Re: [Leica] More on cropping! Flames afire! (and black edges)

[Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>]

Ruralmopics@aol.com wrote:
> 
> You are talking about two radically different approaches to presenting
> photographs. Arranging a show is quite different than a publication layout.
> In layout I purposely try to mix up shapes and sizes. You want the viewer to
> instantly know that one photo is more important -- or at least comes before
> another in sequence. Different shapes add interest to the layout and help
> direct your reader's eye around the page. My brain thinks in terms of layout
> and story telling. I have absolutely no feeling for doing shows. I can see
> where cropping would be problematic in an art environment. It's part of the
> communication process in journalism.
> 
> Bob (there are no rules) McEowen
> 
A stack of 8x10s is a stack of 8x10s, nothing more. The consistently can also as
you say work against you. Your work is put in the category of every shlock
glossy promo ferrotyped autographed 8x10 ever made. 11x14's are certainly much
less of a cliche. I think of a shot i saw of Eugene Smith with boxes of 11x14
paper with prints spilling out all over the place. Both Roy Moss and Tom
Abrahamsson had 11x14's which struck me as way more serious than my curly box of
8x10's last week.

Terry Todemeyer is a local bigtime Art photographer/teacher who I believe is the
guy you see to show your stuff to the Art Museum and started the Blue Sky
Gallery here (With Christopher Rauschenberg and others) way back in the 76's
when I got to Portland.

He teaches or used to teach and practice that you never go with standard paper
sizes you always cut them down (beforehand) to your own custom size. So I saw a
stack of his 13x19's or some odd thing and it is surprising the effect. You
don't go 
"Oh! a stack of 16x20s!", "Oh! a stack of 11x14s!", You just go "Are these
photographs or some other process?!" You can't write them off in a snug little
category before you even see them.

The thing is when you put a standard print in a mat it is the mat size which
becomes the object you are beholding. My 6x9 images in 14x18 matts are much less
of a cliché than the stack of 8x10s they really are.
Mark Rabiner