Digital BW, The Print

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.

-----Original Message-----

From: Evan Wolarsky <wolarsky@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 12:47 pm
Subject: [Digital BW] print size for exhibition


I usually print 13x19, matted to 16x20 or 20x24 frames.

Rich
www.rmassiephotography.com



I'm curious as to what size prints members of this group are making for 
xhibition. My 10x15" print matted on 16X20" definitely looked smaller than the 
thers in a show recently. 
I'm not interested in discussions of the aesthetics, but rather what size do you 
o currently.


------------------------------------
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they 
re often being updated.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
nsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
Please follow these basic guidelines:
 As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them 
hort.
 Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, 
ggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without 
otice.
 Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
rinting. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the 
embership.
 By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, 
nd to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators
. See 
Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
ttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! 
ROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF 
IGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, 
NDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT 
OT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER 
NTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE 
RINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
ESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
AHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR 
ATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
RINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
RINT YAHOO GROUP.
ahoo! Groups Links
   Individual Email | Traditional


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

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.
>

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]

At 12:47 PM 6/17/2009, Evan 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'd been printing mostly 17 x 22 or 17 x17, framed 22 x 28 or 22 x 22.

For my show coming up everything is larger, 24 x 34 or 24 x 24, 
displayed un-framed.

But so what?  Aesthetics do matter.  Price point does matter.

Arthur


     Arthur Fink Photography

     Ten New Island Avenue         . land 207.766.5722
     Peaks Island, Maine 04108     . cell 207.615.5722
     www.arthurfinkphoto.com    af@...

     Problems with my e-mail address?  My provider has
     been returning some mail as if it were spam!  You
     can address me at    arthurfinkphoto@...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Darlow 

> [...] size is really subjective!

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. 

However, imho that does not mean this is fully subjective. It is a bit similar to composition. There's good and bad composition and some images need to be viewed large and others are better of small.

My intuitive drive is to go large but when I set my ego aside and just look at the images I end up with a maximum of A3 (~13"x19") matted to 40x50cm. In my last exhibition I limited myself to ~10x25 cm, matted to 30x50 cm.

Joost

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. 
>

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]

There's one other consideration I would not have thought of until I  
spoke to a gallery owner who takes his represented artists' work to  
out of state galleries.  He asked me how large my prints were.  I  
thought he was asking to make sure they were big enough, but no, it  
was the opposite:  the larger the prints are, the more expensive it is  
for him to pack and transport them to other shows.  Not a  
consideration if you're targeting one known local show, but something  
I hadn't thought of in the case of someone who might represent your  
work at remote locations.

James


On Jun 18, 2009, at 10:44 AM, David Whistance wrote:

>
>
> As well as the aesthetic considerations I think you also need to take
> account of your target audience and location.
>



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

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

I've been reading this thread with great interest.  I do have a question.

I generally shoot with Canon SLRs that have a 3x2 format.  This makes my preferred print size 12x18 or 16x24, neither of which is a "standard" size.

What format are you using?  And is the simple solution to achieving "standard" print sizes (e.g. 16x20) merely one of cropping the image?  If so, that means the composition of the shot must take into account the cropping requirement and the resulting loss of the full resolution of the sensor size.

If my comments are accurate, why do camera makers continue to employ formats that don't match the "standard"?  Or am I missing something?

Thanks,

Fred


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <pr_roark@...> wrote:

>
> 
> 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...
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "fredila2" <fred@...> wrote:
>
> I've been reading this thread with great interest.  I do have a question.
> 
> I generally shoot with Canon SLRs that have a 3x2 format.  This makes my preferred print size 12x18 or 16x24, neither of which is a "standard" size.
> 
> What format are you using?  And is the simple solution to achieving "standard" print sizes (e.g. 16x20) merely one of cropping the image?  If so, that means the composition of the shot must take into account the cropping requirement and the resulting loss of the full resolution of the sensor size.
> 
> If my comments are accurate, why do camera makers continue to employ formats that don't match the "standard"?  Or am I missing something?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Fred
> 
Fred,

I personally like the 3x2 format proportions.  I generally frame "in camera" so cropping can sometimes be difficult.  

Having said that, the "standard" formats are mostly different proportions.  5x7 is close to the camera format (5x7.5), but some of the others aren't even close, and unfortunately, they all have different proportions.  8x10 lops off 2" from the camera format (8x12).  Of course, 4x5 and 16x20 have the same proportions as 8x10.  11x14 lops off 1.5" (11x16.5 camera format).  I think all these sizes just sort of came about without any thought and we are stuck with these legacy sizes.  

It is a constant PITA when I sell custom prints to people.  Every time, I have to spell out the fact that some images don't crop well to 8x10 or 11x14, etc, and other images do lend themselves to cropping.  I prefer to frame in camera and will probably continue to do so for most of my photography.  When I KNOW a job needs to be a standard size, I just leave plenty of room for cropping.

I print most of my images using 2x3 proportions, since I mat them before framing anyway.  Since I don't have things hanging in galleries, this may not apply to that discussion.  

Lou

While paper cost is an issue, I am used to printing different formats for looks. I'm more concerned with precut matt.

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 6/20/2009 at 4:04 PM fredila2 wrote:

>I've been reading this thread with great interest.  I do have a question.
>
>I generally shoot with Canon SLRs that have a 3x2 format.  This makes my
>preferred print size 12x18 or 16x24, neither of which is a "standard" size.
>
>What format are you using?  And is the simple solution to achieving
>"standard" print sizes (e.g. 16x20) merely one of cropping the image?  If
>so, that means the composition of the shot must take into account the
>cropping requirement and the resulting loss of the full resolution of the
>sensor size.
>
>If my comments are accurate, why do camera makers continue to employ
>formats that don't match the "standard"?  Or am I missing something?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Fred
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "fredila2" <fred@...> wrote:

> What format are you using?  And is the simple solution to achieving "standard" print sizes (e.g. 16x20) merely one of cropping the image?  If so, that means the composition of the shot must take into account the cropping requirement and the resulting loss of the full resolution of the sensor size.
> 

To me the aspect ratio of an image is a crucial part of the composition. I always adapt it to what the image needs and I sacrifice uniformity. So, often I end up with some non-standard aspect ratio that I compensate with the matting.

Joost

I've always tended to shoot wide, rather than close crop in the finder. When I do square, for example, I tend to close crop in the finder. A good deal of my shooting is about moments ( timing ) rather than composing a shot.

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

>
>I personally like the 3x2 format proportions.  I generally frame "in
>camera" so cropping can sometimes be difficult.  
>
>Having said that, the "standard" formats are mostly different proportions.
> 5x7 is close to the camera format (5x7.5), but some of the others aren't
>even close, and unfortunately, they all have different proportions.  8x10
>lops off 2" from the camera format (8x12).  Of course, 4x5 and 16x20 have
>the same proportions as 8x10.  11x14 lops off 1.5" (11x16.5 camera
>format).  I think all these sizes just sort of came about without any
>thought and we are stuck with these legacy sizes.  
>
>It is a constant PITA when I sell custom prints to people.  Every time, I
>have to spell out the fact that some images don't crop well to 8x10 or
>11x14, etc, and other images do lend themselves to cropping.  I prefer to
>frame in camera and will probably continue to do so for most of my
>photography.  When I KNOW a job needs to be a standard size, I just leave
>plenty of room for cropping.
>
>I print most of my images using 2x3 proportions, since I mat them before
>framing anyway.  Since I don't have things hanging in galleries, this may
>not apply to that discussion.  
>
>Lou
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
>they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
>Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
>membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
>printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
>the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
>guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
>and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files
>section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
>“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
>YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
>EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
>PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
>“OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
>ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
>OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
>UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
>STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
>PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I strongly agree with Joost.  Even with trying to think about in- 
camera framing, I've found that almost invariably, my images are  
improved with post cropping.  I almost always finalize the image in  
whatever aspect ration this crop demands, then balance out with  
matting.   But I'll also matt and frame to nonstandard sizes when it  
best supports the look of the final package.




On Jun 20, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Joost Horsten wrote:
>
>
> To me the aspect ratio of an image is a crucial part of the  
> composition. I always adapt it to what the image needs and I  
> sacrifice uniformity. So, often I end up with some non-standard  
> aspect ratio that I compensate with the matting.
>
> Joost
>
>
> 



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

Fred,

For what it is worth....the 35mm format that you use in your Canon is  
the same as 35mm for film which came from 35mm film from the movie  
industry.
For 35mm this has been the standard for every.

Papers in the Silver Gelatin era were in a variety of formats that  
rarely matched the film.

The 8x10 format was purely esthetic.  Out of this came the 4x5 and  
8x10 film sizes.

As has been pointed out in much of this thread it is all purely  
esthectic?

Paul
On Jun 20, 2009, at 9:04 AM, fredila2 wrote:

>
>
> I've been reading this thread with great interest. I do have a  
> question.
>
> I generally shoot with Canon SLRs that have a 3x2 format. This makes  
> my preferred print size 12x18 or 16x24, neither of which is a  
> "standard" size.
>
> What format are you using? And is the simple solution to achieving  
> "standard" print sizes (e.g. 16x20) merely one of cropping the  
> image? If so, that means the composition of the shot must take into  
> account the cropping requirement and the resulting loss of the full  
> resolution of the sensor size.
>
> If my comments are accurate, why do camera makers continue to employ  
> formats that don't match the "standard"? Or am I missing something?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Fred
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark"  
> <pr_roark@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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...
> >
>
>
> 



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

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]
>