At 05:20 PM 12/1/2002 -0600, you wrote: >I think it may be the opposite - big sells, at least in the art world ;-) >We just had a Thomas Struth (the contemporary German photographer) show in >Dallas - many of his works are huge C prints directly onto lucite (8x10'..) >The new Ft.Worth Modern Art Museum has some huge Cindy Sherman prints etc. > >One of the comments repeatedly made by art directors, curators, our museum >photographer, and docents giving tours was about the impact of the larger >prints, and hence their increased salability. One of the art tour guides who >helped catalog the show was immensely impressed by his use of a 4x5" camera >;-0) ;-) and credited the detail visible in such shots for the public's >interest (e.g., notre dame cathedral front etc.) in the larger prints ;-) > > >* Robert Monaghan POB752182 So. Methodist Univ., Dallas Tx 75275 * >* Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://medfmt.8k.com/third/index.html * >* Medium Format Cameras: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/index.html * >
Guys, It's an economic decision for me: One 8 x 10 ft. @ $6000ea, v. ten 8 x 10 in. @ $600ea. :-) I saw the Andreas Gursky show in Chicago this Summer. His stuff is six feet tall by up to ten feet. He uses 4 x 5 film and PS's the hell out of it. Makes for a great museum display or corporate art I guess. What would the rest of us do with such monsters? As an aesthetic judgment I presume most make an output size decision prior to taking the picture. At least within certain limits. I guess if you use sheet film you leave open the possibility of huge prints. AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book. http://www.panoramacamera.us _______________________________________________ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
