Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Most popular size for gallery display/sale?  (Read 11418 times)
Adalbert
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« on: April 02, 2007, 06:40:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm wondering what the optimal print size is for landscapes/nature for gallery display and or for sale to the public at arts & craft shows,etc. I'm thinking it is probably either 11x14 or 16x20. Anyone care to share their experience,observations, and opinions in this regard?
Logged
Sherri Meyer
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2007, 08:34:26 AM »
ReplyReply

For display purposes, I would recommend 11x14 or larger. They tend to have more impact and get the WOW response from viewers more than the smaller sizes.

I would also have prints available for purchase in smaller sizes such as 5x7 and 8x10.

Hope this helps,
Sherri Meyer

http://www.sherrimeyer.com
http://www.sherrimeyer.com/Blog
Logged
Adalbert
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2007, 02:18:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For display purposes, I would recommend 11x14 or larger. They tend to have more impact and get the WOW response from viewers more than the smaller sizes.

I would also have prints available for purchase in smaller sizes such as 5x7 and 8x10.

Hope this helps,
Sherri Meyer

http://www.sherrimeyer.com
http://www.sherrimeyer.com/Blog
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110394\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agreed. Just wondering which size is more popular as a purchase. I don't want the expense of a 16x20 printer if 11x14 is the more common/popular purchase.
Logged
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 684



WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2007, 02:24:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Agreed. Just wondering which size is more popular as a purchase. I don't want the expense of a 16x20 printer if 11x14 is the more common/popular purchase.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110630\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One of the foundational rules of marketing is that you sell what you show. Therefore, if you show 30x40's that's what you will sell and if you display8x10's that's what you will sell too.  

Another foundational rule of marketing is that the size that will sell best is usually your smallest or least expensive size.  Once again, if your smallest size is 8x10 then that will be your best selling size, and if your smallest size is 16x20 then that will be your best selling size.

This second rule varies somewhat depending on your clientele.  If your clients live in large homes for example, then they will need large print sizes so your best selling size may be a medium to large size.

As you can see there is no way to say for sure "which size sells best" because it depends on your marketing and on your clientele.  What I recommend is that you decide which size(s) you want to show and which size will be your smallest size.  I also recommend you consider who your clients are going to be.  Your question will then be pretty much answered by rule number 2.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2007, 02:30:23 PM by alainbriot » Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2007, 02:46:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Agreed. Just wondering which size is more popular as a purchase. I don't want the expense of a 16x20 printer if 11x14 is the more common/popular purchase.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110630\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I was going to post this as a separate thread, when I saw this one...

I was at the Minneapolis Museum of Art today, where the Impressionist-through-modern painting galleries and the (fairly large) photo gallery are right next to each other. They had up a photo show on acid rock cover art from the 60s, which wasn't too interesting, but they also had up a show which included shots from many of the well-known photographers of the 20th century. (Absolutely gorgeoous nude of Lee Miller by Man Ray.) Anyway, one thing I noticed immediately was the small size of the photos, and a consequent lack of impact compared to the paintings next door. There are some small jewel-like photos, of course, but you have to get six inches away to really appreciate them. This was emphasized by the nearness of the painting galleries, with the flamboyant color, but also the sheer size of the paintings.

Anyway, my developing theory is this: that because paintings have been around forever, they are generally sized for human attention. Photos are sized to be the best they can be, whatever that size is -- and with the cameras of the past, that size was generally small. I think the size of the future will be pretty large, more like paintings, simply because we now have the equipment that will do it, and still keep the photo reasonasbly sharp  -- 16x20 will be considered a small photograph, and a typical wall-hung art photo may be more like 24x30. (Of all the photos in the show, most of which are among those generally considered "great," all but one was sharp.)  

This has a lot of implications: for one extremely complicated thing, the subject matter is going to have to bear the weight of the size of the photo. No more simple seed head with the sun coming through it. Jeff Wall may be a harbinger of this. For art photographers, I also think that single print editions, or extremely limited editions, may become mandatory, if you wish to sell at a reasonable price.

Another implication: MF may be the size of the future, or MF backs with LF equipment. And bigger printers.

JC
Logged
thompsonkirk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2007, 07:55:29 PM »
ReplyReply

John is certainly right about the trend, & he's offering a good explanation:  now that we don't print through enlarging lenses,  larger prints, carefully made,  can retain higher quality.  

Another explanation is that now that it's possible to print larger, photo artists are noticing that there's a big difference in viewer response between a small print that the viewer dominates by looking into it, and a large print that dominaates the viewer.  When I look at a Gursky or Burtynsky print I definitely feel that it's 'taking me in,' rather than the other way around.  

Comparing to what I see in galleries, I think of myself as someone who makes small prints - 13.5x20 on 17x22 paper.   Contemporary work tends to be printed larger than this, with 20x30 being more-or-less the 'new 11x14.'   In museums & galleries, 40" prints from 44" printers aren't unusual any more.

Kirk

www.dryreading.com/kirkthompson/
« Last Edit: April 04, 2007, 07:57:30 PM by thompsonkirk » Logged
ternst
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2007, 08:49:39 PM »
ReplyReply

The biggest issue I see with the larger prints is how to mount and display them. Unless you print on canvas it will cost a small fortune to mount and frame them, not to mention the weight of the glass, even if it is good plexi. I can hinge-mount and mat my "smaller" prints now, but get above 24 x 30 and I have to pay someone else to drymount and frame. No question the larger prints have a lot more impact, just like a double-truck spread in a book or magazine...
Logged
Sherri Meyer
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2007, 08:23:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm wondering what the optimal print size is for landscapes/nature for gallery display and or for sale to the public at arts & craft shows,etc. I'm thinking it is probably either 11x14 or 16x20. Anyone care to share their experience,observations, and opinions in this regard?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110320\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Sherri Meyer
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2007, 09:12:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Are you sure you want to market your prints by selling at Craft Fairs? If that is not your ultimate goal, there is another option available for marketing your prints that would be much more affordable to you. Do you have your own Website? If so, check out http://www.photoshelter.com. For a nominal fee, you can upload and store your images on their site. With the seamless customization option, you can make it appear as if the images are on your site. You can offer your images as fine art prints and/or license them as either Rights-Managed or Royalty Free stock images. When you set up a print profile, you set your own price and your customers can order with or without your involvement and the prints will be shipped directly to them. They offer other options as well for marketing prints. There are far too many benefits to using PhotoShelter for me to mention in this post. I highly recommend that you check them out, unless you are set on only selling at Craft Fairs and/or you don't have a Website and don't plan on having one.

You can check out my galleries at http://www.sherrimeyer.com. If you have any questions, you can e-mail me at sherri@sherrimeyer.com.

Hope this helps,
Sherri
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2007, 10:29:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The biggest issue I see with the larger prints is how to mount and display them. Unless you print on canvas it will cost a small fortune to mount and frame them, not to mention the weight of the glass, even if it is good plexi. I can hinge-mount and mat my "smaller" prints now, but get above 24 x 30 and I have to pay someone else to drymount and frame. No question the larger prints have a lot more impact, just like a double-truck spread in a book or magazine...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110701\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is the kind of practical concern that can be really troubling. There is much experimentation to be done. I wonder (don't have any idea) of how "archival" dry-mounting is. I can tell you that in the past, some kinds of art products used for painting (pressed fiber board, and some non-acid-free paper) literally ate themselves, with the acid slowly destoying the fibers that made up the support. I would assume the dry-mounting adhesive would be archival...but I'm not sure. In any case, I think "amateur" photographers won't have so much of a problem -- printing large only occasionally, they can take the print to a frame shop and have it mounted. People who are trying to make a living at it, however, are going to have to do what all small businessmen do, and that is, make investments -- buy dry-mounting presses and mat cutters, order frames from art-supply houses, experiment with supports, etc.

JC
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2007, 03:42:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Anyway, my developing theory is this: that because paintings have been around forever, they are generally sized for human attention.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110632\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I partly agree, but there is another obvious reason why paintings are usually not as small as photographs: the resolution of paint brushes is very low!. At a guess less than 1 line per mm  compared to a typical 6 line _pairs_ per mm for printing, so paintings typically need to be wider and higher by a factor of ten or more to show a comparable amount of detail. (And with much 20th century painting, forget about those fine 1mm paint brushes!)

Anyway, I would guess that for gallery prints and art to buy and show off on the wall at home, people will often want prints big enough for comfortable viewing by several people at once.  Just for eye comfort, 15" to 20" viewing distance is desirable, and two or three feet seems good for viewing by several people side-by-side. With the rule of thumb of viewing distance roughly equal to image size (diagonal? width?), I can see prints two or three feet wide being natural products now that printers can handle that easily.


P.S. One other point. Paintings are viewed from considerably further away than 8"x10" prints, and it is reasonable to expect that this will also typically be true with "painting sized" photographic prints, reducing the PPI needs significantly below the mythical 300PPI.

In fact I have observed how people view huge prints like ones about 4 by 5 feet from LF film, and the viewing distance is typically stays no less than the short dimension of the print. It seems that pixel size about 1/3000th of viewing distance is small enough to look quite sharp, so that suggests that 3000 pixels on the short dimension will go a long way with large prints. Which is about where high end 35mm format and DX format sensors are already.

Yes, I sometimes scrutinize photos more closely, mostly out of curiosity about technical virtues. But then again, I do the same with paintings, and they look terrible! It is amazing what those crude lumps and smears of colored oil can do when viewed suitably. I doubt that there is as much as 10MP of detail in most paintings.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2007, 05:58:32 PM by BJL » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2007, 09:20:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It is amazing what those crude lumps and smears of colored oil can do when viewed suitably. I doubt that there is as much as 10MP of detail in most paintings.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110872\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wonder. In order to capture all the subtle shades and hues in multi-layered but crude brush strokes, a lot more than 10mp might be required.

I have one or two largish photos hanging on my walls (about 23"x35"). I get the impression that some visitors automatically assume they are paintings. When I mention they are photos, their interest perks up and they invariably get as close as possible to examine the detail, even though many such visitors are not avid photographers.

A huge blow-up of a 6mp image (6ftx4ft or larger) can look like a painting from a distance of 20ft or so.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2007, 03:07:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, I sometimes scrutinize photos more closely, mostly out of curiosity about technical virtues. But then again, I do the same with paintings, and they look terrible! It is amazing what those crude lumps and smears of colored oil can do when viewed suitably. I doubt that there is as much as 10MP of detail in most paintings.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110872\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I also look at paintings from both near and far. The color gamut of many paintings is much wider than any photo technology can match -- so wide that the surface of some paintings gets almost incomprehesively complex. Sometimes, it's hard to figure out how a particular color effect was obtained, even after close study. In any case, when talking about size, I was thinking of the practicalities of showing art in a home, as opposed to a museum. In a museum, you've got lots of clear space, so even when I was looking at very small (4x6 in) photos the other day, it was no problem to get close enough to examine them. But if you think about a house with furniture along the walls, uneven and mixed lighting, etc., the situation becomes a lot more complex -- and size and boldness usually work better than small and jewel-like. Even  so, you'd like the surface to hold together even under close inspection. A complicated situation.

JC
Logged
framah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1201



« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2007, 03:15:47 PM »
ReplyReply

There is no "archival" dry mounting, period.

Any method that uses a chemical based adhesive is not archival because it imparts chemicals into the art and tho there are some drymounts that are reversable, the chemical has still been imparted.
"Acid free" does not equate to "archival".

Now, you might want to think about how you want to view the photo. If you want it to be flat then you dry mount it and forget about archivalness.  If you are using a poly based print paper such as Ilfachrome, you can use the static method. That means you "mount" it on a piece of acrylic using the static charge. I also put small corner pockets at the bottom just in case.  This is the standard archival method used to mount ilfachrome prints.

You can also use T hinges at the top made from mulberry paper strips and wheat paste. This is truly archival mounting as the whole process is reversable and does not impart chemicals into the paper.

My own personal choice is that I want it to look flat and I really don't care about the "archivalness" of it.

You can also use corner pockets to hold the print which will be covered by the mat. This method is completely reversable  and so is archival but the print doesn't lay completely flat.

 Take yer pick.
Logged

"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."
pcox
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2007, 03:48:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The biggest issue I see with the larger prints is how to mount and display them. Unless you print on canvas it will cost a small fortune to mount and frame them, not to mention the weight of the glass, even if it is good plexi. I can hinge-mount and mat my "smaller" prints now, but get above 24 x 30 and I have to pay someone else to drymount and frame. No question the larger prints have a lot more impact, just like a double-truck spread in a book or magazine...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110701\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This isn't as big of a problem as you might think. Yes, it's very expensive to frame large pieces under glass, but if you're selling large pieces as wall art you should be pricing accordingly.

As another responder says, you don't have to dry-mount large pieces - for one, it's _not_ archival, and for another hinge mounting works very well.

I don't use corner pockets or t-hinging (although perhaps I should). I just do a simple hinge mount using a couple of pieces of (archival) tape adhering the top of the print to the back of the mat. Most of my prints are 30x20 in size and this method works well. You will get a small amount of 'wave' in the image if its hung in high humidity, but this is not excessive.

In Ireland the cost to frame a piece of this size (results in a frame about 38x29" in dimensions) is close to EUR200 if you have a framer do it for you. If you have the tools and the patience, you can frame it yourself for a fraction of that cost. To do it properly though requires a dedicated workroom and a few thousand euros worth of equipment.

That being said, I sell my large pieces for EUR700 and they move quite well.

As it happens, I also offer my work on stretched canvas, sold at the same price point. I find that sales are about evenly split between canvas and frames, something I find interesting - I expected one to emerge as a clear favourite.

Other cheaper option for large pieces is blockmounting on wood, but then you get into archival problems again.

Cheers,
Peter
Logged

Peter Cox Photography
Photography Workshops in Ireland
Fine Art Landscape Photographs
www.petercox.ie
framah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1201



« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2007, 12:01:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Peter,

You are better off taping the piece to the board behind it rather than the back of the mat board.

If you have to replace the mat for any reason, the art is still in the same place and all you have to do is set the new mat in place. Also there is always the chance the art can get damaged if someone else picks the mat up as if it were hinged at the top. Never assume that you will be the last person to handle the art.    
Logged

"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."
George Barr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2007, 12:07:28 PM »
ReplyReply

At the local farmer's market I sold prints from 8.5X11 to 24X36 inches. I sold significantly more 13X19 than 8.5X11 even though the price was twice as much. I sold about 1/5 as many 17X22 and sold only the occasional larger print - though enough to pay off the cost of the 7600 printer.

At a recent gallery show, they insisted on really big prints and I actually had to get a friend to make 36X36 inch prints for me on his 9800.

Galleries like big pieces of work. Not only do they look more impressive on the walls (and therefor encourage viewers), they sell for a lot more and so the gallery comes out ahead - galleries could not exist selling $40 prints given the traffic they have, the space they use and the marketing model they have.

Re mounting, what they wanted was to dry mount for flatness - they insisted - and they framed them but without glass - letting the customer decide what kind of glass they wanted - non glare, UV or plain.

George
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2007, 01:37:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I googled dry mounting and archival, and I found two things:

1) There's a "define your terms" thing that goes on, and some people insist (somewhat pedantically, I think) that nothing that can't be totally reversed can be termed "archival," because "archival" in the their dictionary means totally reversable -- being able to return the art work to what it originally was. I think of that as pedantic because it also depends on your definition of what the art work was -- if you define it as printing on paper, then dry mounting can't be archival, because it's not totally reversible (you can't remove the adhesive, whatever it is, where it's penetrated the paper.) But if you define the artwork as printing on paper on board...then the situation is different. If you say your definition of your artwork is "absolutely flat," then the dry mounting becomes part of the artwork, and ther's nothing to reverse.

But that's for pedants to worry about.

The more interesting thing was,

2) That some products use acid-free and buffered tissue to support acrylic-based dry-mount adhesive, which, whether you want to define it as "archival," or not, would be permentent and non-degradable. I have some experience with modern acrylics, and you could take a photo out of its frame and put it under water and when all the paper and image washed away, you'd still have the acrylic left...it's a permanent, dry, non-degrading plastic that will last longer than your image. If somebody put a gun to my head and said I had to dry-mount, this is what I 'd use.

JC
Logged
HerbM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2007, 02:50:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Regarding print size versus sales, you need to decide who you want to market to, then print sizes to fit the likely market PROVIDED THE IMAGES AND THEIR CONTENT LOOK GOOD AT DIFFERENT SIZES.
For example, in 2006 I had a two month long exhibit of 30 images at a local bank. A 13" x 19" image of a close up of venation in a tropical leaf was purchased by a University Museum. My largest print, 20" x 30" and several 11"x 14" prints were purchased by professionals (dentists). One additional 13 x 19 and the remaining 11 x 14 received many positive comments but did not sell. That same year, I shared a table at a very popular Christmas Bazaar with my wife (Custom Jewelry) that requires you to submit examples of your work to be accepted. I sold photo art postcards, notecards and an 8" x 10, but no 11 x 14 prints. Obviously this is too small a sample size to draw any significant conclusions, but the clientele were different and their reason for attending these two different venues was different. Folks go to galleries with a different mindset than those who are shopping for interesting Christmas gifts. So decide who you want to market to, then size accordingly, but following the caps note abopve. Hope this helps.

Herb M.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2007, 03:44:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I wonder. In order to capture all the subtle shades and hues in multi-layered but crude brush strokes, a lot more than 10mp might be required.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110923\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I should perhaps have said "information about the subject" (for representation paintings) or "deliberate detail". I am sure that reproducing all the random and unintended fine details of brushstrokes could involve more than 10MP of "raw data"; more than 10MP would be needed to produce an undetectable fake.
Quote
I have one or two largish photos hanging on my walls (about 23"x35"). I get the impression that some visitors automatically assume they are paintings. When I mention they are photos, their interest perks up and they invariably get as close as possible to examine the detail
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110923\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That sort of illustrates my point; they would not go so close to a painting because they know that about two or three feet away is as close as "paint blob resolution" holds up, but they expect that photographic print resolution can be far higher and more worth close viewing.

But it also makes the point that large photographic prints can require more subject detail than paintings of the same size.

I still stick with something like "3000 or 4000 pixels on the short dimension" for almost all situations, based on my observations of close viewing of very large, highly detailed prints. By the way, in one case this was after a talk by the photographer, explaining his choice of large format film and large prints for the sake of recording extreme detail, and his surprise and pleasure at how well the process of scanning and "digital printing" worked. So we were primed to look close, and still that meant a distance of not much less than the short dimension of the prints.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad