Jump to content

Please vote: 11"x14" or 16"x20" for exhibition of photos printed from Leica negatives


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I usually print on about 8x12 on 11x14 paper. Larger paper is a pain in the butt to work with. I've seen plenty of exhibits of prints by Jerry Uelsmann, Edward Weston, W. Eugene Smith, David Douglas Duncan, and other "greats" where there were a lot of prints on 8x10 paper.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you deliberately cropping the 2:3 aspect ratio to 4:5? [And still call it "full frame", as you do in the post] ???

 

Do you see a need for that? Where do you cut? Top or bottom or both a little bit?

 

I prefer 8 x 12. 10 x 15, 20 x 30 etc etc. formats!

 

Please think about whether your compositions are not full frame and how you would improve or worsen a picture by cropping to 4:5.

 

With an SLR, people do not need to crop thus as you seem to want to do; why to do this with a RF camera negative is somewhat beyond me ...

 

Can't Leica RF cameras compose full frame? Come on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends also on how much space you will be getting for exhibiting. Maybe you want to show pics that are connected visualy or a particular collection. If they are smaller you get more space but less impact....etc.etc.etc.......
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why are you deliberately cropping the 2:3 aspect ratio to 4:5? [And still call it "full frame", as you do in the post] ???"

 

Why not read the post first before coming out with your tirade? He says he will use either 11x14 or 16x20 PAPER, printed to full frame. This means he can print, say 20 wide and let the vertical fall where it will for a full frame - probably 13.33.

 

I've done this a lot and find that with good negs and careful printing the grain, from Tri-X, is negligible. Hence if you have the space in a gallery I would recommend this size. You have the benefit of not having to crowd too close for a comfortable view.

 

The last six exhibitions I've seen in Amsterdam and London have shown nothing under this size. 8x10 looks pretty grungy and amateurish to me, unless it's in a book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bravo usually printed smaller. Doesn't stop the prints from looking beautiful in the musuems.

 

I have shown at 8x10 and nobody says "grungy" or "amateurish", although I suppose that's because the images aren't. I don't particularly care for 35mm printed beyond that size for most images. The results are often grungy and amateurish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you are in a group show there will probably be guidelines on the size of the framed prints. if you are in a solo show then you should take into account the size of the space you are showing in. also, remember that the bigger the print the more expensive it will be to frame. don't try to cut mats yourself unless you are a professional framer. in the meantime print up both sizes and see how they look. then decide. you may want to go smaller depending on subject matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why when I was a kid I used too cut my mats with an exacto knife, a draftsmans plastic straight edge and do it on the sidewalk. Like Al said all you need is a steady hand, a couple of whacks of Jim Beam didn't hurt either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...