Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: keithcooper on February 04, 2017, 05:50:19 am
-
I've often wondered how people who make BIG prints (A1 and above) consider differences in their approach to editing and composition, compared with smaller prints (say 13" x 19" and below)
For the first time in many years I don't have a working wide format printer here (Karen is marvelling at how big our kitchen is) and with all the printer and paper testing/reviews I've been doing over the last year, got round to thinking about just how my approach to very big prints differs from others I make.
I've some specific points at http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/art-big-photo-print/ but was curious as to how people that make big prints, see people interact with them?
I guess my biggest surprise was that for more prints than I'd thought (hoped?), people just aren't that bothered about the ultimate in resolution - photographers are, but they don't buy big prints. That's not to say I don't go overboard with detail sometimes (multi-gigabyte images), but it's not the prime mover for more of my work that people actually pay for.
BTW Innova have asked me to do a series of talks about making big prints at 'The Photography Show' (used to be 'Focus') at the NEC (Birmingham, UK) in March (18-21), so if anyone wants to meet...
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/keith-coopers-talks-printmaking/
-
I first and foremost shoot for myself and if the resulting image does not meet my standards, it does not make it out of my computer for others to see.
If we all stepped down to what the masses thought was ok from an image, we'd all be shooting cell phones as that is what the masses feel is just fine.
-
I first and foremost shoot for myself and if the resulting image does not meet my standards, it does not make it out of my computer for others to see.
If we all stepped down to what the masses thought was ok from an image, we'd all be shooting cell phones as that is what the masses feel is just fine.
Not quite sure what your actual point is other than you decide what you like and we all produce the odd shot that sucks? That said, I believe photographers are rarely as good curators of our own work as we like to think we are ;-)
Since I do get people who want to buy very large prints, I'd be remiss in running my business without listening to and soliciting the views of people willing to stump up their own money...
Perhaps I should have refined my original question to give more prominence to large prints that are made for others?
-
I'm not sure I have a good answer for you Keith, but in my case my end goal when out shooting is creating compelling images that can be displayed at large sizes so the process of printing big begins when leaving for a shoot. As such even when shooting I'm always using the maximum resolution device I can carry and even with my 100mp back I'm stitching whenever the scene allows it. While many images don't make the "cut" as it were, I don't know this when shooting and I've been burned too many times creating a nice image with less than adequate tools.
As I work on the images I determine if I've met the goal, and through the process images which succeed go through a series of 3 test prints, first 13x19, then 17x22 on fine art paper (currently favorite is Epson Baryta), and finally 24x30 Fine art paper. Even though I get a nice match from display to paper, there is something about how your eye interprets the print which might make something on print look unfavorable, and despite trying hard it's amazing how often something very "small" ends up obvious on the printed image. Admittedly this work flow isn't for everyone. To be honest I'm usually happy if I get one or two "keepers" from any shoot, and I'm pretty happy if I can add 20 or so images to my portfolio in a year.
Once I print the 24x30 and examine it closely, I then determine how large I feel it can be printed, and categorize the image based on several factors, mostly personal based on my decisions as the "artist" if you will. I have 3 "categories" which determine the available sizes and the price range of the images. the category is entirely my decision. While I might seek some input from a trusted friend who is a very talented photographer, I personally do not seek any input from customers. I also do not enter "contests" or engaged in other types of feedback. I just feel I'm the artist and if my choices as an artist are poor then perhaps I'm not much of an artist.
If the image has appeal but perhaps doesn't lend itself to being printed large (subject matter, not enough resolution, etc) then it might be offered as an accent type print at sizes from 13x19 up to 24x30. If I determine it is be offered at larger sizes I examine the test print a little closer, and will perhaps work on the image a little further. Images which I feel represent my best work both artistically and technically end up in a category with a smaller edition size and a minimum print size of 42" on the long dimension.
Even after all of that examination, after printing a large print (my sizes range from 42" to 85") I often will find small flaws on the final print, so a careful examination of the print often requires me to do some additional work on the file(missed camera spot, sometimes a mask needs tweaking because of a halo, things like that). The biggest challenge I've had is getting the same "pop" from the image once it is printed large that it appears to have on the display or even in the 24x30 test print. I've found that I often need to add a tiny bit of density and contrast, and perhaps even a little saturation to the image. I've also had images which looked fine small but some areas tended to look "muddy" for lack of a better word in the large print, required some adjustment brush work to optimize them. It's not uncommon that I have to work the file further when printing the first large print, especially if it's a 74 or 85" size.
Good luck with your presentation.
-
Thanks Wayne - thats exactly what I was wondering about.
Very true about things becoming noticeable only in the biggest of prints - annoying when it happens, but keeps you on your toes.
One of the reasons I do end up talking with customers is that often they may have been involved in the design or development of a location - although it often more of a do you prefer A or B since I know that 'just' asking for opinions is something to be very wary of ;-) ... as for competitions, definitely not my thing!
-
Not quite sure what your actual point is other than you decide what you like and we all produce the odd shot that sucks? That said, I believe photographers are rarely as good curators of our own work as we like to think we are ;-)
Since I do get people who want to buy very large prints, I'd be remiss in running my business without listening to and soliciting the views of people willing to stump up their own money...
Perhaps I should have refined my original question to give more prominence to large prints that are made for others?
I do make large prints for others. I sell into the high end house remodeling market where many of my prints are a main focal point in the living room. I'm just saying its me that determines if a image passes my own standards before I decide it is available for others to see or purchase. I don't rely of others to tell me this as "others" have a huge varying opinion of what's great from cell phone snaps to high end art work. At least my standard is just that...a standard.
-
... I don't rely of others to tell me this as "others" have a huge varying opinion ...
Indeed, exactly why I do listen to them...
I'm interested in what people do and don't notice in images - especially when it perhaps challenges my arbitrary preconceptions ;-)
-
Indeed, exactly why I do listen to them...
I'm interested in what people do and don't notice in images - especially when it perhaps challenges my arbitrary preconceptions ;-)
Well, I guess we are different then. When I take a image...it is my vision I'm trying to capture. If when I get this image onto my computer and I feel I have failed to capture that vision...then I've failed. No one needs to tell me if I failed...only I know what I was trying to achieve. It really does not matter to me if some joe off the street is willing to pay money for a print of that image...I failed at what I was trying to capture...end of story.
-
Nice text Keith, thanks for sharing.
Besides being a photographer, I run a fine art printing studio and we print for others, small and big. We not only print, but act as consultants for our clients offering advice on pretty much everything: paper choice, size, image processing... everything related to the print.
Our clients are photographers, painters, digital artists, illustrators... pretty much every type of visual artist.
During the last decade we noticed a growing number of visual artists that use photography as their final product but do not call themselves photographers. Some work with ephemeral types of art and register their work on photos, while others simply enjoy using a camera to catch images that represent their "artistic vision". Most of them lack technical knowledge of photography and some even despise it. They tend to print way bigger than what would usually be advised and most of the time with excellent and striking results. It is all about the content and the composition, I only advise them to reduce the size when I know pixelation/jagged lines will occur.
Our clients who call themselves photographers, on the other hand, are usually interested on sharpness and resolution, sometimes more than on composition and mood.
I do believe the best possible scenario occurs when we have everything: composition, mood, technique, resolution and the right amount of sharpness. But I would trade a sharp boring photo for a fuzzy exciting one any day.
Regards.
-
Great comments and thoughts.. for those of you that print large (i.e. say in the 40 x 50 inch or larger range), how do you present your work.. I have found that the option of taking it to a framing shop and having a large print matted and framed is both expensive (over $400) and heavy
-
I do believe the best possible scenario occurs when we have everything: composition, mood, technique, resolution and the right amount of sharpness. But I would trade a sharp boring photo for a fuzzy exciting one any day.
I don't disagree with you, and value your experience. But I confess to finding much 'high art' to be shallow, pretentious, insular, and frightfully dull. I suppose many of those artists whose work does nothing for me might quickly find a hundred or more negative qualities in my own work, and not without basis. Such is life!
-
But I would trade a sharp boring photo for a fuzzy exciting one any day.
Regards.
Unfortunately more you become proficient in the technique, the more you tend to forget to put meaning into the photograph. Ansel Adams said "there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."
-
I do believe the best possible scenario occurs when we have everything: composition, mood, technique, resolution and the right amount of sharpness. But I would trade a sharp boring photo for a fuzzy exciting one any day.
Thanks - it's that balance I strive for in larger prints (well, any print I suppose...)
The 'sharp but boring' problem is perhaps one I most often come across when people discover panoramic photography - 'never mind the subject - look at all that detail' ;-)
In some ways the concentration on the technical side is all too often used as a way of avoiding looking at the actual images - far easier to worry about lens MTF, dots per inch, ink sets and dMax (and spend money 'improving' it) than if your images engage on an emotional level.
Making large prints has benefitted all my photography in different ways, even the less thrilling commercial stuff - which given it earns me a living is no bad thing...
I've found it fascinating to be near one of my very large prints, seeing and hearing people interact with it (not knowing who I am) - so many things I'd not even thought about or noticed :-)
Do I change my approach as a result? - Maybe, but probably not, but I also won't dismiss their opinions as in some way beneath me as 'the artist' ;-)
-
I do believe the best possible scenario occurs when we have everything: composition, mood, technique, resolution and the right amount of sharpness. But I would trade a sharp boring photo for a fuzzy exciting one any day.
+1 to that.
On a local level I find the photographers whose who work I value and enjoy the most are driven by creative impulses supported by a high technical prowess with both of those attributes melding together to produce work with a singular visual voice. These individuals have a varied opinion of their work and of themselves. Some regard themselves as artists working exclusively with the photographic medium, some regard themselves as traditional photographers creating work with artistic intent (as contrasted to strictly representational imaging) and a very few visual graphic artists who produce work with electronic mediums and tools such as Photoshop and the like. In short these days there is a great variance of how 2D art can be driven from a photographic basis, but by and large I don't think the general public has a discriminating care about these divisions of work.
-
Great comments and thoughts.. for those of you that print large (i.e. say in the 40 x 50 inch or larger range), how do you present your work.. I have found that the option of taking it to a framing shop and having a large print matted and framed is both expensive (over $400) and heavy
Over the last several years there has been a growing trend to present work without any real "framing". Thus the popularity of gallery wrapped canvas, or aluminum prints.
I'm fine with that , but personally I feel the presentation is part of the art. I also feel that good framing ties the image to it's surrounding decor, and yet also "separates" it when viewed. I think the two are complementary, and to me only when presented in an appropriate way do I consider it a "piece". I have a couple of unique ways I finish my images, and i also offer traditional methods. Currently I offer no finished images that are not framed.
But I agree it is expensive. I guess that's relative however depending on the price your work can obtain. In my case I decided to do it all myself, so I print and prepare everything including acrylic facemounting or fine art paper mounted, build all the frames and finish it off. I may have others involved performing some of the labor, but it does allow me to make the margin of the frame shop as well.
-
I do believe the best possible scenario occurs when we have everything: composition, mood, technique, resolution and the right amount of sharpness. But I would trade a sharp boring photo for a fuzzy exciting one any day.
Regards.
Sure...but why do you have to trade off sharpness and fine detail for composition and emotion in the print? I hear this comment all the time but wonder why people need to make this tradeoff in today's photography world.
-
Sure...but why do you have to trade off sharpness and fine detail for composition and emotion in the print? I hear this comment all the time but wonder why people need to make this tradeoff in today's photography world.
It's not necessarily a deliberate trade off but why not if that supports one's artistic vision. A technically adequate photograph doesn't ensure an interesting and memorable photograph.
-
Looking at "the Photography Book" from Phaidon Press and the highly regarded photos within it reminds me that it just isn't possible to say generally what makes a great photograph. Whatever criteria are used, there will be a photograph of merit somewhere that doesn't meet them.
-
It's not necessarily a deliberate trade off but why not if that supports one's artistic vision. A technically adequate photograph doesn't ensure an interesting and memorable photograph.
And the opposite is true as well. A technically adequate photo does not ensure it's not interesting and memorable. From my perspective, a great photo has both great technical qualities so it can be printed large if need be AND it also contains emotion that tugs at the viewer.
Again...why can't an emotional photo also be technically great? Especially with today's equipment.
-
Again...why can't an emotional photo also be technically great? Especially with today's equipment.
Because that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. A photo with intrinsically excellent artistic qualities could be outstanding technically, but sometimes it's not. If the said photo is good enough artistically it may not really matter that much that it has technical flaws.
If a photo that is technically perfect is boring then who cares that it's technically perfect?
However, I think we all agree that it's best if a photo is technically and artistically top-notch.
I have a photo of Theodore M. Hesburgh and a professor of mine that I like very much. Artistically it's good enough, and Fr. Hesburgh was a remarkable American, which gives extra meaning to it. However the photo was taken with a mediocre digital camera and my technical skills when I took it back in 2005 weren't too hot either. But it's still one of my favorites.
-
Because that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. A photo with intrinsically excellent artistic qualities could be outstanding technically, but sometimes it's not. If the said photo is good enough artistically it may not really matter that much that it has technical flaws.
If a photo that is technically perfect is boring then who cares that it's technically perfect?
However, I think we all agree that it's best if a photo is technically and artistically top-notch.
I have a photo of Theodore M. Hesburgh and a professor of mine that I like very much. Artistically it's good enough, and Fr. Hesburgh was a remarkable American, which gives extra meaning to it. However the photo was taken with a mediocre digital camera and my technical skills when I took it back in 2005 weren't too hot either. But it's still one of my favorites.
I think we can assume the people in this forum strive to create emotional impact from their photos...not just trying to get sharp images. I know for my landscape I try to get dramatic lighting and use all my skills to produce technically great images. Who doesn't?
Now if I screw up something and the image is not sharp for whatever reason...then I've just limited how large a print I can make out of that image...no matter what the emotional impact it posses. I will not make a large print that cannot stand up when looked at closely.
So yes you can create emotional impact images that are technically poor...but doing so I believe limits what you can do with that image.
-
I've often wondered how people who make BIG prints (A1 and above) consider differences in their approach to editing and composition, compared with smaller prints (say 13" x 19" and below)
For the first time in many years I don't have a working wide format printer here (Karen is marvelling at how big our kitchen is) and with all the printer and paper testing/reviews I've been doing over the last year, got round to thinking about just how my approach to very big prints differs from others I make.
I've some specific points at http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/art-big-photo-print/ but was curious as to how people that make big prints, see people interact with them?
I guess my biggest surprise was that for more prints than I'd thought (hoped?), people just aren't that bothered about the ultimate in resolution - photographers are, but they don't buy big prints. That's not to say I don't go overboard with detail sometimes (multi-gigabyte images), but it's not the prime mover for more of my work that people actually pay for.
BTW Innova have asked me to do a series of talks about making big prints at 'The Photography Show' (used to be 'Focus') at the NEC (Birmingham, UK) in March (18-21), so if anyone wants to meet...
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/keith-coopers-talks-printmaking/
i will be there on the monday. will try come say hi
-
A successful landscape photograph is an exceptionally difficult thing to pull off. It must have artistic, luminous, technical and magic-dust ingredients in the right proportions. Only then the result is such that it can stand the test of time, the test of close scrutiny, the test of conveying to the viewer the feeling of that captured moment, the test of viewer's eyes wanting to explore and not wander, the test of continued emotional impact time after time.
While not many high resolution images are what I consider "a successful landscape photograph" - however the ones that I do consider to be so are most definitely high resolution and demonstrate technical mastery. I have yet to see a fuzzy landscape image that I would personally consider "a successful photograph".
When I looked at works of diverse artists such as Thomas Struth, Edward Burtynsky, Richard Misrach, Ansel Adams on one end the spectrum to Peter Lik and Rodney Lough Jr on the other end of spectrum, their works are totally different, but the common element is high resolution and technical excellence.
Only a print is a photograph.
-
Sure...but why do you have to trade off sharpness and fine detail for composition and emotion in the print? I hear this comment all the time but wonder why people need to make this tradeoff in today's photography world.
No tradeoff, merely the difference between Impressionism and Realism. Both schools have much to offer.
Rand
-
Thanks to everyone who came up and said hello at the show - for various partly technical reasons, there is no video of my talks, I also ended up on the stand for all four days just talking about all the large prints I'd made on the PRO-4000.
I rather enjoyed the time there - It was interesting to see what aspects of prints people concentrated on when looking at them. The large B&W one on the wall (several hundred MP equivalent) had quite a few people go up it and identify buildings where they had stayed on holiday. One of those shots that people look at from a distance and then are surprised to see more and more detail as they go right up close.
It's a very useful exercise for any photographer to see just how people look at their prints and what it is they notice
.. or don't notice, in the case of an 11MP 1Ds image taken up to 42"x64"
-
Thanks to everyone who came up and said hello at the show - for various partly technical reasons, there is no video of my talks, I also ended up on the stand for all four days just talking about all the large prints I'd made on the PRO-4000.
I rather enjoyed the time there - It was interesting to see what aspects of prints people concentrated on when looking at them. The large B&W one on the wall (several hundred MP equivalent) had quite a few people go up it and identify buildings where they had stayed on holiday. One of those shots that people look at from a distance and then are surprised to see more and more detail as they go right up close.
It's a very useful exercise for any photographer to see just how people look at their prints and what it is they notice
.. or don't notice, in the case of an 11MP 1Ds image taken up to 42"x64"
I just printed my first BIG print on my Pro-4000 yesterday. It was a shot I took with my Sigma DP2 Merrill a few years back, so it was a 15mp image, but with the detail of something closer to 30mp. Regardless, it looks great. Now I just have to figure out what to do with it...
-
I grew up, as did many of us, in the film era where 11x14 was big and 16x20 was really BIG! Now, I now print digitally where the "only" thing required for a really large print is a large format printer, a piece of paper, and the will to spend a lot of money on paper and ink. Big is relative. My work prints are 6x9, my standard exhibition (and rare sale) size is 9x13 and REALLY big is 13x20. Who has all that wall space anyway?
Some images don't print well large. My most popular image is a sea stack from Bandon, Oregon. The stack itself is black, really black. When printed larger than 9x13, there's a big black blob in the middle of the photo. My solution? I don't print this image larger than 9x13. I confess though that while many images are quite lovely at 6x9, or even 5x7 (so long as it's not for reasons of poor technique) occasionally a large print is really sweet.
I'll be attending the Photolucida portfolio walk later this week in downtown Portland. It is absolutely fascinating to see what is new and "cool" in contemporary photography. Each time I attend, I learn. Some folks use the "if you can't make it good, make it big approach;" Others show jewel-like images at 4x5. If they've used good judgment, and even some of the large scale printers often do, it's spectacular.
In any case, I agree with Wayne Fox, though at a somewhat smaller scale. One must be critical of the image, often a large print is rejected not be a technical flaw that grew almost out of proportion, but because it just doesn't look right. I enjoy what I do these days; I hope everyone else does as well.
-
I grew up, as did many of us, in the film era where 11x14 was big and 16x20 was really BIG! Now, I now print digitally where the "only" thing required for a really large print is a large format printer, a piece of paper, and the will to spend a lot of money on paper and ink. Big is relative. My work prints are 6x9, my standard exhibition (and rare sale) size is 9x13 and REALLY big is 13x20. Who has all that wall space anyway?
Some images don't print well large. My most popular image is a sea stack from Bandon, Oregon. The stack itself is black, really black. When printed larger than 9x13, there's a big black blob in the middle of the photo. My solution? I don't print this image larger than 9x13. I confess though that while many images are quite lovely at 6x9, or even 5x7 (so long as it's not for reasons of poor technique) occasionally a large print is really sweet.
I'll be attending the Photolucida portfolio walk later this week in downtown Portland. It is absolutely fascinating to see what is new and "cool" in contemporary photography. Each time I attend, I learn. Some folks use the "if you can't make it good, make it big approach;" Others show jewel-like images at 4x5. If they've used good judgment, and even some of the large scale printers often do, it's spectacular.
In any case, I agree with Wayne Fox, though at a somewhat smaller scale. One must be critical of the image, often a large print is rejected not be a technical flaw that grew almost out of proportion, but because it just doesn't look right. I enjoy what I do these days; I hope everyone else does as well.
I am going to take the opposite side of the argument. Ever since I decided my photos were actually "good" and worthy of being printed on more expensive fine art paper I have standardized on 17x22" as my paper size for everything other than family photos. 17x22" is still easy to store in archival boxes and the larger size is significantly more satisfying to look at and handle compared to 13x19" or smaller prints. From time to time I print portions of my portfolio on 8.5x11" paper and I am always struck by how much less impact the photos have. Generally, I don't have any of my prints on permanent display in my house. I've set up a viewing system using menu racks that lets me easily display about 15 17x22" photos at a time and I find that meets my needs well. As I print new work the older photos go into storage. I realize that is a fairly eclectic choice but it works well for me. When I have had prints in an exhibition I have generally printed them at 24x30". I think that is a great display size. Large enough to be impactful and small enough to be displayed. Even my older photos taken with a Sony NEX-7 can generally be printed that size and my newer A7R and A7RII easily go to 24x30"
I think you are right that larger prints are less forgiving of flaws in the original exposure or post processing but I consider that a good thing. It has led to my being a better photographer as I am forced to improve my technique.
Cost is an issue but the current round of Epson rebates and some careful shopping brings the price of a sheet of Epson Legacy Platine or Fibre down to around $4 a sheet and past sales have let me stock up for as little as $2.85 a sheet. I love the hand feel of these heavyweight papers but good RC papers are often less than half the cost of "fine art" papers so that is a choice for more budget oriented printers. I figure my ink cost with a Canon iPF84000 is less than $1 a square foot so my cost of printing an image at 17x22" is $4-6 depending on paper choice, image size and ink density etc. That isn't nothing but I only make 50-100 prints a year that merit being printed. The hour or two I invest working on each image in Lightroom or Photoshop is a much bigger "cost".
I definitely understand the advantages of printing smaller in terms of cost and manageability but personally I can't imagine going back to 13x19" or smaller prints.
FWIW.
Paul
-
Because that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes....
What a beautifully succinct way of putting it!
-
I grew up, as did many of us, in the film era where 11x14 was big and 16x20 was really BIG! Now, I now print digitally where the "only" thing required for a really large print is a large format printer, a piece of paper, and the will to spend a lot of money on paper and ink. Big is relative. My work prints are 6x9, my standard exhibition (and rare sale) size is 9x13 and REALLY big is 13x20. Who has all that wall space anyway?
Well I disagree. If you shot 6 x 17 film then you had far more resolution (even with a cheap scanner) than you can get with an 80MP camera without stitching. So if you wanted big then you could certainly do big. To me 9 x 13 is small. That is not much bigger than A4 and I made some A4 prints for a customer the other day from a 300K jpg she brought in and they came out reasonable. Over a metre wide is big and I can do that easily on a 3880. I agree that people don't have a lot of wall space but they will pay for big if they want it. With little you are competing against iPhones.
-
With the advent of big cheap Epson inkjet printers and the continued use of lightjet and
Lambda murals from smallish dslr files over the last 15 years, ( not to mention iPhones ) ive seen a remarkable degradation of print quality both in the art world as well as the ad world. What most of us would have described as embarrassingly bad 10 years ago is now pretty much the average. So, improved technology which one would have thought raised the standards, has actually lowered them by bringing in a vast increase in the number of no talent amateurs who think of themselves as photographers and or printmakers now. I had a very experienced museum curator come to look at some 40x60s yesterday that I did from drum scans of ISO 100 4x5 film with k7 carbon inks, and she was evaluating them at very close range ( because she could). Her response was, damn I've never seen inkjet prints with such fidelity and at the same time delicacy and big in scale. She found it very unusual and kind of stunning. I'm afraid like most things in our culture ( such as listening to music on our iPads and iPhones, ) it's all been dumbed down so far that what should be the norm, considering its 2017, is almost exotic.
-
I prefer to see the glass more half full...
Whilst it is possible for people to produce pretty poor quality prints with greater ease, I for one welcome the opportunities that the current generation of printers bring about.
At least it is possible for people to learn and enjoy the technicalities (if they want to) at a far more reasonable cost...
As an aside, why does this so remind me of threads on LL back in 2003 concerning the wider advent of digital cameras ;-)
-
As an aside, why does this so remind me of threads on LL back in 2003 concerning the wider advent of digital cameras ;-)
;D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Said_Hanrahan