RE: why not small prints?

[Nick Frazier <giganerd@mindspring.com>]

I agree with Don. Matting can have an enormous effect on the presentation. I
have been recently doing Van Dyke contact prints using 35mm negatives. Using
Rives BFK paper, there is some loss of detail (I'm still experimenting to
see if there is a better readily-available paper, but the Rives has a nice
finish). All of my VDB prints are either medium format or 35mm contact
prints and I have never had anyone comment negatively on the size. Granted,
it's not for everyone, but I won't bother indulging in a big v. small debate
here.

I always mat my prints. Lately I have been experimenting with 8-ply board,
usually about 3" all the way around. I have also tried double matting, using
the same white matboard for both mats, and this is very effective as well.
One mat I created had a smaller opening than the artwork so the viewer had
to move around to see the entire print. (Framers get bored too) To me, small
prints draw the viewer closer in, both physically and conceptually, and deep
mats enhance that quality.

As a side note, one direction for your work if you are interested in
creating larger prints may be to combine a few small prints (on the same
paper or separately) into one larger image.

Have fun!

Nick Frazier
Jill Flink Fine Art
Raleigh, NC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Bryant [mailto:dsbryant@telocity.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 7:15 AM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: why not small prints?
>
>
> Shannon
>
>
> > I've only shown them to a few people, and after they get
> > over the shock of the blue, people think they are too small or that they
> > would be better if they were bigger.
>
> How are you presenting them? A small print with a window matt works better
> than one without (IMO). The over matt makes the print seem a bit
> larger. Of
> course cutting a matt for every print is tiresome and expensive but can be
> effective.
>
> Don Bryant
>