How Big Does A Print Really Need To Be?

There are two possible answers - the first is 'as big as the customer is willing to pay for', and the second simple answer is 'as big as I can afford to frame.

Assuming you are doing enough commercial work to pay for any equipment needed to make big images, then it's a simple business decision. If however, you are not selling enough work to pay for itself, then how large should you plan on?

Lets make sure we appreciate the full cost of making larger prints. Larger prints need more pixels (in most cases), bigger printers (exc. panoramas, so consider that as an option), faster computers, more hard disk space and better backups. Consider too that larger prints which are to be displayed require much more expensive frames and require wall space you may or may not have (or can negotiate with your significant other). Larger prints are harder to keep flat so unless you plan on stretching canvas, they may need dry mounted - more expense.

What if money were no object and the only consideration was what size looks best? Prints look best without any glass in front and gloss and semi gloss papers look best when you can angle them to eliminate relfections and bronzing (which shows at the same angle). To me this is a strong message for the hand holdable print. I would argue that the largest print that is practical to hand hold and view the whole image is 13X19 paper with a suitably smaller image (see an earlier blog for comments about white border sizes). There are however some images that just beg to be made really large and therefore wall mounted. My Columbia Ice Fields image looked really nice when I printed it big at 17X40 paper size but now that I have been asked to sell larger versions (and reprocessed the raw files with better software) I now print it 24X72 - and damn it looks nice (and the 17X40 looks puny).

I am getting ready for a show in Toronto and they require even bigger prints so I will get those done commercially. I just can't justify the cost of a bigger printer unless I can guarantee a return on my money - so I will wait and see how the first batch of really big prints sells.

If we only occasionally make really big prints, it makes more sense to oursource them. If only the occasional print is big, we don't really need the newest fastest computer available. It would be nice if every image was recorded with as many pixels as possible, but it is an option sometimes to plan to stitch so you can make a big image. That happened with my 'Horseshoe Canyon Before Storm' image. It just wowed me and I knew I wanted to make really big prints so I shot it as a total of 19 images with my 10D.

An option to consider for a dramatic effect while keeping costs down is to create an image as four separate pictures not overlapped and frame them separately using inexpensive frames and mount them on the wall together. This is sometimes done with paintings and there's no reason not to do it with a photograph. Not all images will conveniently let you divide them down the middle, but many will.

The standard size image I print is 13X19 - even the very first time. This is hardly efficient as I go through an awful lot of paper getting images just right (not to mention expensive ink).I really should print small to start with but as the standard size I sell is 13X19, I need to know the image works at that size. If you don't have a really good excuse, why not standardize on 8.5X11 - think how much less storage it will take up (if nothing else).

Subject matter determines size and I'd love to tell you I have the formula for figuring out which type of prints go to what size - unfortunately my experience is there is no logic - there are macro shots that look good huge and landscapes that look better small, go figure... Some photographers deliberately print an image in a series of sizes to figure out which is right - and then only sell the image at that size. Want it smaller or bigger and willing to pay - too bad, it is what it is. Maybe I'm greedy but I'm certainly willing to be more flexible than that.

Partly size is determined by whether or not there is anything worth seeing close up in a larger print - partly this is a matter of how many pixels and their quality and the resolution of the lens, but it is also a function of the subject matter. Although I have never seen a 3 foot high print of Pepper # 30, I can't imagine I'd see anything other than minor flaws in the pepper - enough is enough.

Finely detailed landscapes in which you can see more nose on print look good big if the detail is there and horrible if it isn't.