Recently I wrote about my ageism experience. During the same discussion I spoke of a comment that was made about the size of some of my prints … “if only they were larger”.  This made me thank back to an entry I wrote several years ago  entitled Does Size Matter? Here is part of what I said:

“Short answer — it does, but only to you, because it’s your picture.  That’s right, but make sure the size you make is done for the right reasons.  Very large prints are trendy now, but almost every time I see them in exhibits I am overwhelmed by the size and underwhelmed by the content.  That is because what seems to be on display are large images of boring subject matter, many of which I believe wouldn’t get a second look if they were smaller in size.

This realization was really brought home to me as a result of two shows I saw over the past several years.  The first was a very nice Edward Weston show hosted by the wonderful Michener Art Museum, located where I live, in Doylestown, Pennsylvania.  The second was the recent stupendous Paul Strand exhibit mounted at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.  None of the Weston prints were larger than 8×10 because he only contact printed his large format negatives.  With Strand, most were no more than 8×10, with many being much smaller, and the remainder not much larger than 8×10.

These prints forced you to stop, get close and look at them.  You had to really study them to discover their secrets, rather than just walk by each mammoth print some ten feet way.

So I think a small print really has to stand on its content, but just as importantly it draws in the viewer and compels him or her to really concentrate and think about what is going on in the image.

Now be brutally honest with yourself; are you making really large prints because you have been conditioned to think that what’s in?  And while large size will get attention, does it mask content that wouldn’t get a second look in a more intimate size?”

Getting back to the comment made to me … combined with my recent visits to several photography exhibits of well known and/or currently trendy photographers that were comprised completely of quite large photographs … this made think about this question again … does size matter? The answer is YES, YES, and YES!  The problem is that it often matters for all the wrong reasons … mainly surrounding the desire of the photographer and the gallery to sell prints, and for the museums to display what is hot and will draw in paying visitors.  I get it, but does it make compelling art? I don’t think so. Does it fill large amounts of wall space where necessary in homes whose occupants possess significant amounts of disposable incomes? I think so, and if that makes homeowners happy, all and well.

So here is what I said to finish my original entry on this subject … years later, nothing has changed my thinking at all … except that I feel more strongly then ever about it:

“Now be brutally honest with yourself; are you making really large prints because you have been conditioned to think that what’s in?  And while large size will get attention, does it mask content that wouldn’t get a second look in a more intimate size?

And don’t feel compelled to make really large prints because you are using larger negatives.  Negative size should not determine print size because of the available higher resolution.

The vast majority of prints I’ve made have been on 8×10 sheets of paper, which means they are actually smaller than that. There have been a relatively few made using 11×14 paper, based on vision and/or use of a square negative.

So only print those photographs that you believe really have something to say … and when you create the print that captures your vision, make it the size you think works best for that image.”

Stay safe,

Michael