Do Good Big Pictures always look good small.

Messages
1,687
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I submit some draft work digitally, and always try to make sure that images have at least some impact as a thumbnail.

I was just wondering if anyone had examples of images that have no immediate appeal as a thumbnail, yet are great images when they're seen at full or near full size?
 
i find the opposite when I print negatives and contact sheets. there are some amazing pics on the contact sheets/slightly enlarged, but any bigger and the pic looses its magic. really p&$$es me off!
 
I tend to find it happens more when looking at work on here rather than my own [possibly because I usually see my own large before small, if that makes sense, already know its impact and feel it never looks as god small]. I will often open a thread and see a picture that I think 'yes, thats quite nice', then click on a link for a larger version and thing 'WOW, now that looks brilliant'
 
My other half tells me that things always look better when bigger:D infact sometimes she makes me make things bigger before she even looks at it.

I always think that a large print looks better than a small print though

Dave
 
i find the opposite

me too, this thumb looked beau when I was twiddling through some scans, but fullsize its just also ran :shrug:


2mwgeaa.jpg



Nothing touches seeing huge prints in a gallery though
 
saddens me! so much potential when small:(

I agree that huge prints are nicer, but I do sometimes prefer smaller prints. they are displayed to you more on a "personal" level and can be nice.

I avoided going too large with my prints during a-level. even when I printed from medium format I didn't go larger than 2/3ds of A3 sized paper. Though that was also due to time restraints.

I think its just more because your not used to seing huge images in magazines etc.

one of the best photography exhibitions ive been too was where all the images were either 1-1 (same size) as the original negative, or just double in size. I really loved it! and they even gave you magnifing glasses to look at them if you wanted. it made a change for wall-sized prints!
 
me too, this thumb looked beau when I was twiddling through some scans, but fullsize its just also ran :shrug:


2mwgeaa.jpg



Nothing touches seeing huge prints in a gallery though

out of interest, do you have a larger version of the image at hand (don't go out of your way though!)

just wondering if its "workable" in a dark room (perhaps expose the sky a little longer, use of contrast sheets etc.... its got promise basically!

not dead yet!
 
if i remember correctly from my course, you have to expose the image so that the dark bit it is properly exposed, then in the darkroom, expose the dark bit for that length (or a bit longer) then, using contrast filters and waving bits of cardboard around, expose the lighter section for even longer/less for desired effect.

all to tricky to explain lol!
 
My other half tells me that things always look better when bigger:D infact sometimes she makes me make things bigger before she even looks at it.

I always think that a large print looks better than a small print though

Dave

There was a frequently quoted maxim about photographic prints "A good big 'un always beats a good small 'un".
 
I find that good pics work just as well small as when they're big. When they're small, the basic graphics shine through and some detail is lost. When they're big, more detail emerges - but any faults are also enlarged, like dodgy focus or motion blur, or noise and poor dynamic range.

Some subjects really come into their own when big, often true with macro. Really tiny subjects take on a new appeal, like a fly printed the size of a pigeon. And any subject where the beauty is in the small detail and fine texture.

Late edit: I like portraits life size if poss. The do look more intimate that way.
 
i hate it when an thumbnail looks good or the image looks good on camera, but then when you get it onto the monitor and blow it up a bit it's not sharp haha.
 
Back
Top