Re: why not small prints?

[Lukas Werth <lukas.werth@rz.hu-berlin.de>]

An interesting thread which triggers some personal recollections: Before I
got into alt photo, I wanted to make large prints, whic was one of te
reasons for getting a large format camera. Then, trying to learn palladium
prints and chrysotype, I contacted my 4x5 negatives. After that, 8x10 was a
revelation. This size is large enough for me to be attractive: according to
my experience, people who see my photographs somehow tend to overlook te
4x5s. But then, they are not matted over with 16x20 (nor indeed 8x10).
However, 4x5 is a bit small for my taste; I find it difficult to "get
myself into the picture"; the image rather represents some hole to peep
through. 

Trying to figure out a non-personal bottom-line: there are certainly
reasons to keep pictures small. These, however, should be part of the
artistic intention of the author, and content, representation, and context
should match this intentions. It does not seem enough to me to stay small
for printing convenience, and to try to convince oneself and others that
this is the way to go, or beef up puny pictures with oversized and
representative mattings.

Lukas