Re: presenting small prints?

[Brian Ellis <bellis60@earthlink.net>]

Paula Chamlee has done some very nice 4x5" contact prints. Anna Larson, John
Sexton's assistant and a fine photographer in her own right, does beautiful
small prints, maybe 5x7 or so. The hands down, no contest most beautiful
prints I've ever seen were many of those in the recent Alfred Steiglitz
exhibit at the National Gallery (I think it was) in Washington, D.C. The
originals of work by Strand, Steiglitz, Steichen et al in that show were no
larger than 8x10 but they were incredible. Of course many of them were
gravure and platinum but even the silver prints were magnificent.

I think part of the acceptance factor is the visual sophistication of the
viewer. Clyde Butcher, a well known Florida photographer, exhibits prints in
the 4 foot by 6 foot and larger size. You can stand in a group of people at
an exhibit and listen to all the ooooohs and ahhhhhhhs over these absolutely
horrible (some, not all) prints. People just aren't used to seeing prints
that big and the sheer size impresses them.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Portale" <jportale@gci-net.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: presenting small prints?


> 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
>