When producing an image, a photographer should always think of a target size and a medium of display. Images “demand” a size, a scale.
There are images that will never work even printed on a book. Take Andreas Gursky’s or Candida HÃ¶fer’s work for an example. Those who have seen their work at a gallery or museum know what Iâ€™m talking about.
Gabriele Basilicoâ€™s images are a good example of how good an image can be when printed on a book. Although he uses a large format camera, I think books are the best medium for his work to be displayed on.
Detail is not an issue in every image and size is usually more important. Size controls intimacy for example (in little images) or makes us use one of the most ignored perception senses: peripheral vision. Take a look at Uta Barthâ€™s works and you can see what I mean.]]>
What I like about a tangible print in my hands (or in a book) is the absence of the ‘next/previous’ button.]]>
It is a little worse than you state because color changes from one monitor to another so you have now real idea what your viewer is seeing, BUT you can deliver your images to an audience very fast.
I still like film and wet printing.]]>
This is something I’ve thought of for a long time.
Flash software like jalbum is one way around this problem – if users have large screens you can (as webmaster) choose maximum widths your images are displayed at (and the images will then display at the max width of the users screen)
It doesn’t get around the problem completely but it helps a bit…
Nothing beats a big print in your hands or up on the wall…]]>