Digital BW, The Print

As well as the aesthetic considerations I think you also need to take
account of your target audience and location.  As an example last year I
printed an exhibition for some friends which was shown at the Oxo Gallery on
the South Bank of the Thames.  75% of their images were 20"x24" with the
remainder being either 32"x40" or 48"x60". The exhibition was very well
recieved and they sold lots of prints, mostly in the larger sizes.  In
contrast when I printed my own exhibition to show here on the Isle of Wight
the gallery proprietors advised me to keep the prints reasonably small.  As
a result the images were mostly 16"x20" with only two at 24"x30".
Thankfully it was also well received with good sales, albeit in this case
all but one at 16"x20".  As a large format photographer I was a bit
disappointed with the advice to print smaller images, however there is no
doubt it was the right advice for the location.

David Whistance


  -----Original Message-----
  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Evan
Wolarsky
  Sent: 18 June 2009 12:45
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: print size for exhibition





  My question was worded in such a way as to take an informal survey of the
endpoints of people's aesthetic judgments, not to minimize them. My
impresssion is that 20x24" may have become the new 16X20".

  > Although the OP does not want to discuss aesthetics, experiences of
others are indeed of little use to take as guideline. As also Jason said,
this is an artistic decision to be made by the artist based on intended
viewing distance.
  >



  


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]