How big do you Print? [Discussion]

[The Grim Squeaker]

I've been making a batch of prints for my dad's offices and decoration lately, using my nature photography.
I was curious as to how big people here print their photography, if at all, and if they would print larger if they could. (I'm severely limited technically, a large amount of my favourite shots are 3-5MP and taken on old gear, and even a lot of my newer stuff is only 7 MP on a 40D. I plan to upgrade in August ).

I have a large amount of A4 prints (a few dozen), a dozen or two A3 prints, and 15-20 A2 or larger prints for offices (I consider the quality on them unusable, but the client loves them and he's paying for the prints including one "poster" sized one from Iceland)). I also have lots of Postcard size prints (30-50 or so), but I don't plan on doing that size anymore - it's too small to enjoy, and I might as well open up the image on my A3 page sized computer screen .


What framings do you use? Do you frame yourself?

[J]

I have everything from 4x6" photos to giant 24"x36" prints. Some were taken on our digital compact, a few on a friend's DSLR, some on 35mm film and the giant ones were professional portraits taken with a 6x9 medium format camera.

The compact tops out at around 9"x12", any bigger than that and the tone & texture starts looking icky, they kinda go flat and die if I try to make them any bigger. There's a few special cases where we could go larger thanks to bright high-contrast subjects which don't have much detail nor texture, you'll probably have a few such photos so evaluate them on a case by case basis.

35mm film and DSLRs will give nice 11"x14" prints, sometimes more sometimes less depending mostly on the subject and the skill of the photographer, we haven't gone any larger since the bigger sizes are too square and don't work as well with the photos, maybe some day. The big advantage of a DSLR is freedom from noise and better tone & texture than compacts even if the claimed megapixels is the same. I still prefer film in most cases, it just looks nicer & more natural to my eyes.

We still haven't found the limit for 6x9 medium format film, our photographer friend says 30"x50" is about the limit with the films he used for our photos. Mind you this is on ISO 50 & 100 B&W film which is incredibly sharp & fine grained and it was done in a studio by a professional with a really good lighting setup and near perfect conditions.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Inches or Centimetres?

[J]

Neither. It's in Zolls.

6x9 is however in centimetres, though the actual frame is a few mm smaller.

[Marcus Aurelius]

If I print, I usually go for 15x20/23 cm as the minimum size, depending on the format. Sometimes 13x17 cm for digital 3:4 aspect ratio images, especially if the image is noisy or taken with a camera phone (which usually is the same thing due to the small sensors on camera phones). The best shots get printed at 20x25 cm or larger, up to poster size for landscapes shot with medium format film. Of course I don't have dozens of such large prints, just a few. 15x23 cm is useful, since you can actually put those in a photo album as long as it does not have any stupid placeholders for 10x15 cm prints. Anything larger will have to framed and found a spot on the walls, except poster size prints, which I just use a posters.

Unfortunately the digital age has spoiled me too, so I don't print as much I should. I don't own an inkjet, so all my printing is done by a lab, although I have been thinking to get an enlarger for analog printing of film. Doing everything on the computer gets tiring after a while, and although I do not really believe that analog printing is superior like some of the analog diehards (perhaps in some ways, but not in general sense), it may have other enticements not directly related to image quality.

On the other end of things I would also like a good digital photo frame. Most of the ones sold today are too small and have an abysmal image quality compared to prints. It does not really matter if you look at them from a meter away, but at close viewing distance they suck, unlike real prints, which hold up at closer scrutiny.