[pure-silver] Re: Practical print sizes

  • From: <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 09:18:30 -0700

Brooks Jensen of Lens Work is a fan of the smaller prints and portfolios.  There is just something about being able to hold a print in your hand.  I HATE the metric system.  Yeah I know most of the world thinks in metric, and I understand that.  Yeah I have used it and know everything works in 10s and lots of people think in metric.  I just can't and every time I have to go do the conversion, I never can remember is it 24.5 or 25.4 lol  I suspect there are just as many out there that hate inches too.

As far as print sizes there are a couple of factors.  Viewing distance is a big key.  Billboards are often done with relatively small file sizes or in the film days with 35mm negatives.  It could be done because they were being viewed from hundreds of yards away.  I have a print on my wall that is 30 x 40 inches I did as a test. (about 76 to 101)  Though the detail is starting to break down up close, backing away to be able to really see the entire print seems to fix that.  Considering that print was done with a little up scaling and a 6mp digital camera, it isn't bad at all.

What is practical is another question.  Up to about 18 x 24 inches (45x60cm roughly) I have had little problem with frames.  Much above that finding frame stores with mats in stock and frames that will fit become an issue. Building a frame that big then involves getting either plexiglass that will not break or glass thick enough that the flex that is likely in a frame that size will not break it.  You could use stand outs and gallery wraps, but that is not cheap either.  For me display space and cost are as much of a factor in how big I want to go.  I am also becoming more and more a fan of photo books.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Practical print sizes
From: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, March 06, 2012 8:45 am
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: İbrahim_Pamuk <ibrahim.pamuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On 03/06/2012 09:36 AM, İbrahim Pamuk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if there is a practical assumption like portraits size max suitable to 30*40 cm or landscapes around 50*70 cm. Of course any one can print any sizes. I think printing large portraits might not be so good since it is or might be bigger than the actual object.
>

Print sizes and aspect ratios are ordinarily selected on the basis of
several inputs:

- Subject matter
- Viewing distance
- Artistic impact

Huge portraits have a place - when hanging in large rooms where they
will be viewed at a distance. Small landscapes also have place -
in a small office, for example.

One size does not fit all.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
============================================================================================================To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. pure-silver
  3. Archive
  4. 03-2012