My reply to the question is this:
Since when is bigger automatically more expensive/valuable?
Different images work better in different sizes. Yes, there is a difference in material cost, but with archival inkjet printing, it’s not that much. Why charge someone more for a huge print of an image that works better at 7×7? That’s a bit of a rip-off, no? Why charge less because a particular photo happens to work best at a smaller size? I have images that are best at wallet size, but I’m not going to sell them for $5 just because they’re small.
I think we collectively need to be careful about confusing cost and value.
I agree with you completely, however the art consumer probably doesn’t. It’s too bad when someone like you obviously spends the time to determine the best size for viewing (I always look at your suggested size on Flickr). But, I suppose it boils down to how much the consumer is to influence the producer, and that’s a whole nother can of worms…
Hi Nicolai –
You might find this related blog entry about big prints to be interesting.
Joe, that’s a really interesting angle.