Re: presenting small prints?

[Joe Portale <jportale@gci-net.com>]

Shannon,

When making very small images, I have always been partial to hand bound
books. Display cases would be nice also, as long as the case doesn't over
power the picture. Placing a series of small prints along the length of a
hall works well.

> To follow this line of thought:  if big prints are for hanging on the
wall, and small prints are for looking at up close, like a daguerreotype, I
wonder if there is some way to present small prints other than in a frame
for a wall?  Like, maybe they could be in a little book, or a presentation
case like a dag?  Or a desk frame, like people put snapshots in?  Something
that can be held in the hands.
>
> My friend who framed the small print I gave her put it in her kitchen in a
place where you can look at it up close.  I think there are >places where
small prints fit the "decor," just as large prints go over the sofa. Like
the bathroom maybe? I can think of worse fates >for my prints than being
scrutinized while someone sits on the toilet in the powder room.

What better place for contemplation?  Having small prints hanging in the
bathroom may become fashionable replacing all those magazines.
>
> That raises another question:  is it bad for prints to be hung in a
bathroom that has a shower?  Is the humidity too high?

Yes, the humidity will play havoc on a print.

>
> Well, they are landscapes, but they are pictures of small things around a
rural neighborhood, rather than grand vistas like you >see out west.   They
are cows, barns, fence posts, creeks, dogs, junked cars, tool sheds, etc.
They are not about the grandeur of >nature so much as about how people and
nature coexist  in a rural landscape, sort of like (if I may dare to make
the comparison) >Atget's studies of old courtyards around the outskirts of
Paris.  Come to think of it, weren't Atget's negatives small too?

The images your are describing sounds like the things someone would want to
hold up close and examine. They actually sound like fun images.  Yes, Atget
made small negatives, so did Weston, Braisson and a whole flock of the early
photgraphers. We could say they used those small negative cameras because
that is all they had. Poverty, availablility or what ever the reason, they
used the tools they had on hand. Then again, we could look at the intent of
the photographer. Did they want small little images?

Without sounding too like a pompous ass, it really doesn't matter what size
negative is used, big or little. It is the image that is important.
Everything that photgraphers do will have their supporters and detractors.
If you make big images, someone will say they should have been small and
vice versa. Go figure.

Joe

> --shannon