RE: why not small prints?

[Christopher Lovegnuth <chrisml@pacbell.net>]

Here are my two cents from a purely academic view. There are some questions
you have to ask yourself.

1.) Do the prints lend themselves to the format in question?
2.) What impact (based on image size) you are trying to present to the
viewer?
3.) How will presentation effect the viewer perception of the image?

What it comes down to really is what are you trying to say with your
photographs. Don't worry about galleries or sofa art, just concentrate on
what you are trying to say. If for example, lets say you have these wide
spanning landscapes that cover miles of information and you capture it and
present it as 4X5. First off, that has many meanings and understandings. How
you present that 4X5 will effect viewers as well. If for example you put a
30X40 matt around it and then a frame and let the viewer not approach closer
then 8 feet from the image. Think about the impact. You have a tiny image
showing many miles of information, surrounded by a huge matt and finally the
viewer almost has to squint to view it. Or you could go completely opposite
with the 4X5 and have nothing around it and allow the viewer to hold it in
their hands. Now you have many miles of information in someone's hands that
they can by intimate with. Just some thoughts. -Chris



 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Matthew Hoffman [mailto:mhoffman2@sprynet.com]
Sent:	Sunday, August 05, 2001 12:18 PM
To:	alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject:	Re: why not small prints?

Have a look at today's NY Times...Vicki Goldberg discusses this very issue.
As others have mentioned, BIG does well in galleries, and seems to be what
patrons want. For years, I only made 4x5 (or smaller) contacts, usually
mounted in 11x14...but after realizing that all the famous-famous were
making monumental prints, I ditched my instincts. A pity, really. There
aren't many opportunities for up-close intimacy in today's art's scene.
   A more practical reason for the diminutive: enlarging negatives is a
horrid chore. What a relief it would be to be done with it!

Matthew


----------
>From: Shannon Stoney <shannonstoney@earthlink.net>