How big is big enough?

[jbstitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While waiting for new developments and not really liking what has come out of Solms that much, I have been contomplating my shooting and equipment, and as I look at the pictures around the room I say to myself, wow, that is a D2 picture, and it looks as good as other DMR or 5D pictures! I print with a Epson 2400 and my maximum print size is 13 x 19 with most of my prints 16 x 12 inches.

 

Maybe as I am waiting for an R10 or a better M8 or even a resurection of the D2 concept (I wish! - I dream) I have gotten a little out of the technical mania and am pondering, "How big is good enough?" For my purposes, am I really going to see any difference in a new and better camera? Is the loss of familiarity and motor memory action worth the advances of a new "more advanced" camera? What is important, the equipment to display ofr others to see, or the prints that I produce? Is the keeper rate better with the Canon 5D better than with the Digilux 2? Which prints have that snap and impact when displayed? Much of the time the snappy ones are the D2. I shot a wedding with the D2 and got shots better than anything I ever did with an SLR or even medium format, and with far less post processing. I have never seen a person with a loop at an exhibit or even at a photocontest judging?

 

Maybe some of us are really after big prints. They would have a need for an exceptional tool. Frankly, the biggest print I have ever made, In the dark room and even with some cropping is 20 x 24 inches.

 

So have we all gone crazy like the pied piper following the latest technology instead of the best tool for our purposes? Occasionally someone will post D2 picks and I think, wow, the tool allowed for capturing the critical moment (with some acknowledgable but fixable problems of the D2) But what happened - we got the D3 with more bells and whistles and much less suited for, at least my, style of, photography.

 

Maybe a path to success for Leica is to once again, return to having the best tools, instead of playing the C&N games? Instead of how new is good enough focus again on what is the best tool for what each of us do.

[jrc]

At one time, when paintings were made for display in middle-class and upper-middle class houses, as opposed to display in museums or museum-like spaces, they tended to be fairly small so that they wouldn't overwhelm room-sized spaces. (When I say small, I mean no more than six feet -- ~2 meters -- in the longer dimension, and usually smaller.) I would say a good typical size for these pieces is about 2 feet by 3 feet. This is large enough that you can stand across a couch or a table and see it clearly and comfortably, and it will not completely overwhelm the wall. You'll notice that when you see art in a bathroom, hanging near a toilet, it's usually very small, because your face is often only inches away from it -- no point in being big. In other words, there is a pragmatic size for these things. And that size, IMHO, tends to run about 2x3 in feet, or ~60x90cm. This isn't precise, of course, because there are so many variables. BUT: I think if you had a camera that could produce good micro-detail in 2x3 foot prints, that would be good enough for most purposes. Good enough that even artists wouldn't pay a lot more for cameras that would give you, say, 3x4 feet. When I say good micro-detail, I'm again referring to a pragmatic view of things, such as defining it as the amount of detail that you see in the background trees of Paul Caponigro's "Running White Deer," etc., or plug in your favorite detailed photograph.

 

We are now very close to this with MF cameras, but have a way to go with 35mm-legacy sized bodies; actually, probably quite a few years.

 

But that would be, IMHO, "good enough."

 

JC