Re: [Leica] RE: Walker Evans, or Bigger IS Better

["Mike Durling" <durling@widomaker.com>]

Its funny how some medium formats are called "ideal format".  eg. 6x7 etc.
The only thing that makes them ideal is that you don't throw away any part
of the arbitrary 8X10 or 16x20 paper.  I personally like a longer image and
I also like, just for my own satisfaction, to print pretty much the full
frame of my Leica negatives.  After all the M4 is precice enough to give me
what I saw in the viewfinder why not print all of it?

I currently lop off an inch from the bottom of the 8x10 sheet and use that
for test strips.  With a 1/2 inch border the resulting 6x9 images frame
nicely in 9x12 frames.  Hard to find those frames though.

Mike Durling
KD4KWB
http://www.widomaker.com/~durling/

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "George Huczek" <ghuczek@sk.sympatico.ca>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 10:01 PM
Subject: [Leica] RE: Walker Evans, or Bigger IS Better


> At 04:07 PM 07/03/2000 -0800, you wrote:
> >>It's interesting how we seem to have gotten really hung up on the size
of
> >>photographic prints. I know I'm in a real minority, but I find that
smaller
> >>prints with a fair amount of white space around them really draw me
> >>in...
>
> Another thing that is difficult to decide is what dimensions and what
> proportions to use.  It bothers me that North American paper sizes do not
> have the same aspect ratio as the 35mm frame.  Personally, I do not like
it
> when I see an 11x14" print in a 16x20" frame.  The matt borders are not
> uniform in size, and this is often visually distracting.  It also forces a
> crop of the long size of the frame.
>    As far as how much white space to leave around the print, I think it is
> an important part of the presentation and a matter of personal artistic
> style.  The images should determine how they are presented.
>
>