Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11   Go Down

Author Topic: How much quality do you really need?  (Read 44618 times)

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 #160 on: March 19, 2016, 09:03:56 am »

I don't get the envy or jealousy of Gursky...

Me neither.

Just to be clear, my comment was an inside joke between me and Ray (and those who get it), as he was apparently obsessed with a "ridiculous, blatant ego and vanity" surrounding fashion industry (or humans in general) in other two threads (or was it about photographers who capture it and get it published? - you never know with Ray).

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #161 on: March 19, 2016, 01:19:15 pm »

My job description has been variously...painter, illustrator and photographer, my wife's would be art therapist and yet there's not a single painting, illustration or photograph - regardless of size - to be seen on the walls of our house.

Strange but true.


Hope you don't have a little row of china ducks à la 50s!

;-)

Rob

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #162 on: March 19, 2016, 01:34:43 pm »

As I've said before in this forum, for me photography is about doing it. The artifacts, notably prints but also the processed JPEGs on my iPad, aren't that important. Same thing goes for making music. Playing is the thing. Having played: okay, now what's next? This is of course not how it works with most of my photographer friends & acquaintances, and would be career-ruining for any pro.  ;)

-Dave-

Ashildr: We’ll be cut down like corn. By this time tomorrow, every single one of us will be dead.
The Doctor: Yeah. You could go.
Ashildr: There’s nowhere for me except here. This is my place. The sky, the hills, the sea, the people. Is there nowhere like that for you?
The Doctor: Oh, I like a nice view as much as anyone.
Ashildr: But?
The Doctor: Can’t wait for the next one.
Ashildr: I pity you.
The Doctor: I will mourn for you. I know which one I prefer.
Logged

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #163 on: March 19, 2016, 01:53:02 pm »

Interesting... just at the moment I have various of my prints scattered around the house on tables and so on, all printed on A4. That's unusual, but they are cheering me up a little (my cat has been very ill and disappeared some days ago  :'( )

Some days I only want to print a3+. I'd like to go a little bigger, if only to get a decent white border with a similar print size. But those prints are in albums or boxes, except one is pinned to a door. Some things don't feel right in a larger size. Ken Cooper mentioned in one of his articles that in the UK, galleries sell mostly a3+. Then at work, there are photos hanging in most corridors... they are all block mounted without mats/borders and the effect is that they look much smaller than they are... I was surprised to measure one, 48x72cm.

So, it's whatever you want to do, and it's probably not rational. It's clear that for me, 24Mpx is more than enough.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #164 on: March 19, 2016, 04:23:38 pm »


But be honest.  How many photographers, artists, film makers wouldn't love to see their work covering a building in times square, Leicester Square, Red Square or Sunset blvd.?

IMO

BC

Let's form an orderly queue!

But it could be done - at least on street hoardings - with a 135 camera. There used to be a wonderful one such, reportedly, from Adrian Flowers for Martell, though in the general article he only mentions Sinar:

"EA: You were so well known for your advertising campaigns. Will you give a little background on creating the “story” going on in this Martell cognac ad (shown in the portfolio above)?

AF: That is one that I love thinking about, because it’s so amusing. The story is of an art collector and a famous artist who is having a close relationship with the model he’s painting.  When the collector, his wife and daughter come by to see the progress of the painting, the artist tells the girl to keep hidden behind the screen, but the model won’t do what she is told. The collector’s daughter was interested in the artist, but if they knew the model he was making love to all day was behind the screen, they would have the shits.  I thoroughly enjoy the subtlety, the complexity, and dry humor; it’s not somebody roaring with laughter."

http://www.loeildelaphotographie.com/2014/07/03/article/25284/adrian-flowers-talks-to-elizabeth-avedon/

for the full interview.

It used to drive me nuts trying to get to red traffic lights just so I could see more details of what in hell was going on.

Another interesting series - don't know who dunnit -was for White Horse, and somebody accidently (?) left a 'blad film magazine on a shelf in the shot. Found that a very in-joke! I thought.

So yeah, love that sort of exposure, but that's not inside a house.

Rob C
« Last Edit: March 19, 2016, 04:39:43 pm by Rob C »
Logged

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1813
    • Some of my photos
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #165 on: March 19, 2016, 05:20:58 pm »

"And Sir John Gielgud, with Ian McKellen and Shakespeare standing behind him. And there was someone else"

Clive James would have apoplexy if he read that... my countryman was very concerned about his fame :) He even identified himself as the over-confident young man that Germaine Greer mentions refusing in The Female Eunuch  ;D Mind you, I wouldn't have identified him either, he is much younger and even more pompous than the image I have of him from his late night program on the Beeb...
Logged

adias

  • Guest
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #166 on: March 20, 2016, 02:09:00 pm »

The thread started well with a number of good replies, and then derailed to the usual nonsense. Many of the recent posts are highly biased and prejudicial.

I suspect that people do not print large because they can't for a number of reasons, but they would if those impediments (fill in yours here) could be removed. I also think that people swear by smaller cameras because they are getting older and can't carry larger ones, but they do not confess the real reason. :)
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2420
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #167 on: March 20, 2016, 02:20:44 pm »

So all you guys that print small, do you still watch TV on your 13" sets?

I typically start my prints at 16x24 and go up to 4'x6 I sell into the high end housing market and lodges. Many of these houses have large rooms and small prints would just be swallowed up. Having more resolution allows more details in these prints. I will always take more than less as you never know what size of print is required from a given image.
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 #168 on: March 20, 2016, 02:28:29 pm »

...  Big being an American thing.  I live in LA, Dallas and London and it's all perspective.  I've seen huge flats and homes in London with huge art, tiny in Dallas, smaller than tiny in LA....

Ok, I stand corrected... it's an Australian thing  ;)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #169 on: March 20, 2016, 02:43:25 pm »

adias:

You may suspect as you wish, and in some senses of the thing you are perfectly right - there are always reasons why people do as they do. But, size is certainly not always a matter of finance. Size is also a matter of personal fancy, space available, money thought worth spending, and don't forget that for many, photography is not the all-demanding obsession that it is for some others.

Regarding camera weight: you're right again, insofar as I am concerned on a personal level. I am old, did in youthful days carry a couple of 500 Series Hasselblads, three lenses, backs and a yellow Kodak freezer bag full of film. I did that because I was getting paid for what I was photographing. On other jobs it was exactly the same except it was perhaps four Nikons and at least seven lenses and the film bag. In both cases, throw in a useful tripod. I never employed an assistant. I was healthy and fairly strong if thinnish. Today I am still thinnish (look! no beer gut!) but far from strong. And as importantly, whatever I do with a camera now is entirely for my own satisfaction and occasional amusement. I have given up printing for reasons HP should be ashamed of, and whatever looks fine on my website is alI I require from files.

And no, I would not print larger unless I suddenly discovered a busy commercial market for my prints.

As for the thread 'deteriorating', as you put it, don't forget that this is a social resource, not a strict educational institution; there's room for both aspects - as it has long shown - and also bear in mind that what can usefully be said on some topics is often said quite quickly, leading to a dead thread...

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #170 on: March 20, 2016, 02:56:22 pm »

So all you guys that print small, do you still watch TV on your 13" sets?

I typically start my prints at 16x24 and go up to 4'x6 I sell into the high end housing market and lodges. Many of these houses have large rooms and small prints would just be swallowed up. Having more resolution allows more details in these prints. I will always take more than less as you never know what size of print is required from a given image.


chez:

Tv-watching has nothing to do with printing: that's a totally false analogy to attempt to sell.

As I said to adias, there are all sorts of reasons why people chose their options as they do - each valid enough to that person. However, that doesn't make for a universal truth, and the first thing that reduces it to the absurd is when the reasons for the decisions are ignored and some all-inclusive format touted as an absolute.

I, personally, don't think all photography looks that wonderful printed large (what's large?) and have long understood that scale is very important respective to image. Location, location, location also holds a powerful hand in that decision, exactly as it does for many a business.

However, as you appear to be making prints commercially, you have other priorites that I can understand perfectly well, which may not be applicable to the hobbyist. I'm sure a big one sells for more bucks in a gallery than does a smaller one of the same image. But does that make the larger intrinsically superior to the other?

Rob
« Last Edit: March 20, 2016, 03:00:40 pm by Rob C »
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2420
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #171 on: March 20, 2016, 03:27:50 pm »


chez:

Tv-watching has nothing to do with printing: that's a totally false analogy to attempt to sell.

As I said to adias, there are all sorts of reasons why people chose their options as they do - each valid enough to that person. However, that doesn't make for a universal truth, and the first thing that reduces it to the absurd is when the reasons for the decisions are ignored and some all-inclusive format touted as an absolute.

I, personally, don't think all photography looks that wonderful printed large (what's large?) and have long understood that scale is very important respective to image. Location, location, location also holds a powerful hand in that decision, exactly as it does for many a business.

However, as you appear to be making prints commercially, you have other priorites that I can understand perfectly well, which may not be applicable to the hobbyist. I'm sure a big one sells for more bucks in a gallery than does a smaller one of the same image. But does that make the larger intrinsically superior to the other?

Rob

Looking at a large print is very much like watching a big screen TV...it sucks you right into the image. A small print with lots of detail just does not show the same as the same image printed big so you can easily see the detail. The big screen TV / large print analogy is right on...same result viewing either one.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2420
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #172 on: March 20, 2016, 03:31:49 pm »

At clients requests I've supplied large files and prints - up to 84" long side - but from a personal point of view far prefer smaller, more intimate prints.

Each to their own.

Obviously wall space is a limiting factor. I have 3 large prints, one in my living room and 2 in my den, all lit up using Solux lighting and also have other prints throughout the house. The large prints get the most attention from guests, they look at them from a standoff to take in the entire scene and they will also come in close to look at the details. Prints at smaller sizes just don't get the same reactions.
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #173 on: March 20, 2016, 04:04:01 pm »

The thing is, we all have difficulty imagining what it's like to be someone else. The folks who go for big prints figure that if the small print folks just had access to the "right" resources—printer capability or wall space—they'd be big print folks too. The small print folks imagine that the big print folks have been simply tricked by ego or suckered by marketeering and if shown the light would get over it. Really, when it comes down to it, you're all like me. Except that, unlike me, you've been deceived or are in denial. This is myopic BS. In the Doctor Who dialog I posted earlier, both the Doctor & Ashildr—who, as we later discover, are in many ways strikingly similar individuals—make valid & true points and yet do not agree on fundamental things.

-Dave-
« Last Edit: March 20, 2016, 04:24:27 pm by Telecaster »
Logged

adias

  • Guest
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #174 on: March 20, 2016, 04:06:33 pm »

adias:

You may suspect as you wish, and in some senses of the thing you are perfectly right - there are always reasons why people do as they do. But, size is certainly not always a matter of finance. Size is also a matter of personal fancy, space available, money thought worth spending, and don't forget that for many, photography is not the all-demanding obsession that it is for some others.

Regarding camera weight: you're right again, insofar as I am concerned on a personal level. I am old, did in youthful days carry a couple of 500 Series Hasselblads, three lenses, backs and a yellow Kodak freezer bag full of film. I did that because I was getting paid for what I was photographing. On other jobs it was exactly the same except it was perhaps four Nikons and at least seven lenses and the film bag. In both cases, throw in a useful tripod. I never employed an assistant. I was healthy and fairly strong if thinnish. Today I am still thinnish (look! no beer gut!) but far from strong. And as importantly, whatever I do with a camera now is entirely for my own satisfaction and occasional amusement. I have given up printing for reasons HP should be ashamed of, and whatever looks fine on my website is alI I require from files.

And no, I would not print larger unless I suddenly discovered a busy commercial market for my prints.

As for the thread 'deteriorating', as you put it, don't forget that this is a social resource, not a strict educational institution; there's room for both aspects - as it has long shown - and also bear in mind that what can usefully be said on some topics is often said quite quickly, leading to a dead thread...

Rob C


I never mentioned 'finances' on printing large people's choices. You did.

I am disappointed that you took my post - an innocuous one - to justify your choices and reasons. Those are yours and they only matter to you.

The point of my earlier post was that the thread started with technically reasoned replies and moved on to personal choices which have nothing to do with the topic.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2420
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #175 on: March 20, 2016, 04:09:55 pm »

Nothing at all to do with wall space here, purely personal preference.

I'd no more display my own work on my walls than I would my genitals.

So what...you take photos and hide them from everyone? Why is it that you feel no desire to display your own work?
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #176 on: March 20, 2016, 04:17:48 pm »

So what...you take photos and hide them from everyone? Why is it that you feel no desire to display your own work?

Here's a perfect example of what I just posted above. How can your attitude towards your photo work possibly be different to mine? There must be something wrong with you (because, of course, I am the norm).

-Dave-
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #177 on: March 20, 2016, 04:26:05 pm »


I never mentioned 'finances' on printing large people's choices. You did.

I am disappointed that you took my post - an innocuous one - to justify your choices and reasons. Those are yours and they only matter to you.

The point of my earlier post was that the thread started with technically reasoned replies and moved on to personal choices which have nothing to do with the topic.

"I suspect that people do not print large because they can't for a number of reasons, but they would if those impediments (fill in yours here) could be removed."

So why not visibly preclude the ones you reserve the right to disown? And aren't you doing exactly the same sort of thing you knock others for doing: going degrees off topic?

I see the opportunity for being suckered into another daft circle looming large: sod it.

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: How much quality do you really need?
« Reply #178 on: March 20, 2016, 04:28:14 pm »

Looking at a large print is very much like watching a big screen TV...it sucks you right into the image. A small print with lots of detail just does not show the same as the same image printed big so you can easily see the detail. The big screen TV / large print analogy is right on...same result viewing either one.


Do you examine your girlfriend with a magnifying glass?

Rob C

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 #179 on: March 20, 2016, 04:31:07 pm »

Do you examine your girlfriend with a magnifying glass?

Only if she sends me a passport-photo sized selfie ;)
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11   Go Up