Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,929   Posts: 1,585,235   Online: 832
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I've been everywhere ooooohhh yeaahhhh still I'm standing tall.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,702

    More than a feeling that's the power of square

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    For decades Hasselblad advertized that square was the perfect shape for a photograph or print. Who are we to argue with Hasselblad?
    Also Huey Lewis and the News proclaimed that it was hip to be square
    "He took to writing poetry and visiting the elves: and though many shook their heads and touched their foreheads and said 'Poor old Baggins!' and though few believed any of his tales, he remained very happy till the end of his days, and those were extraordinarily long "- JRR Tolkien, ' The Hobbit '.

  2. #32
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,280
    Images
    67
    Had a chance to contemplate this more yesterday; had lunch in a cafe in a nearby town that displays work by local artists. The current work was photography by a woman with impressive credentials (Antonelli School and LRPS) and included some film stuff even! What caught my eye were some pieces with square prints, maybe 8x8 inches, in a 16x20 frame, mounted with top and sides equal. That's about 4" top and sides and 8" at the bottom -- really looked strange. I definitely prefer the optical centering.

    As many threads do, this one has wandered a lot. It was started about the framing, not the printing, but hey, it's all good clean fun.

    Just another data point ...

  3. #33
    bvy
    bvy is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    998
    Images
    41
    Thanks. And just to follow up, I think I decided on 12x12 in an 18x22 frame, optically centered.

  4. #34
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by DWThomas View Post
    Had a chance to contemplate this more yesterday; had lunch in a cafe in a nearby town that displays work by local artists. The current work was photography by a woman with impressive credentials (Antonelli School and LRPS) and included some film stuff even! What caught my eye were some pieces with square prints, maybe 8x8 inches, in a 16x20 frame, mounted with top and sides equal. That's about 4" top and sides and 8" at the bottom -- really looked strange. I definitely prefer the optical centering.

    As many threads do, this one has wandered a lot. It was started about the framing, not the printing, but hey, it's all good clean fun.

    Just another data point ...
    I think I'd have to read this thread again to even figure out WTH "optical centering" even means, if that isn't it. You can't have equal space around a square print in a rectangular frame so I'm not sure how it can be "centered" optically or otherwise.

    But what really struck me here was the ludicrous degree of oversized frame and, presumably, mat. An 8x8 print in a 16x20 frame? What's up with putting an entire wall around each side? I've seen that before and I just think it looks pretentious, "look how much space I think my small print deserves." A small print can be exquisite and can deserve a close look, but to me putting in a comparatively giant frame isn't the way to do that. Part of the appeal is that it's small. (Ok, 8x8 isn't that small, it's not like a 4x5 of MF contact print, but small compared to the frame.)

  5. #35
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area (Albany, California)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,254
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by DWThomas View Post
    Had a chance to contemplate this more yesterday; had lunch in a cafe in a nearby town that displays work by local artists. The current work was photography by a woman with impressive credentials (Antonelli School and LRPS) and included some film stuff even! What caught my eye were some pieces with square prints, maybe 8x8 inches, in a 16x20 frame, mounted with top and sides equal. That's about 4" top and sides and 8" at the bottom -- really looked strange. I definitely prefer the optical centering.

    As many threads do, this one has wandered a lot. It was started about the framing, not the printing, but hey, it's all good clean fun.

    Just another data point ...
    I've very often seen square prints framed this way, with top and side equal and the bottom more than the other sides. Personally I like it.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  6. #36
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Sintchak (rich815) View Post
    I've very often seen square prints framed this way, with top and side equal and the bottom more than the other sides. Personally I like it.
    I think I'd like that too. But 16x20 just sounds way too big for an 8x8 print. Just MHO, and I might think differently if I saw it.

  7. #37
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,280
    Images
    67
    Well I lacked any measuring instruments at the time, but that's my educated guess of the dimensions. Optical centering means the print is centered left to right and mounted such that the center of the print is slightly above the vertical center line of the mount/frame. The amount of adjustment can be determined by a graphical construction as shown at the link i posted back on page 1. The adjustment is obviously proportional in some fashion to the various dimensions. My feelings about the top and sides equal is a question of the degree of difference in the bottom. That method would likely bother me much less if the lower part were maybe 1.25 or so times the top and sides (or less) versus the 2 x of the mount I disliked. The woman had quite a wide assortment of frames and mounting styles, so it was a chance to see a bunch of ideas in play.

    As far as frame size vs print size, some folks like a wide margin around a print to provide its own space, isolated from the frame and surrounding pieces - a gallery within a gallery -- sort of.

    So, opinions are like noses -- almost everybody has one ...

    Years ago I heard of a show where one of the requirements was that all work had to be in 16x20 frames.

    Edit: There is a magic condition where optical centering can reduce to top and sides equal. The interactive script at that link above actually warns of that condition and suggests regular centering, especially if the top gets smaller than the sides. Who knew it could all be so much fun!
    Last edited by DWThomas; 12-31-2013 at 10:24 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #38
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,212
    Ah, thanks for the explanation, though I could have gone back and found it.

    I understand some border. I just seem to see borders I think are extreme. I think it hits some internal reaction about wasted space and material more than anything.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin