> Agree? Damn! We're in a tight spot! <g>
No need to worry, we'll come up with something to disagree on. Like
that D800. You mean you HAVEN'T ordered it yet?
> I call what I think you're talking about a "float", that is, the image floats
> with a border of the paper around it, usually a half-inch on the sides and
> top, and a smidge more at the bottom for balance and to leave room for the
> signature. One year I tried filling the mat hole with image and 1) I didn't
> like the way it looked, and 2) i didn't like signing the mat instead of the
> image. Of course this assumes you either want or need to sign your prints. <g>
Yes, I prefer to sign the print, not the mat. I do it in the border.
When the print needs to be unsigned, I'll sign the back.
> Sorta stumbled on the 12x18 matted to 20x26 by accident. The 12x18 is the
> native size of a D3 12.1mp image at 240 dpi or pip or LSMFT or whatever. The
> wider mat allows the image to sit in there while the viewers' eyes travel
> down that tunnel of light to the image itself. Most people seem to think
> that's large enough, though I've sold a lot of 10x15s matted to 16x20, and
> the bread and butter at the craft shop venues is what amounts to a 7x10
> matted to 11x14.
Exactly. That 7x10 is almost perfect. This keeps the image from a 35mm
negative at that 8x-ish neighborhood where we can maintain excellent
sharpness and grain control without resorting to heroics. I could glue
my enlarger in place for that size and be happy, but unlike HCB, I
need to crop my images.
> Frankly, that's about as small as I want to go. I have done smaller. Five by
> sevens matted to 8x10 and even 3x5s matted to 5x7. Sold a lot of the smaller
> to people who are 1) cheap and 2) like to do groupings, but the
> labor-materials-to-profit ratio just isn't there. I stopped doing them
> altogether. It was one of the first steps on my road to what I hope will be
> liberation. <g>
I do those on 8x10 too, but not nearly as often. I will admit that I
like the tonality from a 35mm B&W neg at that size the best. Jumping
up just that little bit in size seems to go from "really safe" to
"we're all gonna die" with some difficult to print negs. Obviously,
digital workflow is another story. No such restrictions.
> This year I'm going to take Moose and Chuck's advice and try printing images
> to the size I think they ought to be, but somewhere between that 7x10 to
> 12x18 range.
I've definitely had pictures which demanded to be printed in certain
sizes. Some big, some small. Frankly, I think it is a rare image that
works at any size.
> For anything bigger, such as the 20x30 canvas prints, I'm going to let
> Miller's or some other professional lab handle them. I have one image I want
> to have done on metal before the gallery opens in June, but I have to find
> place that does really good metal prints. I don't think Miller's does them,
> and as AG noted, Miller's is really people-oriented.
I saw my first Millers metal print a couple weeks ago. I'm convinced.
There's no grousing by me about the quality. I just got 3 12x12 art
prints done this week for a customer. I'm usually more than satisfied
with their output. After seeing the metal print, I'm thinking about
which one of my art pictures I want to have done on it.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|