Re: why not small prints?

[Bill Collins <photo@intrex.net>]

There's no one correct answer to this, so I'm sure the discussion will go on for days. :-)

I started shooting large format because I wanted to make photos with lots and lots of detail. (and I usually choose subjects with a lot of intricate detail)  For me, these need to be printed large, so the detail is not lost.  (and so I can see the detail without my reading glasses!)

Diana Bloomfield (who was on this list for a while) made a series of pt prints from 6x6cm negatives that I like (and went over well in the shows that she entered them in), so there's a vote for small prints too.

I guess it depends on the subject, the artist's concept for the picture, and the viewer's expectations. (I guess that's true of all art)

Bill

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Shannon Stoney <shannonstoney@earthlink.net>
Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 18:49:03 -0700

>This is a sort of related question to the  current thread about negative 
>enlargement via Photoshop and various printers and ink systems:  how do
>people on this list feel about small prints?  I have been making contact
>prints with my 4x5 negatives all summer, in cyanotype.  I shot these
>negatives intending to enlarge them, but in the end I decided to print them
>as contact prints.  I've only shown them to a few people, and after they get
>over the shock of the blue, people think they are too small or that they
>would be better if they were bigger.  I wonder if this is true as an
>aesthetic judgement, or if it's just that we've grown accustomed to big
>prints in galleries (unless we're looking at snapshots or postcards) and we
>could get used to small prints.   I mean, why not small prints?  We accept
>smallness in the above mentioned snapshots and postcards.  My images are
>mostly landscapes; so are many postcards.  I wonder if they would "read"
>more acceptably if I called them postcards?
>
>I guess this question has to do with expectations and how malleable they
>are. I have gotten used to the blue and I hardly see it  any more:  I see a
>range of values and textures and details.  I wonder if we could also get
>used to small fine art prints.  The first photography shows that Stieglitz
>put together I think were mostly small prints by today's standards.
>Nowadays, photographers tend to make huge prints to show in galleries, I
>suppose to give them more presence and help them compete with paintings.
>But small prints have an appealing intimacy I think.
>
>  Also, when you are making negatives intending to make small contact
>prints, do you restrict yourself to certain subject matter or compositions
>that you feel will "work" with small prints?
>
>--shannon
>
>-
>