Re: Bigger is better???

• To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
• Subject: Re: Bigger is better???
• From: Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>
• Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 15:46:23 +0000
• Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
• References: <F97vyVqr7NoUDry420O00000f5b@hotmail.com>
• Reply-to: kthayer@pacifier.com
• Resent-message-id: <0G2100KFH5R8L6@duke.usask.ca>
• Resent-reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca

Last winter I saw an exhibit of photographs at David Lawrence's gallery
in Portland, by a variety of photographers, some contemporary and some
historical.  All prints were on the small side, and all were exquisite.
It really made me rethink how big prints need to be to have a presence
or carry across a space. Now I'm showing some prints as small as 6"x8".
Others want to be bigger, like the series I'm working on of a huge
starling flock against the sky; I can't seem to make those prints as big
as I'd really like to see them. Carl is absolutely right; Decide how big
they want to be and make them that size.  
Katharine Thayer

• References:
  • Bigger is better???
    • From: "Robert W. Schramm" <schrammrus@hotmail.com>

• Prev by Date: Size, or, painting envy
• Next by Date: Re: Marker Paper (Correction)
• Prev by thread: Bigger is better???
• Next by thread: Mona L.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread