Re: first gums; small prints

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Shannon Stoney (sstoney@pdq.net)
Date: 01/30/03-11:21:31 AM Z


> > for a gum print, 4x5 IS small. Which is to say, don't make a
>> HEAP of 4x5 negs in advance.
>>
> > J.
>

Lisa wrote:

>
>Is there any process in which 4x5 isn't considered small.

I made about 100 4x5 prints last year, in several different
processes, and at my university they were considered too small. But,
I think this is partly because any photograph that is smaller than a
television is considered too small by people nowadays, if it is hung
on a wall, and that is how "art" photographs are supposed to be
looked at. I think this is silly, though. First of all, why must
you always present photographs in a frame on the wall? I think it is
nice to hand someone a box of small prints to look through. People
used to keep etchings etc in portfolios and they got them out to look
at occasionally. Also, I have seen small photographs in museums on
the wall, and they look fine. Frequently they are matted with a huge
mat around them to give them more "presence," but this seems a bit
pretentious to me. However, if the photograph is literally tiny,
like a contact print made from a medium format negative, it does help
a little. Third, why should television be the standard for visual
culture?

As for which processes work best if you are restricted to the 4x5
format: my favorite was printing out paper. This is because it is
very sharp, and all the tiny details are easier to see than when the
same negative is printed, say, on printmaking paper coated with
cyanotype emulsion.

--shannon


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 02/21/03-10:44:17 AM Z CST