Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: how do you display photographs?

This is topic how do you display photographs? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006173

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-28-2010, 01:00 PM:

I know that we have a bunch of amateur and professional photographers here and I am looking for ideas.

How do you display your photographs at home? Do you dry mount them, frame them, keep them in albums, or what? What size prints do you prefer? Glossy, pearl, or matte? Fiber-base or RC paper? If you frame your pictures, how often (if ever) do you change them?

For the last decade or so, I've mostly stuck to 8x10" glossy RC prints that I have kept in albums and occasionally stuck into ready-made frames under glass. I mostly shoot B&W. I have had a few 16x20" RC glossies made as well (I have had those professionally framed). I have recently had a few fiber-base prints made as well; they look great, but my bank statements do not. To date, I have been more interested in the process of taking pictures than in their display, so I have kept things simple. My apartment is smallish, so I haven't yet tried larger prints. I have also not tried toned (sepia or selinium) prints.

I am interested in hearing other ideas.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-28-2010, 01:29 PM:

If you have lots of money to spend there's a wide variety of creative options available. "Giclée" large format digital printing has transformed from one specific definition into a broad category involving a variety of print and laminating materials.

Painting canvas is one of the more popular choices, although I think it is pretentious beyond all hell for someone to take a photograph, apply some painterly filter to the image in Photoshop then output it on canvas and glaze the crap out of it. It's a fake painting.

Large format prints can be applied to many other substrates. Images going inside picture frames are probably best output on types of paper. You can also use rigid materials like Dibond. The edges are clean and can look good without a picture frame. Decorative "stand off" kits can be used to make the image float away from the wall an inch or two. Some stand off systems allow you to layer multiple sheets of material, such as a dark sheet of acrylic under the image and a layer of glass above the image. This visual approach can be particularly good in rooms with a contemporary theme.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-28-2010, 01:43 PM:

For years I've rarely printed pictures and mainly just share them through email (in smaller-than-original resolution, of course). But last week I took pictures of a new niece and I wanted to give prints to her parents. I was amazed when I got some really nice 8x10s from Sam's Club for about $1.50 each. A quick trip to the nearby "Dollar Tree" store and, presto! I had a handful of really nice, framed 8x10s for just $2.50 each.

I've thought about a digital picture frame but those screens always look horrible compared to a regular computer monitor. So now I just use a nice, slideshow screen saver whenever the computer isn't busy and I get to see every picture I take as a pretty 11x16. I'm guessing that when my TV finally breaks (no sign of that yet) I'll get a large, flat HD monitor and just run slideshows on it all day in my living room.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-28-2010, 03:22 PM:

I just got a quart of selenium toner today. I've been dying to go outside and try it out.
(You do NOT want to use selenium inside the house unless you have ventilation, they tell me.)

For practice, I print 5x7 inches:
Cut an inch off the long side of an 8x10 sheet then cut the remainder in half, crosswise. You end up with two 5x7 sheets and a 1 inch piece you can use for test strips.

5x7 prints are also good for sharing and giving to friends or neighbors.

For "good" prints I make 8x10.
I usually use spray adhesive to mount them on matte board or foam core.
For longevity I will take them in to work with me and dry mount them on art board.

For "really good" prints I will make 11x14.
I will either dry mount them or frame them in a nice frame.

Choosing size also has a lot to do with how and where the print will be viewed and from what distance. If you want to hang it on the wall in your living room or in a gallery 11x14 would be the size.

I like glossy or semi-gloss surface although I just bought a pack of Ilford paper that was pearl surface. It was the last pack they had in the store and I just bought it. Turns out I actually kind of liked it.

I also just, today, received a pack of Oriental Seagul, Fiber based VC paper by mail order too.

I'm just dying to try it out with some pictures I shot on Ilford Pan F!

If the weather holds out this weekend I'm going to print some of those shots on Seagull and tone them in selenium! [Big Grin]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-28-2010, 05:26 PM:

I've never been into fancy frames, myself. Those that are framed, thus far, have all be Film (or at least a HIGH percentage) in origin and most were printed by me. The frames are nothing spectacular and most, if not all, store bought.

For my digitals...their primary display has been computer of many sorts. One has to ask the purpose of printing them. If it is to share, there is little point since emailing or Facebook will accomplish that task with little effort and no real problem.

If it is because you particularly like looking at that picture (like some paintings) then yeah, print it up and get a frame the makes sense for the decor of the room and compliments the picture. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule there.

But honestly, there are very few pictures hanging up at our house...at least pictures I've taken. There are some, for sure and again, they are definitely ones that I still enjoy seeing from time to time.

Steve

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-28-2010, 07:49 PM:

I display them on my web site and others I just keep on my computer. I'd have a hard time displaying my own photographs in my own home as my ego isn't quite that big.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-28-2010, 10:00 PM:

Nothing to do with ego. If you want to make better photos it is wise to display your own past work.

You have reference images to work from to compare exposure, development and composition. You have inspiration for future work. It helps you develop an artistic style and build a cohesive portfolio.

If you want to be known to others as a photographer they should see you in your home in proximity your finished work or else those around you might not recognize your work.

And, finally, unless they rise to the level of Rembrandt or Picasso I think most other people's art sucks. If I made it, I know it's good.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 05-29-2010, 02:17 PM:

Randy takes the display of one's photos to the higher levels of professionalism and self-esteem. Both my dentist and my cardiologist are skilled amateur photographers who display their enlarged color prints in formal black frames in their waiting rooms and examining rooms.

Seeing their landscapes, floral photos and portraits displayed creates a feeling of trust and appreciation in me, and reveals these professionals as having interests beyond their specialties and being considerate of their patients' artistic enjoyment.

I remember a saying of Groucho Marx: "I'll never go to a doctor whose waiting room plants are all dead." I brought my barber a plant when he moved his shop to a new location. It was claimed to be from the oldest living plant in the world.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-29-2010, 04:01 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
You have reference images to work from to compare exposure, development and composition. You have inspiration for future work. It helps you develop an artistic style and build a cohesive portfolio.

Sure, but it doesn't need to be hanging on my wall to do that. This doesn't mean I don't like to show off my stuff, it just means that I am happy viewing it on the computer. Hanging my own stuff on my wall just sends out a "Hey, look how great I am and then tell me about it" vibe. I have printed out stuff of mine before. It looked good. Wanna know how I store it? With other random papers on the desk or floor.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 05-31-2010, 05:58 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
sends out a "Hey, look how great I am and then tell me about it" vibe.

That's more the person than the framed pictures on his/her wall ... I mean you said you display yours on your web site, I'm sure you've come across other people's web sites that give off said "I'm great" vibe, right? But then there are those that do it right. Same deal with physically framed photos.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-31-2010, 11:14 AM:

Isn't posting a digital photo on a website, the electronic equivalent of hanging a traditional photograph on your wall and saying, "Hey! Look at me!"

Some people claim that they only create art to satisfy themselves but, the majority of the time, the primary goal of art is to display it for other people to look at. Even those people who say they don't want others to see their work will, more often than not, show it to others. They are just more selective about who they show it to.

If you truly are an artist, it is important to show other people your work, at least occasionally. Without feedback and criticism, you have limited means to improve your work and grow as an artist. If you do not want to grow as an artist then your only real goal must be to own cool cameras and photography equipment. In today's consumerist society, owning photography equipment is an admirable life goal but owning a camera does not make you an artist. It only makes you a camera junkie.

The first thing that one has to get through his head is that photography has little to do with the equipment and has everything to do with the image that is produced. (i.e. - The word "photographer" means, literally, "One who paints with light.") My first "real" camera was a Quaker Oatmeal box and my first "real" darkroom was the trunk of a rusty, yellow, 1968 Plymouth Fury. We did that in 1984; more than 25 years ago. I still have a few of those photographs.

I, too, have been caught up in the "Gear Acquisition Syndrome" that a lot of other photographers experience. Out of the three official photography teachers I have had over the years, every one of them has made it a point to say that equipment has nothing to do with photography. It's about the IMAGES. (One of those teachers was my father who literally slapped my on the head when he said that!)

I make no claims about being the next Ansel Adams, nor do I ever expect to make the "Great American Photograph." I am a photographer because I like to make photographs. (If you ask me why I like to make photographs I'll tell you it's because I can't draw worth a crap! [Wink]

)

Right now, my most favorite thing to do is to go out on a photo expedition with the camera I bought for $20 at a rummage sale and stand next to a guy shooting a shiny Nikon D-50 with a 9,000,000 mm. telephoto lens then have him ask me what kind of camera I'm shooting with. Then I'll take those negatives home, develop them and print them 11"x14" and have them be razor sharp without a hint of visible grain.
(I'm using Ilford Pan F+ ASA 50 right now. Will be using Adox CMS 20 soon.)

I'm getting better with my images and I hope to have some real nice "wall hangers" very soon. I've got about 5 rolls of Pan F in the basement right now. I'm still making contacts and printing previews but I hope to have some I can selenium tone and frame very soon.

BTW: I only have two photographs hanging on my walls. Both of them were shot by my father over 50 years ago. I am not convinced that my digital photographs (or the digital scans of my traditional photos) will still be around in 50 years.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-31-2010, 12:53 PM:

quote:
Isn't posting a digital photo on a website, the electronic equivalent of hanging a traditional photograph on your wall and saying, "Hey! Look at me!"

Not in the same way that it says "I live here and like looking at my own shit all the time throughout my daily life". I do not visit my website all the time. But when I am in my home, those pictures would always be there. Not a good comparison. Try again. A studio or similar, I could understand.

I would more compare it to people who have paintings done of themselves and hang those up on their walls.

I don't give a shit if anyone considers me an artist or not. I like to create things. I like to draw. But I really hate the word "artist".

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-31-2010, 02:03 PM:

More likely you hate the stereotypes other people associate with the word "artist."

"Artists" are supposed to be weird, ineffectual people who always have their head in the clouds and can't cope in the real world.

I think that's a batch of bullshit. It's just like saying guys who like computers are antisocial geeks who wear thick glasses and pocket protectors.

No, I think the most important part of being an artist, whether you draw, paint, photograph or weld scrap iron, is that you do what you want and you don't give a flying fuck about what other people think.

If that's true, Joe, I think you're the King-Shit artist of them all! [Wink]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-31-2010, 02:05 PM:

It's good to be king.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-31-2010, 02:09 PM:

Some people think their shit doesn't stink but not me.
The stink from my shit could knock a buzzard off a shit wagon! [Wink]

I always ask people, "Do you smell that?" because I'm King-Shit around here! [Wink]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-31-2010, 03:03 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
Choosing size also has a lot to do with how and where the print will be viewed and from what distance. If you want to hang it on the wall in your living room or in a gallery 11x14 would be the size.

Why just 8"x10" or 11"x14"?

Many of the newest DSLR cameras capture enough image detail to create large poster-sized images in a variety of different shapes. You're not going to see all that detail in a small print and certainly will not see all of it at once on a computer screen. Frame shops can build custom frames to fit the image.

Although it probably be a little difficult to do tastefully in a home, it's pretty easy to cover an entire wall with a single photographic image. A panorama of multiple images stitched together can cover a big area and maintain high resolution at close viewing distances. You just have to plan ahead in creating the image.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-31-2010, 05:48 PM:

8x10 or 11x14 are just the sizes of paper that it are easy to buy.

The pain in the ass comes when you discover that the 35mm frame is 24x36mm. You must crop to fit the image on paper.

The same thing goes when you use a digital image and try to fit it onto 8.5x11 paper. You must crop. In either case you're going to lose some of the image.

The point is that image size is arbitrary. You're going to have to make a compromise somewhere. The easiest thing is to use paper that is easily available and crop to it.

You could cut your paper down to a desired aspect ratio. Many photographers do that. They crop the image to their vision of what looks best then cut the paper down to match.

You can also buy photographic paper on 60" wide rolls. Then you can make it almost any size you want, up to the width of the paper and your ability to process it efficiently.

(This usually means you have to make your own tube processor and rig up your own easel/enlarger arrangement but many people have done it.)

Make your images any size you want. But the examples above are just common sizes and many photographers just accept them as standard sizes to make prints. Unless you want to make custom mattes and frames, it's probably wise to stick to sizes that are, at least, close to standard.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-31-2010, 07:05 PM:

Why must you crop? Letterbox instead. Also, use a pair of scissors to cut off the letterboxes.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-31-2010, 10:37 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
You can also buy photographic paper on 60" wide rolls. Then you can make it almost any size you want, up to the width of the paper and your ability to process it efficiently.

(This usually means you have to make your own tube processor and rig up your own easel/enlarger arrangement but many people have done it.)

The darkroom enlargement approach really isn't necessary anymore unless the photographer enjoys the "old school" process. You can have camera negatives or slide film elements carefully drum scanned to a variety of resolutions and have a high quality digital file as the end result. DSLR cameras eliminate that step with the original image being a digital file. Either way, the digital files can be output at a very high level of quality on large format digital printers.

You're still going to have to do some trimming. At least with a large format digital printer you can preserve the full 1.5:1 aspect ratio of a 8-perf 35mm still camera image (or DSLR image).

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-31-2010, 11:27 PM:

Yes, I scan a lot of my negatives. I don't know anybody in Erie, PA who has a drum scanner, or at least anybody who offers services. There are places that have the usual Nikon film scanners. I have my own Canon flatbed which does an admirable job at scanning 35mm negatives. But, for the average price of sending one 35mm negative cross country to be run scan on a drum scanner, I'll print my own negatives on an enlarger and, if I want them available in digital formats I'll scan them, myself, on the flatbed. If I ever get that one special picture that needs to be scanned professionally I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

At this point, I am much farther ahead with my traditional darkroom than I ever would be if I was completely digital. I spent under $500 for everything, including paper, film and chems. You can barely buy a "decent" digicam for that and, if you want a really good one, expect to pay $1,000.

But anyway, that's beside the point...

Regardless of the format you shoot in. Regardless of the workflow and method of output, you are probably going to end up either cropping or letterboxing your images one way or another. If you shoot film, you're going to end up printing on 8x10 or 11x14 unless you choose paper on a roll. No matter how you slice it, you're going to end up slicing it... You'll either have to cut the paper to match the image or you'll end up cutting the image to match the paper.

If you do it completely digital you'll still have to contend with how to crop or letterbox your image to fit on the display you intend to show it on. Even on the internet, there will be some shrinking, blowing up, cropping or letterboxing going on.

The bottom line is that is your damn image and, last time I checked, we still lived in a free country. Crop or don't crop your image any way you please. You will, however, have to contend with standard paper sizes or display sizes and you're going to have to decide how to fit your image into one of those shapes.

8x10 or 11x14 are just the traditional sizes of paper that people have standardized on over the years. That's all.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-02-2010, 03:17 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
Yes, I scan a lot of my negatives. I don't know anybody in Erie, PA who has a drum scanner, or at least anybody who offers services.

Since drum scanners are so ridiculously expensive their use is limited to small numbers of service bureaus in large cities. You have to mail them your negatives, chromes, etc., they scan them according to your needs and send you back your film elements and digital files.

Sometimes it can be worth the money to have a film image drum scanned if the people operating the scanner really know what they're doing. In sheer terms of image quality capability drum scanners are simply better than flatbed scanners and slide film scanners. The wet mounted drum scanned image will have far less problems in the way of dust specks, tiny scratches and dreaded Newton Rings. I used to use a $1300 Linotype-Hell Saphir2 scanner and even it was prone to throwing Newton Rings into a scan from time time. The amount of time it takes to edit those problems out of an image and/or do repeat scans a good drum scan from a service bureau could pay for itself.

Obviously, drum scans are best used for commercial purposes where you have someone paying you to complete a graphics project. The cost is more difficult to justify if the work is just for yourself.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-03-2010, 10:19 AM:

My understanding is that digital scanning and output is fine for color negatives and slides, but that B&W photographs are still best printed in a conventional fashion, and that conventional fiber-base B&W silver prints that are processed and washed properly will outlast any other type of photographic print. Is this still correct?

I don't have a darkroom (no space); my prints are done at a conventional lab from 35mm, 120, and 4x5 negatives, printed onto B&W RC or fiber-base paper. I often develop negatives in my bathtub, but don't have space for a full-size 4x5 enlarger. When the aspect ratio of the negative does not match that of the paper, and I don't request special cropping, they print the image full-frame within the paper size, with a white border around the image. It works sort of like letterboxing, but with white borders instead of black. I always order prints with narrow white borders, anyway, since they tend to be handled by the edges, and since fingerprints on photographs annoy me.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-03-2010, 11:42 AM:

It's pretty difficult to digitally scan and print black and white photographs and achieve the same level of contrast and tonal range you see in a well produced dark room print.

Naturally you have to scan the B&W negative in RGB and convert to CMYK in order to get blacks in the print output that actually look black instead of dark gray. Even with everything done right the contrast and tone may not "pop" as well as you would like.

I read about a new approach a few high end printers support: printing multiple passes of opaque white ink on rich black media. Basically it takes the worst part about printing black and white images out of the equation: trying to achieve a black ink level that is black enough. Photographers like Annie Leibovitz are experimenting with this approach for B&W ads in some fashion magazines. The approach requires some odd work with channels in Photoshop to get the white levels right but can yield very dramatic results.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 06-03-2010, 05:09 PM:

All the B/W images on my gallery page were shot, developed and scanned directly from film. I do it all myself at home.

http://gallery.me.com/randystankey

These images are ones I think are interesting enough to work on as a photographic print. Basically it is my on-line contact sheet and sorting bin.

Scott, there is no reason you can't develop your own B/W negs at home then scan them. There are all sorts of neat ways you can develop a hybrid workflow. (i.e. Shot on film, printed digitally.)

There are lots of guys who print their images on clear transparencies then contact print the final phase. There's lots of guys making cyanotypes and stuff like that. You should at least look into it for curiosity's sake.