[Leica] Size Matters

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

> Folks -
> 
> Hoppy & I were having a discussion in the Print Swappers' Club about
> image sizes and I thought I'd post these musings to the larger
> community in a effort to get some clear ideas on the subject.
> 
> Short version: Here are examples of 2 snaps that I shot a few weeks
> ago.  The duotone/infrared shot seems best realized as a 4 x 6 (5 x 7
> max) because, to me, it heightens the sense of discovery and doesn't
> yell out and grab you when stuck up on the wall.  (Also, in this case
> the grain has appeal for me at a certain absolute size, but it's not
> really the main thing here...)
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/bobsworld/coba
> 
> The color tableau, on the other hand, really needs to be around 2
> feet wide so someone can peer around in various corners of the
> image.  Also, the Big Color thing seems more festive or some such thing.
> 
> I'm also debating this size business with 2 other snappers; we may be
> doing a 3 man show in a few months and one of these guys really feels
> that each one of us needs to commit to a single size for all of his
> images to foster more "unity of the individual's vision."
> 
> Anyone have a strong take on this stuff?
> 
> Bob Palmieri
> 
It used to be I'm sure you recall 11x14.
Photographers thought in terms of 11x14.
Photographers and models portfolios both. In the 90's.
Then there was a swing towards handy 8x10s for lots of people.
Especially the models. Not all the photogs followed. I had both.
Those black leather like multi ringed books with the zippers and handles.

Now I think its Letter size.
There is said it.
Letter size. I'm not typingout  8.5x11 any more.

Lots of backpacks and other bags are built to be able to take a laptop.
You can fit the box of letter sized prints instead or as well.
A backpack I tried this weekend at K&M Camera designed for a 17 inch laptop
would not fit 11x14 prints.

Also there's this odd thing about how letter sized prints look a full notch
up from 8x10s. Its uncanny they make 8x10's look dinky.

And they work on the way in a 11x14 mat or 10x12. I use full inch borders at
least on my prints.

But I think you need to have mini  portfolios for having with you when you
don't have any packs.

And make bigger prints for walls, shows and major presentations.

You don't have to pour out gallons of trays any more its so much easier to
print big many people have 17 inch wide printers or at least 13.
If your print looks real good small just pull out the big stack and slide
the glide over; go into Page setup and start to crank one out.

But prints are very effective pocket sized. I've got great mileage out of my
4x5 stack of prints in a 4x5 sheetfilm box.
The thick black boxes are too thick.

Now I carry letter sized prints wherever I go. Fits right in my backpack.
With camera and a book and maps.
And NY apples.

Dose make a bigger impact than my 4x5's I'd have to admit.


A swing away from books with prints in plastic pages.
To tacky. And heavy.

I'm using boxes of prints.

But am about to start a book using expandable posts.
Both Epson and Hahnem?hle make paper with holes for such books.
And the books themselves.
There is nothing covering the paper. Quality matt paper.

I think the high end fine art influenced commercial photogs are going this
route. For good reason.


Hahnem?hle for sure not  not sure about Epson.

My fine art book was 16x20 for years.
When I'd shoot that stuff that's how I thought.


I guess if I go after that "market" I'll carry those on the subways.
But not 17x22's
13x19's!
A kinder gentler 16x20.





I say "I have my prints on my laptop" then pull out my letter sized  box.
Turns there heads around.

They are selling lots of inkjet paper soon as you walk into just about any
good camera store in NY. Someone must be printing.
And the darkroom sections are doing strong. All the schools teach them.


Mark William Rabiner
markrabiner.com