Charles Haacker wrote:minniev wrote:Duck wrote:Wrong way of thinking, my friend. It's not about the pixels, it's about the story.
For me it has always been about the story, and I've happily shot away with my less than auspicious equipment and printed at home up to 13x19 without a hitch. Only after I got this darned award last month did pixels ever become a thing I thought about. Now I have to learn how to print larger than I've ever done, suitable for display, and the pixel disease has struck me with a vengeance. If you have a cure, please send it quickly .
I've said it before and I'll say it again: ya ain't supposed to get your nose on a pitcher! I have seen Seurat's famed Sunday Afternoon in the flesh at the Chicago Art Institute. In the first place it is huge, about 7x10 feet. Charles Haacker, on Flickr
It hangs alone in a room that allows you to stand 20+ feet away, but of course people go up and look closely to see Seurat's tiny points of color (I waited until someone did just that, mostly for scale). When I was in school (before the last great extinction) our mentors taught that photographs were made of silver grains, therefore grain was normal, and you could make a billboard from a 35mm Tri-X negative and no one would notice since no one gets their nose up to a billboard. That said, I don't know if the award folks make pixel-peeping part of their judging criteria, but in my opinion they should not.
The anxiety is me inflicting it on myself, partly because I lack knowledge and experience in large prints, and partly because I do know my equipment is not very forgiving in and of itself. I'm encouraged by what Duck and others are telling me, and am hoping for a less stressful outcome than what I've worked myself up over. Thanks for the vote of confidence. We shall see!