Actually, I disagree on that point. Bigger can be better. If it wasn't, there'd be no reason for me to use a wide-format Epson 7600; there'd be no reason for artists to paint on large canvasses; there'd be no reason for people to use large, widescreen computer monitors or buy large, widescreen TV sets.
When a print or presentation is large, whatever qualities it has, artistic or otherwise, can be more readily appreciated.
My stitched view of the Himalayan mountain range at dawn, at a print size of 2ftx6ft, is just magnificent. I think it would be even more magnificent if I'd been able to use a 5D MkII instead of the old 5D .
As the thread drifts off topic.
Print size is a very interesting thing.
I was at the Barbican Capa/This is war exhibition last week.
http://www.barbican.org.uk/artgallery/even...ail.asp?ID=8029There were some very large digital prints from the Iraq war there which were quite spectacular but would have been pointless if small. The "subject" in these images was actually quite small as a proportion of the overall frame, not terribly different in physical dimensions on the final print of the subject of many of the smaller prints, but the subject was surrounded by large areas of sand, sea and sky. Quite effective in a large print.
And technologically very interesting too. I was it really struck by the difference in the 1930s prints from Leica and Rollei 6x6 as compared to these huge 24x36?? modern inkjet prints. Blowing up those old negatives would not have worked to give the same effect at all.
