Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11   Go Down

Author Topic: How much quality do you really need?  (Read 44640 times)

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 952
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #140 on: March 16, 2016, 05:38:44 am »

My point of view is that something like 12-16MP allows for very good A2-size prints. That is about what the compact Fuji APS-C and 4/3 cameras deliver. So I think those systems are reasonable if you want to travel light, because lenses can also be small.

Not only traveling light, but having smaller less aggressive and intimidating cameras often gives more photo opportunities also. Getting the shots in the first place is more important than getting maximum quality at any cost. That is why I use Fujifilm X-trans gear, not Nikon D800e as a travel camera (not to mention D4…).

This does not, of course, apply to landscape photography, as long you are physically able to lug the gear to the chosen location.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10332
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #141 on: March 16, 2016, 10:51:22 am »

I've never really understood why so many folk equate landscape prints with LARGE prints. I've always had a preference for smaller, intimate prints.

Whenever I see large landscape prints I can't help but think of Hilda Ogden's notorious wallpaper.

Hilda Ogden's notorious wallpaper

Part of the attraction of photography is its realistic portrayal of the subject matter, although in a 2-dimensional form most of the time. Size is part of the realism.

Remember the story about Picasso's response to someone who criticised his painting style for not being realistic, as a photo is? Picasso asked his critic if he could show him an example of a realistic photo, so the man pulled out a photo of his wife from his wallet.

After studying the photo for a while, Picasso said, "Surely your wife is not this small."  ;D

Likewise with landscapes. In reality they are usually huge. Small prints can't do them justice.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17821
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #142 on: March 16, 2016, 11:49:38 am »

I've never really understood why so many folk equate landscape prints with LARGE prints...

It's an American Australian thing... homes are bigger.

EDITED for a factual correction and infographic:
« Last Edit: March 20, 2016, 02:53:42 pm by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #143 on: March 16, 2016, 12:29:29 pm »

I've never really understood why so many folk equate landscape prints with LARGE prints. I've always had a preference for smaller, intimate prints.

And as Susan Kismaric, curator of photography at the Museum of Modern Art, wryly observed, "Large color photographs decorate; small black-and-white photographs don't decorate."

“Of course, you know the adage, if you can’t make it good, make it big. If you can’t make it big, make it red. So we do like big red photographs.”

Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #144 on: March 16, 2016, 12:35:09 pm »

Hi,

One of the aspects of landscape photographs is that the viewer can feel immersed into an image, have the feeling of being there. That needs size.

Also, I would suggest that a few photographers earn their money selling artwork to be used as decorations. That kind of work generally requires some size, at least in my humble opinion.

Personally, I am a bit reluctant to show work at small sizes.

Best regards
Erik


Part of the attraction of photography is its realistic portrayal of the subject matter, although in a 2-dimensional form most of the time. Size is part of the realism.

Remember the story about Picasso's response to someone who criticised his painting style for not being realistic, as a photo is? Picasso asked his critic if he could show him an example of a realistic photo, so the man pulled out a photo of his wife from his wallet.

After studying the photo for a while, Picasso said, "Surely your wife is not this small."  ;D

Likewise with landscapes. In reality they are usually huge. Small prints can't do them justice.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #145 on: March 16, 2016, 02:21:20 pm »

Or in the words of the immortal Manny Cohen never mind the quality, feel the width.


Now you've got it!

I see A3+ as the largest worthwhile size for anyone not actually floating an exhibition in some major gallery. Add masks and frames and you're already getting pretty big.

I also see large prints as having a place in public spaces such as hospitals. There were some gigantic ones - maybe about six feet tall and very wide, 'gracing' the walls of the hospital where my wife lay ill. I used to pace the corridors between eleven and midnight, looking at them as I passed, and searching for details I might recognize (local scenes) just to take my mind off the ending day and the coming night I'd spend dozing on a chair beside the bed. Those prints looked okay at ten feet, get close and you saw little, stacked cubes... grain is cuter.

I also saw some largish b/white prints in a few ad agency offices - they looked sort of right there. At home? Not for me; I think it would be quite vulgar hosting monsters.

Rob C

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #146 on: March 16, 2016, 03:00:02 pm »

Or in the words of the immortal Manny Cohen never mind the quality, feel the width.

If you're feeling uncharitable :-)

An intimate landscape of a 4' x 6' section of icy Merced river surface just downstream from Vernal Falls looks fine 11" x 14"; but - even without a need to decorate acres of wall space - 1 km x 2 km of glaciated rock and timberline forest and lake does look better bigger, simply because we are able to see more.
Logged

myotis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 276
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #147 on: March 16, 2016, 03:44:09 pm »


I would much rather start with more detail in the data. Also with a camera like the D810, the Sony A7RII, and the Canon 5DS, starting with more camera resolution leaves me with cropping option I just don't have with 12mp. Today I wouldn't recommend anyone buy a camera with less than 22~25mp  whether it it is a  "full frame" APS-H, or APS-C size sensor i the camera.

That's fair enough, the safety net of having more resolution is a good argument.

Cheers,

Graham
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #148 on: March 16, 2016, 03:54:49 pm »

I'm not a landscape pic taker, in the commonly understood sense, and huge prints in general have little appeal to me. I don't object to them in museums or galleries, provided they're given enough space, but IMO even in those contexts there's often an undercurrent of egotism flowing. That is, a compensatory mechanism for an underlying lack of self-confidence. As is usually the case with outsized displays, gestures, rhetoric, etc. Sometimes the framing and subject matter do warrant, or at least can handle, a very large presentation. But I take a dim view of photos that only work at large scales.

All that said, I'm with Erik when it comes to camera capabilities. Bring on the res! I can discard what I don't need.

-Dave-
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10332
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #149 on: March 17, 2016, 05:20:09 am »

I'm not a landscape pic taker, in the commonly understood sense, and huge prints in general have little appeal to me. I don't object to them in museums or galleries, provided they're given enough space, but IMO even in those contexts there's often an undercurrent of egotism flowing. That is, a compensatory mechanism for an underlying lack of self-confidence. As is usually the case with outsized displays, gestures, rhetoric, etc. Sometimes the framing and subject matter do warrant, or at least can handle, a very large presentation. But I take a dim view of photos that only work at large scales.

Oh! I see! So Andreas Gursky's Rhein II, which is over 6ft x12ft in size and sold for $4.3 million, was really just a compensatory mechanism for an underlying lack of self-confidence.

Perhaps Andreas Gursky, despite his fame, could not overcome a feeling of inadequacy and a lack of confidence, so he visited a psychiatrist who advised him to produce a truly massive print, which he did, in the form of Rhein II.

I wonder if that sale has still overcome Gursky's sense of a lack of confidence?  :D
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #150 on: March 17, 2016, 10:57:29 am »

Oh! I see! So Andreas Gursky's Rhein II, which is over 6ft x12ft in size and sold for $4.3 million, was really just a compensatory mechanism for an underlying lack of self-confidence.

Perhaps Andreas Gursky, despite his fame, could not overcome a feeling of inadequacy and a lack of confidence, so he visited a psychiatrist who advised him to produce a truly massive print, which he did, in the form of Rhein II.

I wonder if that sale has still overcome Gursky's sense of a lack of confidence?  :D


I wonder what it has done for the self-confidemce of the buyer; perhaps he's the one now going to see the shrink. But then, the wonderful world of investment has always struck me as more akin to alchemy than art or even science.

Rob C

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #151 on: March 17, 2016, 03:06:30 pm »

Oh! I see! So Andreas Gursky's Rhein II, which is over 6ft x12ft in size and sold for $4.3 million, was really just a compensatory mechanism for an underlying lack of self-confidence.

Sorry, not impressed by size, sales figures or fame. But maybe ask yourself why Gursky seeks out all three…

-Dave-
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17821
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #152 on: March 17, 2016, 03:33:04 pm »

Sorry, not impressed by size, sales figures or fame.  But maybe ask yourself why Gursky seeks out all three…

Ego and vanity? ;)

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #153 on: March 17, 2016, 04:08:49 pm »

I am a fan of the "camera van" - a van without windows, pinhole "lens" to be installed on ginormous bellows (black plastic sheeting) sticking out the back door. Put your positive paper or freshly dipped glass at the other end of the van (assistant) and take the lens cap off and count to whatever (photographer standing at front of bellows). http://petapixel.com/2012/04/03/wet-plate-photography-with-a-giant-format-van-camera/
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #154 on: March 18, 2016, 05:52:55 am »

I am a fan of the "camera van" - a van without windows, pinhole "lens" to be installed on ginormous bellows (black plastic sheeting) sticking out the back door. Put your positive paper or freshly dipped glass at the other end of the van (assistant) and take the lens cap off and count to whatever (photographer standing at front of bellows). http://petapixel.com/2012/04/03/wet-plate-photography-with-a-giant-format-van-camera/


It reminds me of golf, Nancy.

The most difficult way of doing something apparently pointless that, if it has to be done, could be done in a far easier way and better.

;-)

Rob C

Harold Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #155 on: March 18, 2016, 10:17:37 am »

It's the American thing... homes are bigger.

These days we have monster trucks, monster homes and monster food portions in restaurants ( a trip to Florida will provide plenty of evidence of the latter ), so I suppose monster prints fit the trend as well.


Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4278
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #156 on: March 18, 2016, 09:47:11 pm »

...so I suppose monster prints fit the trend as well.

Absolutely.  I pull a 40X60 off my Epson 9800 and go "WOW!"

If I can't do that, what's it all for?
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10332
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #157 on: March 18, 2016, 10:16:46 pm »

These days we have monster trucks, monster homes and monster food portions in restaurants ( a trip to Florida will provide plenty of evidence of the latter ), so I suppose monster prints fit the trend as well.

Maybe this is just an American perspective. The distant history of life in America was that of the native Indian tribes who lived in modest huts or wigwams, even the chieftains apparently.

Elsewhere, in Europe, India and China, the monster homes were much bigger and grander than the homes of most billionaires today. They were true palaces employing hundred of servants, guards, gardeners and maintenance people on a permanent basis.

Regarding monster trucks, they are probably not as monstrous as a caravan of 20,000, or 10,000 or even 1,000 camels. It was customary to connect strings of 40 camels with a rope that passed through the nose-ring of each camel and attached to the saddle of the camel in front. Often 3 or 4 strings of 40 camels would travel abreast. If the road wasn't wide enough the caravans would travel in one long line, like the  biggest most monstrous snake ever.  ;D

Monster food portions in restaurants tend to be more of an American phenomenon, hence the obesity epidemic. However, some of the ancient Romans, the wealthy ones, probably beat the Americans in this respect. Some of them actually vomited so they could continue eating, although the term 'vomitorium' has been mistranslated. It's really just an exit where crowds can 'spew forth' from a show.  ;)

In general, large prints tend to be more appropriate for certain subjects, such as grand and magnificent landscapes. A 5ft x 6ft print of a macro shot of a spider, on one's living room wall, might be subject to criticism. It might appear a bit monstrous.  ;D
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #158 on: March 18, 2016, 10:45:21 pm »

Personally, I like A3 prints because I live in a small flat, and 11 x 17" is a good size for the space I have (and 13 x 19 is the maximum my printer can handle). If I had more wall space, particularly where I could stand back a bit, I might like larger sizes of prints. Dull practicalities.... ::)
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #159 on: March 19, 2016, 03:00:50 am »

Hi,

I have also limited wall space, but I may live in a larger flat and I have an A2-printer, so I am happy with A2 (16"x23") which is my print size. I also have a few 70x100 cm prints, going beyond that is not very practical for me

I am mostly shooting landscape or at least things in nature like trees, rocks or stones and some flowers and generally find that printing large is nice because a large print shows all fine details.

Best regards
Erik

Personally, I like A3 prints because I live in a small flat, and 11 x 17" is a good size for the space I have (and 13 x 19 is the maximum my printer can handle). If I had more wall space, particularly where I could stand back a bit, I might like larger sizes of prints. Dull practicalities.... ::)
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11   Go Up