Re: light source for very small prints?

From: Jon Danforth ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 02/09/04-04:17:07 PM Z
Message-id: <007f01c3ef5a$74a0b490$140ba8c0@Hualon>

I'll join the "small is fine" camp.

I made a batch of selenium-toned 6x9cm contact prints for an upcoming show
and was pleased with the results. I was inspired to do such work after
seeing some classic paintings in museums. What I realized was that a
smaller print or painting invites the viewer to get close and appreciate the
detail better than a larger picture. Combined with an over-the-top
gold-leaf frame, I anticipate that the prints will show quite well.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: light source for very small prints?

> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Tom Ferguson wrote:
> > Eric, there is nothing "wrong" with small prints. I have a whole
> > portfolio of 2x3 inch infrared images from a local botanical garden.
> > They just seemed "right" at that size. Un-sellable and mostly
> > un-showable. The "public" wants art that will "hold up" in large homes
> > and above the sofa. So, sadly, I just considered it a "personal
> > project".
> The Samaras show had his early manipulated polaroids, which are small,
> just a few inches per side. So they mounted 4 or 9 together, in one frame.
> Not necessarily a good way to see the work, but.....
> J.
Received on Mon Feb 9 16:17:54 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/02/04-11:35:08 AM Z CST