These days, there seems to be a trend towards producing very large prints. It would seem that “the bigger the image, the better” is a common theory for photographic greatness.
Once-upon-a-time there were no large format possibilities for the average image-maker. In most cases the photographic image was not enlarged at all. Rather, they were printed to the exact same size as the original negative, which was determined by the camera format. This was the only possible outcome. Enlarging had not been invented.
In fact, it was just as difficult to produce images that were smaller than the original. There were no enlargers, scanners or copy technology. The only possible way of making of a larger or smaller image of the original might have been accomplished by shooting a picture of it with another format camera. But for the most part, all photographs were contact printed. They were produced 1:1 to the exact scale of the camera format.
Until the enlarger was invented, if one wanted large images, they had to use a large camera. The landscapes produced in the late 1800’s were usually made using large plate cameras. The use of 16″x20″, 11×14″ and other size cameras produced negatives, which when contact printed would yield a respectable scale to the subject photographed. Many of the biggest cameras of the day could produce 16×20 and 20×14 plates. There were not many photographers who dared to work with larger equipment. Big cameras and large plates were far too unwieldy and way too costly for the average photographer.
The original camera plates used in Daguerreotype and Collodion were also the end product. The image plate became the actual photograph. They were always unique and at that point, not readily reproducible. They were one of a kind, restricted in scale to the cameras that made them. Reproduction was limited to making engravings, which were hand drawn from the originals.
The format of most digital camera sensors is a direct consequence of the 35mm camera and the postcard dimensions of the average snapshot from the days of film and drugstore printing. It is also a scaling which descended from camera plate sizes used in the very early days of large format photography when photographers used sheets of glass that were divided into half and quarter plates. Those plates were mostly contact printed, which resulted in the most common printing sizes for black and white darkroom printing being the 8×10, the 4X5 or the 5×7. We really haven’t changed our habits for ratios that much.
Today, we seem to take image size for granted. The computer, especially, has allowed us to scale our prints to enormous proportion. It is possible today to make images that will cover a wall, a billboard or a building.
Yet, for most of the history of photography, the scale of most photographic images was rather small.
Generally, small photographs were meant to be viewed up close. As such, they can acquire a charm that when presented well, adds to their fascination. In most cases, we are forced to look closer. We look for detail and subtlety. We study the content and weigh it for meaning. We experience the camera. With hope, we will see the photographer.
Smaller is often seen as more personal, jewel like, more subtle, delicate and/or perhaps more alluring. In the 1800’s, tintypes and Daguerreotypes were viewed in special ornate cases as if jewels. Perhaps the modern scale equivalent would be the electronic versions that we share on our Smart Phones and iPads.
I believe there is a beauty in smallness that may be lost to the new technologies and the idea that bigger is better.
The best images usually draw you in by their beauty, composition, detail and scale. But of beauty, composition, detail and scale, size is a compositional decision, which can alter the way we experience all of the other characteristics. Like resolution and sharpness, scale should be used to reveal the right amount of detail for the important elements in the image. Too small and they will be missed. Too big and they may become less effective. A great image utilizes scale as a way to underscore the real subject of an image.
Scale can overpower a presentation. It can get in the way of experiencing the intended reaction. Scale can enrich or diminish what the image has to offer. Scale is a way to lead your viewer to a new experience of a subject. The size of the image is a value proposition in that it rewards the viewer with a perfectly scaled presence. Scale can make or break the final presentation of a great piece of work.
Images should not be treasured by size. Rather, images should be valued by their photographic greatness. Greatness is a culmination of the genius of the artist, his/her vision and all the creative choices that a photographer must consider for presentation of the work, which includes the use of appropriate scaling. An 8×10 produced by one great photographer can have similar importance to a 30″x40″ piece created by another. Big is not better. Big without consideration, is simply big.
My friend and teacher, Nathan Lyons, has maintained consistent format and a modest scale to his images throughout his career. In part, the experience of his work counts on this consistency. The viewer is captivated as much by the scale as by the content. In many ways, along with his paired juxtapositions and subject matter, his use of scale has defined his work, his vision and his signature. His decisive use of scale speaks to his confidence in the camera, his subjects and his audience.
I believe that Nathan’s use of scale enhances the magnitude of his vision.
There are times for big images, but there are also times for small images. Given the right proportions, the image can be allowed to speak for itself.
Small can be good. Small can also be best.
You can read more about Nathan Lyons, in his recently published anthology “Nathan Lyons Selected Essays, Lectures and Interviews” – here.
Please have a look at some of my other posts here.
NOTICE of Copyright: THIS POSTING AS WELL AS ALL PHOTOGRAPHS, GALLERY IMAGES, AND ILLUSTRATIONS ARE COPYRIGHT © JOHN NEEL AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT FROM THE WRITER, THE PHOTOGRAPHER AND/OR lensgarden.com. THE IDEAS EXPRESSED ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER AND THE AUTHOR.
