Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: drmike on June 18, 2016, 03:56:39 am
-
Is there any rule of thumb about printing objects larger than life size? I do recall hearing someone say it's a risky thing to do as it can look odd.
Clearly there are situations where larger than life size is the intent such as macro and where it is done for impact but I have a series of about 10 rather mundane shots of a mug containing what I hope is an interesting combination of items.
These shots are not macro and it is not my intention they should be dramatic but rather that if anyone cares to they have to peer into the print to appreciate it.
I can print each shot as large or small as I like. The diameter of the mug is about 100mm or 4" and by coincidence two square prints on A4 just happen to give about life size which of course I know but no-one else would.
Do you have any advice about perhaps printing it so the diameter is printed at 6" say? Or is it simply suck it and see?
Mike
-
Is there any rule of thumb about printing objects larger than life size? I do recall hearing someone say it's a risky thing to do as it can look odd.
Hi Mike,
I do not think there is such a rule, but in general it is interesting to see things with more detail than normal viewing distance would allow. That applies to both long tele-photo shots, where the subject is normally seen at a small size due to it's distance, as well as close-up and macro shots where we normally cannot get close enough (or it becomes dangerous) to see all the detail.
Since people are looking at a photo instead of a real subject/object, they tend to compensate mentally for the size, as well as it being a flat 2-dimensional representation of it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I think in summary you're saying it doesn't really matter as we are smart enough to compensate. Hence, suck it and see what looks best?
Mike
-
I think in summary you're saying it doesn't really matter as we are smart enough to compensate. Hence, suck it and see what looks best?
We are 'smart' enough, but larger impresses more and can be more revealing (assuming there is detail to be revealed), just like smaller might intrigue more because it is less revealing. It really depends on the image, overall composition, etc.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm aiming for intriguing :)
Ideally I would use a very thick mount board 5mm or more with the aperture cut in to enhance the idea of looking into the image but I can't cut board that thick and it becomes prohibitively expensive to have it done professionally. I plan to compromise by using foam board as the backing and regular mount for the matte with the aperture.
Ansel Adams had some small photographs mounted this way and it worked very well indeed. I'm always happy to steal a good idea.
Mike