-1
\$\begingroup\$

I know that 6x4 inch photos were popularized by 35mm cameras, which were then superseded by 4x3 aspect ratio in digital cameras, while 16x9 has taken precedence in general because of widescreen displays.

With this history in mind, what are the current prevailing conventions for fine art photography sizes in both pixels and inches, that would be both compatible in a gallery setting, large market printers, as well as for finding consumer frames for?

Equally important is the standard megabyte storage space these conventional sizes are approximated to consume?

\$\endgroup\$
11
  • \$\begingroup\$ This question is likely to be answered with opinions rather than facts and citations. It should be updated so it will lead to fact-based answers. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 25, 2021 at 20:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ Strong, high-consensus opinions are in many ways fact-based answers. People vote for best answers? Sizes of some recent examples in the fine art world, digital file size included, would be helpful \$\endgroup\$
    – user610620
    Dec 25, 2021 at 20:17
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @user610620 This seems like it might be an X→Y problem. What specific problem are you trying to solve? Do you want to know what files size, ppi, print size, aspect ratio, etc. would make your own work more marketable? Are you looking to build a storage facility for fine art "investments" and want to know what would be the most efficient use of the space, in terms of the dimensions of individual storage cells, in such a facility? Something else? \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Dec 25, 2021 at 23:34
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @user610620, again: there is no such standard. Take a look on the famous paintings and you will see extreme diversity. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 26, 2021 at 8:35
  • 1

1 Answer 1

4
\$\begingroup\$

There is no single standardized file size, ppi, aspect ratio, nor physical dimension in the field of fine art photography. Works can range from square postage stamp sized pieces (or even smaller) to displays occupying large billboards, entire sides of large buildings or other structures, with everything in between.

It may be the case that a large majority of fine art prints use one among any of the several standardized paper sizes, but there are also many works that use non-conventional aspect ratios and print sizes. They're literally all over the place.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ Alright, but for the 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios, there must be definitive pixel sizes that fine art photographers adhere to? \$\endgroup\$
    – user610620
    Dec 26, 2021 at 8:25
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Pixels don't have sizes. They are a dimensionless number. I think what you are trying to ask is how many pixels does an image need to be printed at a specific size? The general convention is around 300 ppi for prints intended to be viewed from a distance of about one foot/25 cm. Since larger works are intended to viewed from greater distances, that number goes down as size increases. But I think most galleries are more concerned with the size and proportions of the matting around a photo than they are the number of ppi in a fine art print. That, and the actual content of the image. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Dec 26, 2021 at 10:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.