Digital BW, The Print

James Irelan <james@...> wrote:
>
> There's one other consideration ...
> the larger the prints are, the more expensive it is ... 
> to pack and transport them ...

I have 22 x 28 and 16 x 20 image sizes on the wall currently, with mats that are larger, of course.  I recently reduced the outside mat/frame size of the largest so that it would fit inside the largest art shipping box the local UPS store carries.  Shipping cost and convenience was the main reason to do this.

While 16 x 20 inches has been the traditional B&W display size that I'd targetted in the darkroom, I'm finding inkjet printers are making the larger sizes so much easier than they used to be that 22 x 28" is becoming my new standard for display.  They look much more impressive as primary wall displays.

On the other hand, some of the best B&W gallery displays I've seen have mosly 11 x 14 prints.  The Brett Weston show in Santa Barbara is mostly this size, for example.  On small walls and for up-close viewing, I might like the 11 x 14 better than a 16 x 20.  I sell quite of few of these in clear bags due to cost and convenience for both me and the buyers.  When matted to a standard 16x20 exterior size, buyers can easily drop the prints into standard frames. The smaller prints are much easier to store when not on display.

Additional factors that are influencing me to consider moving to 22x28 (approximately) and 11x14 as my standards, and away from 16x20, are the printer and paper sizes.  13" printers are not only cheap and easy to operate, but the 1.5 pl drop size does matter for some things.

With my interest in Arches un-coated watercolor paper increasing, that full sheet size of 22.5 x 30 is also a factor.  I'll shrink my large size enough to allow a border to show and be signed.  Two 13x19 sheets for 11x14 images are easily and efficiently cut from the full sheet and allow the larger end borders that are needed to avoid microbanding on the newer printers.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com