Moving to BIG prints...

[hogloff]

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.

[stcstc31]

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

[jamgolf]

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.

[Rand47]

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

[keithcooper]

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"

[sgrenald]

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...

[Eric Brody]

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.

[stockjock]

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

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Because that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes....

What a beautifully succinct way of putting it!

[BobShaw]

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.

[deanwork]

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.

 

[keithcooper]

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 ;-)

[GrahamBy]

As an aside, why does this so remind me of threads on LL back in 2003 concerning the wider advent of digital cameras ;-)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Said_Hanrahan