Q & A on 'The Wrong Camera'

Today I thought I'd address a few of the questions and comments about "The Wrong Camera" posts, Parts I and II.

John: "I have issues with going for some kind of consistency. I shoot many different things and I want to keep shooting many different things. I’m not a pro. Why then do I always hear that I need to be consistent? Why can’t the only consistency be that I took the picture?"

Mike replies: This is important, so it bears repeating every time it comes up: do whatever you want. You own your photography; you decide. My position is that as long as people aren't being evil or hurting anybody, anything goes. My only suggestion, and a suggestion is all it is, is that you might want to make your choices consciously and thoughtfully. But even that's up to you.

J. Paul Thomas: "Your comments on 'the wrong camera' were most interesting. I am of the old school and greatly prefer to take my photos with a 'real' camera. However I do not always have it with me as I do my iPhone. Being an eternal optimist I hope every picture I take will be worthy of framing and hanging on the wall. My question may be impossible to answer, but I wonder if you have any thoughts on just how large a photo taken one of today’s iPhones can be enlarged. I realize that many factors can influence the answer, but I am interested in an idea of the upper practical limits."

Mike replies: The answer is a moving target, for many reasons. For instance, which phone? Then: for what usage? What's your standard for image quality? How far away will the print be viewed? (They've made billboards featuring iPhone photos.) How much post-processing expertise do you have? How good are you at printing? Really the only way is to set your own standard: experiment with your equipment and materials, your skills, and your sense of what's good enough (for you!) and what's not. With my first DSLR (the Konica-Minolta 7D of sainted memory) and first pigment digital printer (the notorious HP B9180, which not only discouraged me from continuing to learn inkjet printing but also drove HP out of that segment of the printer market), my standard was that I'd print up to about 15 inches in the long dimension and that was it. But I have a print made from that camera on my wall to this day that is 32 inches wide (sorry about the rollover text, I didn't notice it until too late and I'm not going back to fix it). It was made by an expert printer, Paul Butzi, who recognized that it would work at that size because only a very small portion of it (surrounding the droplets of water in the reflection area in the center of the image) were, or needed to be, sharp.

Nick: "Re your unfinished projects, is there another piece here about how to know when a project is finished? Or if not finished, just enough? So you have figured out a style and method of working and getting some good results. Is 12 excellent images a finished project? Since it was certainly finished as a time period of that work. Or are you thinking of how many images you would need to make it a book? Twelve images could certainly be enough for say a group show...but it doesn't count as finished unless it's a solo show or a complete book? Maybe having a target at the start would help people motivate to achieving that number?"

Mike replies: A question for the ages! It's really part and parcel of the art. Method is something not talked about enough, here or anywhere else. In art school, we were told there is no real answer, but maybe 40–60 pictures is a good body of work. But then, William Eggleston considered that his "Democratic Forest" project might end up being 10,000 images, and Jack MacDonough took a picture of a magnificent oak tree from the same vantage point in all four seasons, and the set has sold many times and earned him a ton. Is that a piece or a project? I think the case can be made that it was a four-picture project. Some photographers move decisively from one project to the next, with hard boundaries between them, and others could be said to be pursuing one project for their entire lifetimes—this might be especially true of portraitists, like Yousuf Karsh, Jane Bown, or Arnold Newman. Some photographers photograph many instances of the same idea, like the Bechers and their industrial structures or Hiroshi Sugimoto's Seascapes series, while others have big, sprawling bodies of work with many different kinds of pictures included that they attempt to bring under one big umbrella, like Weegee's Naked City or Steve McCurry's multipartite portrait of Asia, Asian cultures, and Asian peoples. Some demarcate projects in terms of distinctive sets of equipment and materials; some use periods of time. A few use intervals of time, like PAD or PAW projects (a picture a day or a picture a week), all the way up to Jamie's Livingston's Some Photos of That Day, for which he took one Polaroid every day for eighteen years until he passed away. Obviously, a lot of photographers, artists and amateurs alike, use place—Paula Chamlee's High Plains Farm work, or Joel Meyerowitz's St. Louis and the Arch, or an enthusiast's pictures from an African Safari or a hiking trip in the Arizona mountains. Some are constrained by the availability of the subject—Richard Nickel was driven to photograph magnificent Chicago buildings that were being torn down, meaning he had to work as quickly as he could and settle for less than perfect portraits of old buildings—the project killed him—and Larry Sultan's elegant documentation of his parents after he was a adult. Still others consider the "energy" of a project—how long do they stay interested? When do they start to get bored? I would say for most people that they can't force it. If something doesn't have enough energy to propel itself along naturally, you're not going to get very far on willpower alone. Other things just aren't very good ideas, like a dreadful book I saw once called Sunflowers that was just an endless succession of boring snapshots of, you guessed it, sunflowers. And how conscious is it? Maybe you're just going along doing what you like, like Saul Leiter, and the commonality between the photos is just in the distinctive way you see the world. Others are doing jobs, but doing it in their own distinctive way, like Irving Penn's fashion and professional work, which managed to show his particular inimitable style. The list goes on. The variations, and how you can best match up ideas to your own skills, commitment, aptitudes, and opportunities, is all part of the fun.

John gillooly: "Mike, really enjoyed this one. Do you think that creative outlets of today, like Instagram and other social media platforms, allow for a more rapid completion of projects?

"When I started using Instagram several years ago, the medium sort of gave me some incentive to edit, finish and present small bodies of work. Many times that simply means me making an edit of my favorite 30 images after a PGA event or other work assignment. But knowing I had that outlet absolutely reinvigorated my photography as it gave me a readily available presentation place. As you mentioned in this post, before 'social' platforms, you were sort of limited to 'show' and 'book' which required an entirely different level of completion."

Mike replies: I have no idea what the answer to your first question is, except...they ought to. But, knowing that it invigorated your photography pleased me to hear, and seems like a positive indicator! It raised my spirits the day I read it.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Nick: "Mike, thanks so much for answering my question in depth! And I'm thrilled and not at all surprised to hear that the answer to 'how long is a project?' is 'it depends'! I see that just means the project is done when you say it's done, whether that is 1 picture or 10,000, or upon your death. And I was wondering whether you could actually consider your 12 good portraits to be a finished project, since 12 is a decent number for excellent images—but clearly it is not finished if you just didn't feel like you'd finished the work! Very interesting, thanks."

Richard Alan Fox: "This post takes me back fifty one years to San Francisco, 1974 (according to my artist resume). I enrolled in a photography class at the University of California extension in San Francisco. Larry Sultan was the instructor. This was his first class. I was photographing with Polaroid positive negative film, my subject was my face; some images were blurred, others grotesque in the manner of 'film noir.' Larry arranged for me to exhibit the work at the school's gallery. This was my first photo show. I printed 11x14 inch prints from the negatives and mounted a grid of the Polaroid Positives on the wall. The invitations for the show were contact printed post cards. That was a beginning for both of us, different paths, different lives. Sadly he passed in 2009. Thank you for mentioning him; may his memory be for a blessing."

Charles Rozier: "Sylvia Plachy used quite a few different formats—I remember her saying that while she was very strict with her private life, she was quite promiscuous with her cameras."

Comments

[Dave Millier]

Some of these questions resonate with the thought I have been giving over the last 18 months to the matter of "what do we do with our photography and our photographs".

Since I joined the Royal Photographic Society I have been slowly working out how I transition my photography to a project/series centric way of working rather than a location shoot centric/single shot philosophy I have accidentally been using most of my life.

I'm a solo photographer, I don't have an art school background nor do I work with other photographers/clubs and I'm having to work out the answers all on my own.

One approach I have adopted is to think a lot about what I call "output types". I don't want my pictures to just be lost on a hard drive, so I have come up with a list of different ways to output my images from framed images hanging on the wall, to boxed portfolios, to handmade bound books. I've started to document my thoughts on this on my website if anyone is interested:

https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/article/how-to-save-our-photos-from-obscurity-some-ideas-for-digital-and-hardcopy-output-part-1-of-2/

https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/article/how-to-save-our-photos-from-obscurity-some-ideas-for-digital-and-hardcopy-output-part-2-of-3-update-to-part-1/

Another key output type for me (although not really in line with the project-working ethos) is to publish a "photo of the day" on my website. I started this on 6 November 2022 and I've published a photo of the day every day since:

https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/

My photo of the day is not based around the idea of shooting and publishing a photo on the same day, rather, I publish example shots from recent photo shoots. But ensuring you have enough recent material is one way of keeping yourself photographically productive.

[Dave Millier]

Some of these questions resonate with the thought I have been giving over the last 18 months to the matter of "what do we do with our photography and our photographs".

Since I joined the Royal Photographic Society I have been slowly working out how I transition my photography to a project/series centric way of working rather than a location shoot centric/single shot philosophy I have accidentally been using most of my life.

I'm a solo photographer, I don't have an art school background nor do I work with other photographers/clubs and I'm having to work out the answers all on my own.

One approach I have adopted is to think a lot about what I call "output types". I don't want my pictures to just be lost on a hard drive, so I have come up with a list of different ways to output my images from framed images hanging on the wall, to boxed portfolios, to handmade bound books. I've started to document my thoughts on this on my website if anyone is interested:

https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/article/how-to-save-our-photos-from-obscurity-some-ideas-for-digital-and-hardcopy-output-part-1-of-2/

https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/article/how-to-save-our-photos-from-obscurity-some-ideas-for-digital-and-hardcopy-output-part-2-of-3-update-to-part-1/

Another key output type for me (although not really in line with the project-working ethos) is to publish a "photo of the day" on my website. I started this on 6 November 2022 and I've published a photo of the day every day since:

https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/

My photo of the day is not based around the idea of shooting and publishing a photo on the same day, rather, I publish example shots from recent photo shoots. But ensuring you have enough recent material is one way of keeping yourself photographically productive.

[Luke]

How many images do I need? At this point, it's enough to get one more image that I really like.

I know that if I set my mind to it, or rather open my mind to it, I CAN get another really good one. And then, another.

I feel better just writing that.

[psu]

One data point in the question of print size is this old page from TOP discussing the general idea of making bigger prints from "small" sensor cameras, including the phones of the time (10 years ago). 10 years ago is a long time for phone camera evolution, but the devices were already reasonably usable for up to certain print sizes. I see no reason why they would not be somewhat better now.

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2014/01/small-format-professionalism.html

Disclaimer: Yeah the iPhone picture on that page is mine. But I swear that's not why I linked to it. 🙂

[MikeR]

How large can one print from a phone image? Like so many things, it all depends.

Having had a darkroom for some years, I found I was constitutionally averse to having to fuss around a lot, such a manipulating contrast. If I had a good neg, I'd probably crop a bit, maybe dodge and burn, and make a print from the only paper stock I had settled upon. If it didn't look nice to me, I'd move on. Not gonna fight it.

When I transitioned to digital, I sold off the darkroom gear, and cycled through a few printers, eventually settling on Epson-branded ones. Color-managed workflow. But, the same process as with film: if it didn't look good, move on to another file. (Btw, I don't think I've ever outsourced printing a digital image.)

So, my guide is, if it looks good, cool! If not, well, try something else. That's my only consistency.

But, how large?
I have a Lumix GF-1 (yeah, that old) which is converted to infrared. I let the camera do the conversion internally to monochrome. (Remember, no fussing around.) I made a print on 13x19 Red River Palo Duro paper using an old Epson 3880 Stylus Pro with all-carbon inks, QuadTone RIP as the driver, and it's spectacular, so much detail.

With a Galaxy S10 smartphone, I took a picture of an old glass milk bottle to send to my brother (too long a story for here), liked the result, and made a 13x19 color print on an Epson SureColor P600. It's a nice print. Won a prize.

Went to a rodeo at a 4H near me, used a Huawei P20 Pro in monochrome mode to grab a quick shot near sunset. Printed it with the aforementioned Epson Stylus Pro onto 17x22 Red River Palo Duro, had it framed, won a First at a local art show. It's the kind of print that draws the eye in, first from a distance, then up close; people just stare at it, and into it.

All three are hanging on our walls.

These days, I see no limits. Everything works.

[Dave]

For unfinished projects and other questions about the creative process, this might help: The Creative Act: A Way of Being by Rick Rubin. (The link at Amazon was far too long to include here.)

Lucy Lumen [an obviously fake name :>) ] posted a video about the book recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVfHyX3bX1U

[Herman Krieger]

During a visit to a technical fair in Moscow in the 1960s, I took a photo of people obsessed by an exhibition of ballpoint pens. They ignore the mock up of a Soviet space station hanging over head.

[Bear.]

iPhone enlargement- my rule of thumb is that for critical exhibition printing of sharp images without significant noise is thar my iPhone 15 Max Pro caps out at about A3 size. I think of the iphone camera as a sketch pad that will reliably print to A4 or 8x10. I find it’s really light dependant- the greater the computational magic required from Apple to compensate for small pixels in low light, the smaller the maximum print size.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

How many eminent photographers are known for a personal style or typical subject matter? Or more to the point, how many are not?

At least sometimes, a photographer very much known for one thing (Ansel Adams is "known" for B&W large-format landscapes and slightly closer (but nowhere near macro) shots of things in nature, but also did other things that get enough attention that we know about them. Polaroids, color, even some portraits. And commercial work. So—are his "typical" works better, or are they just what he's known for? (He might not have done his commercial work except for money, but then again he might not have had the access except for the commercial assignment. He's on record as having learned something from each of them. I'm rather fond of his photo of hands stringing core memory at IBM around 1956.)

I'm rather ignorant of "eminent" photographers (probably haven't read the world's best photographic magazine regularly enough, despite growing up with it). So, how many are famous for a wide variety of work? I wonder if a lot of the examples are primarily commercial; Jay Maisel might be an example. He should count as "eminent" safely.

It is unlikely, at this point, that I will ever be an eminent photographer myself, and trying to shape my photographic practice in that direction is especially pointless since I have no strong belief that I know what would work for that. So I will keep on doing what is fun. This is, perhaps, the ultimate benefit of being an amateur.