>Actually, I am looking at a 8x10 right now that is almost, but
>not quite the opposite - that is, a print may look good on 4x6,
>but look really good on a 8x10.
Here's the deal. Serious generalizations to follow, exceptions
always exist:
Macro and super-telephoto shots don't look as good blown way up
and wide-angle and panaramic shots don't look as good in small
print form.
It has to do with matching the eye-print viewing angle with the
lens-subject viewing angle.
Most of my macro prints look wonderful on 8x10, but the bulk of
my landscapes don't kick in until I'm at 11x14 or larger. I
have a 24mm shot takin in the badlands that absolutely looks
stunning when projected but on anything less than a four-foot
size it is pedestrian at best. As a massive enlargement it is
probably a "career maker" but if I put an 8x10 in my portfolio
it would be a "career breaker".
Another generalization: When having serious enlargments done
(11x14 and above), the less extreme pictures "wear" better.
This is where our art background (you DID take a painting class,
didn't you?) kicks in and we learn about perspectives, painting
sizes and viewing distances.
My rule-of-thumb when I'm taking a picture of something that I
KNOW will be destined for a major enlargement is to use one
focal length wider than I think works in the viewfinder and back
off the saturation/intensity just a hair. This way, the print
will have legs.
Remember, a print will have maximum staying power if the viewed
subject size is similar to the viewed subject size of the naked
eye looking at the original subject. My art teacher used the
phrase "window on the world". The print should be, at the
intended viewing distance, a window on the world that you
selected to photograph.
As I type this, I look across the room and see two macro flower
shots. Both were taken with telephoto lenses (100mm and 200mm).
As 8x10s, the flowers are just about 50% larger than life size,
but given the viewing distance they are as "natural" as can be.
I have a second copy of one of the prints in my office where it
is about two feet from my eyes. I hate that picture there. The
viewing distance isn't right. However, I have a landscape 8x10
print about a foot to the left of my computer screen taken with
the 35mm lens which is astonishing. But viewed from 4-5 feet it
looks punky. The 11x14 looks perfect at normal viewing
distances and 16x20 is perfect for the "behind the sofa"
location.
Learning how to select appropriate print sizes is an artform in
itself. This is a skillset that commercial photographers and
advertising art directors have used for ages. You can say that
"rules are meant to be broken" but on the flip side these
"rules" may exist for a valid reason.
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|