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

[michael s.]

Jeff - The first few lines of <a href=http://www.lyricsfreak.com/l/leonard-cohen/82816.html>this Leonard Cohen song</a> have always been favorites of mine.<p><p>

 

Back in the early 70's, a friend's older brother (who, unlike Leonard Cohen, had a big clear magnificent voice) sang this and many others, including classics and songs he wrote that *should* have become classics (ah, the music business) in saloons and barrooms on the North Side of Chicago. His versions are the ones I hear ... when things get quiet.

[al_kaplan1]

Perhaps I should point out that when I started cutting my own matts I didn't know that there was such a thing as a "matt cutter" with a blade fixed at the precise angle. And maybe way back then there wasn't! I knew a lot of people who cut their own matts that way, both graphic artists and photographers.

[john_elder1]

Usually 8x12 on 11x14 paper. In 2 of my shows I included 3 or 4 pics that were 12x18 on 16 x 20 paper. The negs have to be great for that size. Concerning mat cutting, a Logan 650 Framers Edge mat cutter will pay for itself on your very first show. The dumbdest most expensive thing to do is to pay someone to cut your mats. The secret is to change blades every 2 mats.

[douglas k.]

A woman friend tells me that bigger is better, but only up to a point. Same is true of photos, I think. Some people print large in attempts to compensate for lame images, but I prefer better images in smaller prints, say full-frame on 8x10 or 11x14 inch paper at the largest.

 

As for mats, I know how to cut them, but have neither the cutter nor the inclination to do them myself. Given what my time is worth, I prefer to simply drop off prints and have someone else cut the mats and do the drymounting.