Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Would you hang it in your home to look at every day?  (Read 43603 times)
WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1157


« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2012, 05:17:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: KLaban
Displaying my own work on my own walls would, for me at least, be counterproductive. If I look at my own work day in and day out the familiarity breeds contempt.

The only time I ever really *see* my own work and can learn from it is when it has become unfamiliar, when intimacy is long gone.   
\
Eloquently expressed Keith,

And I fully concur.

Cheers,

W
Logged
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1886


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2012, 09:46:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Some of the landscape photographs that I've seen are technically excellent - good use of colour, shapes, contours, leading lines, detail, etc. But, and this is a big but, quite often I'm satisfied in having seen it once and do not feel the need to see it again. From time to time, this goes to an extreme - a photo might be technically excellent but I most definitely do not want to see it again. In short, some photographs I would be happy to see in an art gallery but equally as happy for them to stay in the art gallery and not have them in my home. I accept that the actual subject material which falls into each basket is going to be different for different people.

I'm curious, do others feel the same way about photographs?

I suppose from a commercial perspective, is there a meaningful intersection of what is artistic and what is desirable/endurable?

What brought this to mind was that during the last week or so, I was thinking about the Palouse PODAS photographs that were posted on this website and thinking "yes, that's really nice and well captured, but I don't want to see a tractor and dust every day when I get home from work."

Thoughts?


The original question is clearly about displaying any landscape photos at home, and not about one’s own work. But nearly everyone here has inferred the question has been asked about displaying one’s own photos at home. This common misinterpretation is kind of funny in a way.

To the OP: in the original statement, is there an implied assertion that there is something inherently unworthy about photographs? To my reading, the key reply is: Why do you feel this way about photos?

A friend who is from eastern Washington State (the Palouse) and is a commercial artist (professional architect) has many photos, sketches, and paintings, including some of dusty tractors and harvesting equipment. She loves to see ‘scapes from the area she grew up in and continues to visit regularly. She, like many, will always find a lot to cherish in scenes that remind her of fond times and places.

Touching the viewer’s happy memories is high on the list of what constitutes art. If the work is well done, the media doesn’t matter all that much.............to some.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #22 on: February 04, 2012, 01:59:12 PM »
ReplyReply


The original question is clearly about displaying any landscape photos at home, and not about one’s own work. But nearly everyone here has inferred the question has been asked about displaying one’s own photos at home. This common misinterpretation is kind of funny in a way.To the OP: in the original statement, is there an implied assertion that there is something inherently unworthy about photographs? To my reading, the key reply is: Why do you feel this way about photos?





Hi Justan

I didn't see that at all: I thought it was wide open to any sort of photo from anywhere.

However, taking your point, I expect that most people here wouldn't be buying anybody else's images. I think the natural inclination is to show your own work, for better or for worse; at any rate, that's my take on it. Regardless, I'm sure this will reveal a host of Avedon, Haas, Adams etc, buyers.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6560



WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 04, 2012, 02:12:09 PM »
ReplyReply

If I look at my own work day in and day out the familiarity breeds contempt.

Wow! That's quite an admission.
Logged

canoeman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #24 on: June 08, 2012, 10:53:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I also like beautiful images and always look at them for inspiration and appreciation. However, I wouldn't want to look at mine, or anyone's forever. You might also say that I am frugal and don't feel inclined to spend the big bucks (although worthy) for something that I know is not going to be a long-term thing. Therefore, I have compromised by displaying a couple of my own images in a way that works for us.

The only prints I do now are A3+ of a few things I really like (landscape and some wildlife). We have a simple but elegant cherry mantle in our family room. We then had two matted mahogany (to match the cherry) frames made to display A3+ prints. These were expensive, approx $500 each, and I can place them vertical or horizontal, both on the mantle, or typically one on and one on the wall beside the mantle. The thing that I did differently was that I had the backs made easily removable so I can switch the photos out any time that I want. I left the original photo bonded to the backing board, and just place a new photo exactly over the original one and hold it with blue tape catching about 1/8 inch of the edges in a few places. They have never slipped or curled, even after many, many months for some of them.

So, I hang good images on the wall to look at every day and remind us of a place we have visited, of an animal that we especially liked. But, when we get tired of it, we print something else and look at it for several months. The time varies greatly, and we have even placed some images for a second time. It has been a simple way to show our friends what we have been doing without making them look through our whole print album. They can then ask questions or not, and go to our website if they want to see more.

It's kind of like having your cake and eating it too.  Bill
« Last Edit: June 08, 2012, 10:57:16 PM by canoeman » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #25 on: June 10, 2012, 04:31:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Strange; I find that once something has been walled, then that's pretty much it: short of earthquake or sudden (if infrequent) insanity bouts, there it remains. The downside is that I haven't enough walls - well, I have enough walls but they aren't big enough.

If I didn't think I could/would live with the piccies I wouldn't print them in the first place. I wish I could have that understanding at the viewfinder moment too, and thus save myself such a lot of time later on.

Life is sweet, if hard.

Rob C
Logged

canoeman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #26 on: June 10, 2012, 10:33:37 AM »
ReplyReply

One of the motivators for our frames  is that we don't have enough walls.
Logged
michelle_elle
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2



WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 12, 2012, 11:57:30 AM »
ReplyReply

That's a good question.
I think it's a matter of taste.

For me, if the photograph doesn't have that "extra something", I too don't feel the need to see it again.
It has to make me feel something, and not just be statically beautiful.
If the feeling it enhances is one I'd like to experience again, that's it.  Wink
Logged

Michelle Elle.

www.jolini.com
________________________________
The most Beautiful Artwork is YOU.
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #28 on: June 12, 2012, 02:19:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Some nice stuff on your website, Michelle.

Rob C
Logged

torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1609


« Reply #29 on: June 13, 2012, 03:22:26 AM »
ReplyReply

In an art gallery I like to see pictures which makes my thoughts move, they could even be disturbing and cause feelings of anxiety. At home I just want beautiful peaceful pictures that gives me harmony, which usually means pictures of landscapes.

If a picture gives me a strong "wow-feeling" first time I see it, it usually means that I will get bored with it, it's like eating foie gras every day. Pictures to be seen every day should be subtly good, it should not shove down its greatness down my throat, but rather require my collaboration to see how fine it is.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2012, 03:26:17 AM by torger » Logged
philbaum
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


« Reply #30 on: June 13, 2012, 10:13:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Absolutely, but only select ones.

I like to photograph scenes that i can connect to on an emotional level and that i hope others can connect to as well.  Hanging the stellar ones on a wall reminds me to go out and take more such images.

Unfortunately, when i get a chance to do a show or enter a few pics into a juried show, I pick the best ones off my walls.  Which means that any sales take the best ones and leave the "others" to be carried home. 

If i wasn't able to take a special picture occasionally that i or others could enjoy, i'd give up on photography.   

Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8947


« Reply #31 on: June 15, 2012, 12:28:29 AM »
ReplyReply

This is an interesting discussion. I often wonder if I should go to the trouble of printing large, and mounting a photo to hang on my wall.

My problem is, I'm not too impressed with small, or average-sized photos that one usually sees on peoples' walls, such as anything from 5"x 7" to 16"x20".

I'm not too keen on the idea that photo prints on the wall have to be approached up close to be fully appreciated.

When I was on an organised tourist trip to Europe and Russia a few years ago, visiting the usual magnificent historical palaces and churches filled with permanent masterpieces which were not just hanging on the wall but sometimes a permanent feature of the wall, it occurred to me that maybe I should print my best photos to the maximum size to fit a particular wall space, and paste them directly onto the wall as a permanent feature.

Of course, one needs a big printer to do this, and my printer is only a modest size. It prints a maximum of only 600mm wide, but fortunately as long as I want, up to 30 metres. (Epson 7600)

If I want a really big print, say 1.8 metres x 3.6 metres to fill a sizable wall, I'd have to separate the final interpolated image into 6 different prints each 600mm wide x 1.8 metres high, then paste them next to each other, onto the wall.

The problem I have is how to manage the joins in the best manner. Should I butt up each print as close as possible to disguise the joins, hoping that no-one notices them from a distance; or should I accept that the join is not going to be invisible, and make a feature of the join?

One way of making the join a feature, that has recently occurred to me, is to photograph the largest window in my house, and use the image of the window frame as a join between the various sections of the total print in order to create the illusion of looking at the photographic scene depicted, through a window in one's house.

If I could patent an idea, I'd patent that.

The scene portrayed in the photograph might be a stitched image of a view of the Himalayas at dawn, for example. I have such an image. Wouldn't it be an enduring experience to feel the illusion that your suburban house in the city precincts actually has a view of the Himalayas, through one of the windows?

Now I would appreciate it if anyone reading this could advise me of the best technique to glue large prints to an ordinary, painted, plasterboard wall, without incurring bubbles and other problems.

Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #32 on: June 15, 2012, 04:20:08 AM »
ReplyReply

The answer to your problem, Ray is this: do as you would do were you hanging wallpaper. After all, that's what most displayed photography is: covers the cracks and the poor plastering, the result of excessive DIY. (This charge could also be levied at much desktop printing...)

A caveat: don't cover the windows: were you to do this, you'd have to view the 'wallpaper' via artificial light which, as we both know, induces colour shifts etc.  but let's not open another, even more internal discussion about that! Far more interesting the development of the philosophy of dancers and kangaroos, especially together.

Rob C
« Last Edit: June 15, 2012, 09:03:36 AM by Rob C » Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8947


« Reply #33 on: June 15, 2012, 07:48:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Don't be silly, Rob. These large prints will be Premium Glossy paper for maximum gamut, or at least Premium Lustre. They will be immaculate. Wallpaper indeed! Nothing could be further from the truth.

There are no cracks on my walls, Rob. They're all lovely, flat, smooth, painted surfaces. I've never hung wallpaper in my life, and don't intend to start now.
Logged
slackercruster
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 111


« Reply #34 on: June 15, 2012, 08:34:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I used to rotate pix.

Now I just plaster the walls with em...

« Last Edit: June 15, 2012, 08:38:25 AM by slackercruster » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #35 on: June 15, 2012, 09:11:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Good God! Reminds me of my vey late teens when my bedroom was plastered with Italian wine bottle labels.  There were two Italian stores in Glasgow where you could buy wine from the barrel, and they also bottled wine and used a variety of labels which was my main source, not being a drinker at that tender stage.  I took their implied word for it that they knew which was which... Later, my garage wall sported two life-size posters: one of Ava and the other of my newer crush, Brigitte; can't say I didn't have an eye for a classy dame as well as some nice wines.

Those were the good olde - no, not again!

;-)

Rob C

Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #36 on: June 15, 2012, 10:13:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Don't be silly, Rob. These large prints will be Premium Glossy paper for maximum gamut, or at least Premium Lustre. They will be immaculate. Wallpaper indeed! Nothing could be further from the truth.

There are no cracks on my walls, Rob. They're all lovely, flat, smooth, painted surfaces. I've never hung wallpaper in my life, and don't intend to start now.


Well, then let's look at the problem (challenge, as some prefer to call these things) again: after many moons have waxed and waned (Wayned in the U.S.?) my walls are far from pristine - more Capella Sistina, to be honest, so I thought that perhaps now, since the accompanying illustration of the (recorded) restructuring, a true work-in-progress, a pretty print à la mosaic might be a better option. For myself, if not for your present domestic arrangement. But I don't know, walking all over art has its spiritual downside, I guess...

You really should discover the art of hanging wallpaper. It has many fringe benefits: you learn how to walk the plank; you discover long-lost oaths from your own distant and even ancestral past that might otherwise have become extinct – at huge cultural loss – and you do save a heap of money best spent on photography. Well, sometimes. But for walls, I guess any competent printer used to 42" rolls of Kodak or Ilford products would have no problem at all doing his thing with anaglypta and paste instead. Again, you see the advantages of the wet processes of yesteryear...

Rob C
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8947


« Reply #37 on: June 15, 2012, 08:26:34 PM »
ReplyReply


Well, then let's look at the problem (challenge, as some prefer to call these things) again: after many moons have waxed and waned (Wayned in the U.S.?) my walls are far from pristine - more Capella Sistina, to be honest, so I thought that perhaps now, since the accompanying illustration of the (recorded) restructuring, a true work-in-progress, a pretty print à la mosaic might be a better option. For myself, if not for your present domestic arrangement. But I don't know, walking all over art has its spiritual downside, I guess...

You really should discover the art of hanging wallpaper. It has many fringe benefits: you learn how to walk the plank; you discover long-lost oaths from your own distant and even ancestral past that might otherwise have become extinct – at huge cultural loss – and you do save a heap of money best spent on photography. Well, sometimes. But for walls, I guess any competent printer used to 42" rolls of Kodak or Ilford products would have no problem at all doing his thing with anaglypta and paste instead. Again, you see the advantages of the wet processes of yesteryear...


No need for all that nonsense, Rob, but thanks for your help Grin . My main concern is rolling out the air bubbles as I apply the print to the wall. For this, I don't want a paint roller, or the very narrow type of roller that is used for the edges of wallpaper, but a solid, firm, rubber roller of a decent width.

After a lengthy search on the internet, I believe I've found the right tool for the job. The roller is only 8" wide, but I think that might be sufficient to do an excellent job that meets my very high standards. Epson Premium Glossy paper is not cheap in Australia. There seems to be some monopoly at work that keeps prices high.

Of course, another issue in pasting an image directly to the wall, is the permanence of the thing. The image has to be really good, so that one will never tire of it, otherwise, several years later one might be confronted with the chore of removing it.



Logged
philbaum
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68


« Reply #38 on: June 17, 2012, 12:10:57 AM »
ReplyReply

One alternative is to make a tryptch in 3 parts.  the width of each trytch part would be 24" wide (600mm width of your printer) by 48" high.  So the 3 bases would add up to 6' wide.  If you wanted a more pano look to it, you could make it a 4 tch or 5 tch ecetera.  Canvas would be nice, but one could also take the prints and bond them to some secure but light weight base, that could be removable.  That way, you could still paint the walls if you ever needed to get behind the print for maintenance reasons.  Just brainstorming - good luck.

I know what you're saying about large prints.  the largest i've made so far is 2' by 3', and i know that isn't particularly large, but still....  Anyway, It sold at an art show yesterday and i have to decide whether to make another of the same size or slightly larger, maybe 4'.  Its not a bad size for a house.    but a full wall size would probably be cool too :-)   
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8947


« Reply #39 on: June 17, 2012, 01:33:41 AM »
ReplyReply

One alternative is to make a tryptch in 3 parts.  the width of each trytch part would be 24" wide (600mm width of your printer) by 48" high.  So the 3 bases would add up to 6' wide.  If you wanted a more pano look to it, you could make it a 4 tch or 5 tch ecetera.  Canvas would be nice, but one could also take the prints and bond them to some secure but light weight base, that could be removable.  That way, you could still paint the walls if you ever needed to get behind the print for maintenance reasons.  Just brainstorming - good luck.


Yes, indeed! This is my concept. I've already made a 600mm x 1.8metre print of my prized scene of the Himalayas, consisting of 3 stitched 5D images, camera held vertical.

From an average viewing distance, I estimate the detail is sufficient for an image 4x the size, provided one doesn't get too close. That would make it 1200mm x3.6metres. It would consist of 6 vertical strips, each 600x1200mm.

I would then have, not a triptych, but a hexaptych.

Unfortunately, Nikon have put a spanner in the works, by coming out with the D800E. I'm just so disappointed  Grin . I feel that I now have to revisit the scene to reshoot, to maintain my high standards. It's a long walk.

But Hey! Life is a challenge. We must move on to better pastures.  Grin
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad