I suppose fine art photography is a bit like the fashion industry. From what I understand, which is little, the current style involves huge, digital files, absolutely perfect with billions pixels per image. Photography has morphed into a different creature while I have been looking the other way. One of the greatest strengths of photography is that there is/was a tie to reality. I suppose that no longer exists. We canít really believe anything in a print anymore. And, this is not sour grapes, Iím not complaining, just commenting. Itís the way creativity moves and changes, erratically, unpredictably, and itís exciting. But I am not really on that path. As a young photographer, perhaps, I had more of a sense of what was going on, but not anymore. Actually, I think there is a great danger of being so conscious of whatís going on that you follow the current and forget yourself.
My print size is always about 7 3/4 inches square, and prints are dry-mounted and matted on 16 x 20 inch vertical white museum board (4 ply backing, 2 ply matt). There is no variation in this presentation. I have been doing this for a long time. Iíve experimented with smaller prints and bigger prints, but Iíve decided this is the size that I prefer, the optimum size for me. My images are quite intimate. They are not there to impress or awe people. They donít describe details. There are there for intimate engagement. I want my viewers to be very close to the print. ó quoted from the linked interview with Michael Kenna.
Just goes to show that there are artists working in the medium of photography and then there are people who own and play with cameras. To quote Kipling [Barrack-room Ballads 1892]: "never the twain shall meet"