Digital – Print Size — and Silver too

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In another thread Vic stated that it's much easier to make high quality "huge" prints than in the darkroom; he also wrote that there isn't mich point to make silver prints larger than 20x24 inches because, then, you view the prints from a distance that doesn't reveal what the paper radiates.

 

This started me thinking about print size in general, on which I thought it's best to start a new thread. Generally, I like very large prints and have made some 100x150 cm (40x60 inch) prints after seeing Moriyama Daido's exhibition at the Sydney Biennale (Gallery of NSW), where he has prints this size. I've printed the following picture at 40x52 inches from a Ricoh GR-D file shot at ISO800:

 

 

What is interesting about the print at this huge size is the way the image emerges from the heavy film-like digital grain: the effect is more compelling than you see in the jpg above.

 

While in the Moriyama exhibion the huge prints all look stunning, not all prints look good at large sizes: I have a print of a headless Buddha taken at the Musée Guimet in Paris, which looks good at 12x18 inches (30x45cm) but, at 24x36 inches (60x90cm), looks "too large". It's not really that objects don't look as good when printed at larger than their real size. Obviously all this is a matter of personal preference and taste, but I cannot find a general rule as to when a picture will look better smaller rather than larger and vice versa. My own view is that the bulk of pictures are likely to look good at 100x150 cm, but a minority will not. Perhaps this is particularly true for high contrast photos, like those of Moriyama.

 

Any thoughts?

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

[cbretteville]

I've had a 60x90cm done of this one. Its a Digilux 2 shot done as a JPEG. Yes, you can se the artefacts if you put your nose right up to the print, but viewd at normal distance for such a shot it looks great. The grit looks like film grain. The lab used an Epson (can't remember the model) to print it.

 

 

[ATTACH]12639[/ATTACH]

 

4secs|f11|ISO100|90mm

 

 

I'm not sure if I get what Vic is on about. If the paper dosen't matter for silver prints wouldn't that be the same for an inkjet print? After all we're talking about reflective properties of the paper. Which, btw, will depend the surface, framing and the lighting in which the print is viewed.

 

As for subject matter that looks good in large formats, it would depend on the shot, and the context in which it is shown. A stunning landscape is a stunning landscape, a war-shot can get too gory and a protrait can be too revealing. As you say, it is all a matter of personal taste and as such my view is that there is as may answers to your as there are people.

 

- Carl