Digital BW, The Print

Hi Andrew
This was very interesting.  I'm glad you posted the website for your exhibit.  What I noticed was that small and large pictures were interspersed one next to the other.  Now if we go under the theory that viewing distance should be some multiple of the diagonal of the print it would seem that small photos are seriously disadvantaged in that arrangement.  Viewers will need to radically alter their focus and will probably never move in close enough to perceive the subtlety of the smaller pictures.

So my theory is that we should structure exhibits around the size of the space and the distance we want viewers to be.  Hallways for instance would obviously favor smaller prints.

All that being said the optimum size would be similar to those around it and that best fit the space.  In other words, it depends......

Granger Macy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Darlow <ad@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Evan:
> 
> I recently had an exhibition of my prints, and about half the prints  
> were 20x24 matted and framed prints. The other half were 38x38 to  
> 38x70-inch black and white prints on canvas, stretched on 1.75-inch- 
> wide stretcher bars. I really like big prints on canvas, but I also  
> like the look of small prints. I also like stamp art, so size is  
> really subjective!
> 
> The interesting thing that I observed is that virtually no one really  
> asked about the smaller pieces. 90% of the people asked questions  
> about the big prints, but I think that if I had used all 20x24 frames,  
> I think that there would have been questions about them.
> 
> You can read about the show and see some of the photos here:
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/dnz2rb
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Andrew
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Andrew Darlow
> Editor, The Imaging Buffet
> http://www.imagingbuffet.com
> Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
> An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers - http://www.inkjettips.com
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 17, 2009, at 8:05 PM, punk_investor wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > I usually print at 16 x 20 for exhibition, but others in the same  
> > shows have printed as small as 8 x 10. Keep in mind though that size  
> > is up to the prerogative of the artist. Michael Kenna's prints are  
> > usually about 8 x 8 and very rarely larger than that. I think I  
> > remember him saying in an interview that the idea was to get people  
> > up close and personal when viewing his prints. One way to determine  
> > print size is to determine how far away you want the viewer to be,  
> > and use that length as the diagonal length of your print.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Evan Wolarsky"  
> > <wolarsky@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm curious as to what size prints members of this group are  
> > making for exhibition. My 10x15" print matted on 16X20" definitely  
> > looked smaller than the others in a show recently.
> > >
> > > I'm not interested in discussions of the aesthetics, but rather  
> > what size do you do currently.
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>