Re: why not small prints?

[Pam Niedermayer <pam_pine@cape.com>]

Sometimes even highly detailed and complex work are exquisite in the
small, Indian paintings, for example.

Pam

CMPatti@aol.com wrote:
> 
> I'm glad to see someone raise this issue, because I also have a thing for
> smaller prints and have been "going small."  After doing 8x10 contacts for a
> while, I started to experiment with 5x7 (mainly to increase portability of
> the camera gear), and I find that I really like the prints I've made at that
> size.  Depending on what presentation is intended for the prints, I do think
> that size can influence subject matter.  If they are to go on the wall, I
> find that subjects with lots of complexity and detail work less well at the
> smaller size.  But I've also been putting together a mini-portfolio of prints
> of from a single project.  I've mounted the 5x7 prints under 8x10 mats and
> put them in an 8x10 black Century portfolio box.  They are intended for
> viewing in the hands, like a book, rather than on the wall.  Viewers have
> responded really well to this presentation.  It allows them to spend some
> time, up-close, with the photographs, and detailed subjects work well.
> 
> I'm thinking about experimenting with even smaller prints presented in this
> way.  Perhaps panoramic "triptychs" made from 120 negatives.

-- 
Pamela G. Niedermayer
Pinehill Softworks Inc.
600 W. 28th St., Suite 103
Austin, TX 78705
512-236-1677
http://www.pinehill.com