Keith Schreiber (jkschreiber@worldnet.att.net)
Fri, 19 Mar 1999 03:57:41 -0700
Garimo -
I used to work at a museum, the Center for Creative Photography at the
University of Arizona, and from that perspective I would agree with David's
reply that image size should be defined as image or "picture" size not
including borders. This works fine as long as the edges are regular and
discernible. Irregular edges, such as your brushstrokes, present a problem
of identifying what exactly is the area to be measured i.e. do you measure
the shortest distance or the longest or somewhere in between. This may seem
a no-brainer to some, but when dealing with a multitude of variations on the
theme it's not so easy. So the standard practice in the museum context is to
measure the image area only. A cataloging record will also have a field for
support (paper) size, mat size (secondary support), and perhaps a way of
indicating irregular borders.
But what would you do in the case of an image printed so that the edges are
*inside* the edge of the negative as with, for example, an 8x10 negative
printed on a coated area of roughly 7x9? I guess I would measure each
dimension at it's widest point, but you can see there is plenty of room for
interpretation.
Then there is the matter of presentation. If a print is floated so that the
edges of the paper are visible, perhaps the paper size should be the primary
size. On the other hand, if a print is window matted with the window just
inside the edge of the image, maybe that should be the determining factor.
Personally, since I always (well, almost always) print my full negative, I
use the negative size (8x10, 8x30, 10x24) as a nominal size whether I print
the brush (or rod) strokes or mask the them, even though it is not exact. I
think it is close enough that if anyone wants to quibble over it I wouldn't
lose any sleep.
BTW, at CCP all dimensions are measured in centimeters.
Cheerios,
Keith
Keith Schreiber
jkschreiber@worldnet.att.net
-----Original Message-----
From: garimo <omirag@cruzio.com>
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>;
alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Date: Monday, March 15, 1999 2:38 PM
Subject: writing descriptions
>If you were to view a image on a web site...(I'm working on mine) and
>the image such as the cyanotype that I put up at >
>http://upnatom.com/cyanotypes.html < Would you expect the description
>of the image size to include the brush strokes on the edges or just the
>size of the negative used?? What other information would you want to
>know?
>thanks,
>
> garimo
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:09:04