to broad strokes of color, to brustrokes structured like pencil marks, etc. The technique is most effective when it becomes either transparent or a quality of the work, while creating the intended effect. The fact that paint lends itelf to various "factures" (best translated as "the artist's touch" although there's more to it than that), makes this endeavor possible. In a way, the Impressionists opened new possibilities for painting, possibilities that continue to be explored today. Maybe we can open the door to new possibilities for photography by following their example.
Alain
-
This discussion has certainly done quite a bit of wandering .
What I got out of Alain's essay was in part a confirmation of something I feel I was starting to understand intuitively (that many images really require a print of a particular size in order to express what I mean to say) and more data to add to something I've been thinking about for a while: how the size of the print inflences the way the viewer "reads" the image.
On recent projects (and partially informed by Alain's article) I've been giving a lot more thought to intended print size during previsualization. And I've been surprised by how often my initial conception is WRONG. It's become very clear to me that this is an area that I've simply not given enough thought (or practice) until now. Nobody ever said it would be easy...
I'd love to see more articles in this vein, as well as a discussion of the importance of paper choice.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Bell
-
Regarding horizontal images in vertical mats and frames
I would be interested, too. I have in fact done that very thing a very few times, but only when something about the direction lines in the image made it "feel" better on a vertical mat. (But I've never found a vertical image that felt right on a horizontal mat.)
It would also be interesting to discuss other, non-standard mats and frames.
I've been toying with the idea of composing pictures for 45-degree mounting, and various geometric shapes.
Here's an example, albeit a bad one:
[attachment=240:attachment]
Please ignore the poor quality of the PS job, I'm only trying to illustrate a possibly desired effect here.
While we're well acquainted with heart-shaped wedding mats, oval portrait mats etc., it might sometimes be interesting to work with something completely different. Or not?
-
I have been following this thread, albeit with its' wanderings, with keen interest and have now started to be more conscious about the size of my final image when I take my photograph. Ben Lifson has a very interesting series of articles on RAWWORKFLOW.COM - in particular mentioning in one article his thoughts on viewing distance and his comparisons with viewing a tapestry. http://www.rawworkflow.com/making_pictures/07/index.html (http://www.rawworkflow.com/making_pictures/07/index.html) .
The whole article (and series) is worth reading, but the specific reference to viewing distance is about 2/3 in to the article and commences under the heading:The Lesson from Tapestry: Appendix to June, and Looking Ahead to July. Mr Lifson begins the section -
"Like many ambitious photographers the world over, these students were making large prints—anywhere from 2 x 3 to 4 x 6 feet or larger.
In most cases the subject matter was well seen and strongly felt and the pictures were interesting.
However, most of these large works held the eye only when seen from a specific viewing distance somewhere between four and five feet.
Seen from closer up the imagery dissolved into chaos. When one stepped farther back the eye somehow couldn’t grasp the image. The scenes in the pictures—a series of landscapes, say, or portraits—seemed, to put it bluntly, to leak out the edges, to evaporate into thin air. This gave one a disturbing sensation that the pictures simply weren’t there. "
After some further examination of various examples, Mr Lifson concludes ;
"And so, as the evidence of tapestries reveals, even pictures with a uniform surface depend on the specificity and singularity of form down to the smallest details--as if the classic photographs reproduced above were not evidence enough. And the new pictures by Socolow and Glaser show that digital printing has opened up a new world of control over these very details."
This article has also made me give more consideration to the composition of my images, with reference to what happens with those minute details as they become larger or smaller, and how resolution and size affects these minute details. It is a rather cirquitous route however, being conscious of these technical aspects of line, form, composition, resolution, size - yet allowing them to become unconscious enough so I can allow an intuitive connection to drive the pressing of the shutter. For me, the effectiveness of this symbiosis can only be ascertained if an image in print affects me.
Julie
-
I know this is slightly off topic but I can't resist a comment because it's such an interesting subject, ie. that maths is very close to art criticism because it makes the rules and proves itself true by those rules.
I can think of at least a couple of examples from general reading in science where maths 'appears' to have uncovered a reality that has later been substantiated by experimentation and other evidence.
Einstein, as we all know, was not a great mathematician. He got help from other mathematicians to consolidate (if that's the right word?) his theory of relativity. One of the problems he had was that the maths he used indicated quite clearly that the universe is expanding. Einstein believed at the time that this was just a mathematical quirk or aberration. He had no reason as a physicist to believe the universe was expanding. So he introduced a constant into his equations to cancel the effect of an expanding universe.
A few years later, Edwin Hubble showed that galaxies are moving away from us at a speed proportional to their distance. Einstein realised his error and considered it one of his major mistakes. However, Einstein's maths also indicated that there would exist 'singularities' in the universe, commonly known as Black Holes. Until his death he continued to believe that Black Holes were a myth; a mathematical aberration. I believe there's now a consensus of opinion amongst physicists and astronomers that black holes really do exist.
The second example is just as fascinating. The British physicist, Paul Dirac, unlike Einstein, was both a brilliant mathematician as well as brilliant physicist. Whilst trying to reconcile Einsteins theory of special relativity with quantum theory, Dirac also came across a disturbing problem of a similar nature to Einstein's. The maths that 'worked' also indicated that anti-matter should exist. In fact, his equations required that ant-matter exist.
It seems that Paul Dirac was rather embarrassed at this finding because there was no empirical evidence to suppport the existence of anti-matter, so he kept it as a secret for a while, afraid his reputation might be damaged. However, friends pointed out that if he didn't publish, someone else might beat him to it and get all the credit. He took the risk and just a few years later the first example of anti-matter, the positron, was discovered in experiments.
As I understand, there are now groups of physicists who are trying to determine what the subtle differences might be between matter and anit-matter. Since both destroy each other on contact, why has matter prevailed? Why indeed should we, or anything, including art, exist?
Sorry for that digression .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58119\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was taking Nick's comment about math as pure math.
But certainly math has been a backbone of science. And I agree this is a fascinating subject. Right now in cosmology there are two problems related to this.
One is connected to String Theory (although it is only a hypothosis) which is that the math has pushed our knowledge to such a limit that it may be impossible to actually test if it is true on not. Which means String Theory may never be anything more than a mathematical metaphysics.
The second is a philosophical problem - is the universe actually mathematical in nature? We can predict phenomena with math, but does it actually describe or reveal the process. This becomes more of a problem when you start dealing with very small scale in quantum mechanics as it very much based on statistics.
I like your last comment. Who was it who said the question was not why anything in the universe existed, but why anything exsisted at all. It is not why there is something, but why there is not nothing.
But interesting stuff. It is amazing what thoughts an essay on print size can generate.
-
This article has also made me give more consideration to the composition of my images, with reference to what happens with those minute details as they become larger or smaller, and how resolution and size affects these minute details.
I'll have to go back and read this again to see if I understand it correctly. My interpretation was not detail in the sense that I can count all of the hairs on the subject's head, but detail in the sense that all of the elements in the photo must work together to create a whole that will hold your attention in the frame.
-
I'll have to go back and read this again to see if I understand it correctly. My interpretation was not detail in the sense that I can count all of the hairs on the subject's head, but detail in the sense that all of the elements in the photo must work together to create a whole that will hold your attention in the frame.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Scott, I think we are sort of saying the same thing.
Lifson says...
"With Photoshop, Glaser enhanced and strengthened details whose handling is extremely difficult in a wet darkroom. In the picture on the left these details included the lines on the pumpkin and between the mother’s finger, the out of focus shapes in the wall and ceiling, right, and strands of both the boy’s and the mother’s hair. In the picture on the right he gave optimum visibility to lines in the drapery, the shapes of shadows and furniture and the shapes of, and the patterns within the bands in the rug.
Dealing thus specifically with lines, down to the smallest and thinnest ones, Socolow and Glaser strengthened the play between the representation of deep space and patterns and forms on the picture’s front most plane."
I interpereted the article to mean that the smallest shapes and form contribute to the overall impact of an image, and that it was important for me to bear this in mind in deciding upon the size of my printed image. For the "strands of both the boy's and the mother's hair" to contribute effectively compositionally they need to be of a resolution where they do just that - whatever resolution or level of sharpening is required to do that.
In my post I said, " This article has also made me give more consideration to the composition of my images, with reference to what happens with those minute details as they become larger or smaller, and how resolution and size affects these minute details"... consideration...not necessarily advocating a specific sharpness or clarity of minute detail, just a greater awareness of the shape and form of the smallest elements in an image and how resolution, sharpening and size effect these small elements, and how then they affect the whole.
Julie
-
A piece of art should bear examination at a close distance. If a photograph does not bear satisfactory examination at a close distance then it is too big.
I would appreciate you expanding a bit on this idea.
It is probably my aged mind (having exceeded the age of 40), but I have never been comfortable with sweeping statements about art. What exactly do you mean by "bear examination"?
When I view a very large painting from a distance I see the entirety of what the artist wanted me to see. As I move closer some details may become clearer while others become less so. Up close all I can see is technique, because when it is large, generally the artist wanted it viewed from a distance - they had that in mind during the creative process.
If you go to the Great Zimbabwe ruins there is art that is wonnderful viewed form a distance but is simply well constructed stone (good technique) up close. A large print of an image up close may reveal something about the pixels, for example, but why must it bear close examination?
To my simple mind what it must bear is the scrutiny of the viewer from a distance desired by the artist, in order to see that little piece of the world as the artist wanted me to see it.
-
Scott, I think we are sort of saying the same thing.
Yeah, I think you're right. I probably should have just read your post more carefully.
-
Regarding horizontal images in vertical mats and frames
It would also be interesting to discuss other, non-standard mats and frames.
I've been toying with the idea of composing pictures for 45-degree mounting, and various geometric shapes.
Here's an example, albeit a bad one:
[attachment=240:attachment]
Please ignore the poor quality of the PS job, I'm only trying to illustrate a possibly desired effect here.
While we're well acquainted with heart-shaped wedding mats, oval portrait mats etc., it might sometimes be interesting to work with something completely different. Or not?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58165\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's a difficult issue. I've also been toying with the idea of non-square formats, but not just for the sake of something different. I sometimes feel I have good practical reasons for doing this.
Consider the following series of 3 images. The first is the straight shot as converted from RAW. The lens was the Sigma 15-30 at 15mm on the 5D. That's really quite wide and it's not surprising that verticals are caving in towards the centre. Now sometimes this effect creates a degree of dynamism and energy, but in the case of this scene of a temple in Kathmandu, dynamism is perhaps not appropriate.
So I used 'free transform' in conjunction with 'distort' in an attempt to bring things back into perspective. One side seemed to need pulling out more than the other, so the image ended up being a bit asymmetrical. After cropping to the conventional rectangular format (the second image) I lost quite a bit of the original picture. Is there a solution to this?
The third image offers a solution, but I'm not sure if it works. What do you think?
I've presented the 3rd image in rectangular format with black filling the border space. The black area can be cropped to taste. I'm really asking if this wedge shaped trapezium serves any purpose.
(1) [attachment=245:attachment] (2) [attachment=246:attachment] (3) [attachment=247:attachment]
-
Thanks, Ray, that was a pretty good illustration of another problem that can be solved by untraditional formats.
Although I don't think it was entirely successful in your case -- maybe you should try something different than black -- such choices can possibly advance the art of presentation.
I'll try to dig up another example from my heap of images. There's one I've been struggling with since February last year!
(Well, not continuously, of course ...)
-
Ray, The black wedge shaped trapeziums don't seem to be even, is that how you intended them to be? The black at the top is different widths, which makes the whole image more unbalanced, in my eyes. The black makes me feel like I'm coming out of one of those tunnel entrances into an amphitheater. I don't think it quite works personally.
I think if one is to use anything other than a square or rectangular or oval matt, one must be prepared to accept that the viewer may percieve it as some sort of 'experimental' matting, and the novelty factor of the shape of the matt may actually detract from the image itself. I would love to see some other offerings to see how I respond to different borders and matt shapes.
Perhaps the rectangular/square format has stood the test of time because it actually works...perhaps we have all been constrained in tradition....hmmm
-
The black wedge shaped trapeziums don't seem to be even, is that how you intended them to be? The black at the top is different widths, which makes the whole image more unbalanced, in my eyes.
Jule,
The borders of the image are all different lengths because I pulled out one side at the top more than the other in an attempt to get verticals vertical. As a result, there's no way I can get equal sized black wedges whilst conforming to an 'over all' rectangular frame. The wedges are the same width at the bottom but different widths at the top. I admit I've complicated things a bit by doing this, so now I'm not sure if you don't like my image because,
(1) It's not symmetrical.
(2) I've chosen a black matte which might be too stark.
(3) I've chosen a wedge shaped matte to complement the wedge shaped image when in fact an equal width matte on all four sides might look better, or even no matte at all; just the shape of the image mounted on foam core, or perhaps even an oval shaped matte.
Or maybe you just don't like that image period.
There are lots of ways one can experiment with the basic concept of getting away from the 'square' paradigm. We seem to live in a very square world; square shelves, cupboards and computer tables in square rooms with square windows in square houses. We write letters and print photos on square pieces of paper, read square books and stare at square monitors and/or TV sets.
All these items are square for good practical reasons. Igloos and wigwams are not square, also for good practical reasons. Our cherished motor cars are also not square for good practical reasons relating to aerodynamics.
My trapezoidal image above (trapezium is not the right word; my mistake) is merely a suggestion of possibilities.
-
Jule,
The borders of the image are all different lengths because I pulled out one side at the top more than the other in an attempt to get verticals vertical. As a result, there's no way I can get equal sized black wedges whilst conforming to an 'over all' rectangular frame. The wedges are the same width at the bottom but different widths at the top.
Ahhhh..now I understand what you did.
I admit I've complicated things a bit by doing this, so now I'm not sure if you don't like my image because,
(1) It's not symmetrical.
(2) I've chosen a black matte which might be too stark.
Yes, perhaps both.
There are lots of ways one can experiment with the basic concept of getting away from the 'square' paradigm. We seem to live in a very square world; square shelves, cupboards and computer tables in square rooms with square windows in square houses. We write letters and print photos on square pieces of paper, read square books and stare at square monitors and/or TV sets.
All these items are square for good practical reasons. Igloos and wigwams are not square, also for good practical reasons. Our cherished motor cars are also not square for good practical reasons relating to aerodynamics.
My trapezoidal image above (trapezium is not the right word; my mistake) is merely a suggestion of possibilities.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=58569\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When I made my initial statement about squares and rectangles, funnily enough I thought about angular things and round things and tee-pees and igloos...I too wishing it was a little cooler here in Bris.
I'm going to have a look at some of my images and see if there are alternative ways of bordering/matting/framing them. Perhaps even getting away from the stright line thing altogether, although I personally can't see free form computer operated matt cutters taking the world by storm...but hey...who knows.! ...gives a whole new meaning to thinking outside of the box!