Best kind of enlargement for an exhibition?

[paulr]

Could you explain the fragility issues? Are you worried about damaging the work while mounting / framing, or are you worried about it somehow getting damaged while on the wall?

The work should be well protected when hung, unless the circumstances are unusual. Making repro prints sounds like a ton of work.

[IanG]

One comment I'd make is a lot of thought is needed.

I've seen two large exhibitions of Kertesz prints. One at the Barbican in London was of original contemporary prints, small jewl like and exquisite, the other was modern prints made from the same negative - excellent prints and uniform (as much as possble) in sixe but they lacked the original spark and intimate feel. That's the dilemna here.

Ian

[Kirk Gittings]

Actually, as far as I can tell, that is not the dilemma here. We are not talking about superb prints by a master here but historical photographs where the information contained is paramount.

[IanG]

Actually, as far as I can tell, that is not the dilemma here. We are not talking about superb prints by a master here but historical photographs where the information contained is paramount.

The size and ambiance of the original images is still important though. I used to do work for a museum/art gallery in the 1970's and keeping as close to the original was important, that's easier now as you can scan and more cacurately reproduce all but the parer texture.

Your right thouigh that it does depend on the final context.

Ian

[Dan Henderson]

I would rather view original photographs as printed by, or with the participation of, the photographer. Whether he/she is famous, or name recognized, or relatively unknown to me, is of little significance. The value of looking at, as you describe them, "historic" photographs, would be greatly diminished (for me) by looking at copies, whether hi-rez scanned and lambda-printed as Bob suggests, or by any other method. Even if I cannot hold and feel the original print, I feel a connection to simply being in the presence of a print that was made by, or at least approved by, the photographer. If this exhibition is being professionally and properly curated any potential danger to original photographs should be adequately mitigated. As others here have, I have been in the presence of a print that was made by Ansel Adams, Yousef Karsh, and other masters of the medium (or at least approved by them). I can only describe this experience as transcendental. I'm sorry, but copies do not create transcendelism for this viewer. But I prefer ink on paper books to nooks, so what do I know?

BTW, I apologize in advance for the comma-strewn sentences. I am normally more parsimonious with them, but I am enjoying my first dinner of the spring on my patio with an excessive amount of red wine.

[ROL]

If full context is truly the issue, then hang the standard enlargement next to the the original, or if not the original, then an original sized replica. I can bet where most users eyes will be, most of the time, and it likely won't be on the original, unless the photographer is very well known and a skilled printer of equal renown. With few exceptions, fine art printing wasn't the point of most historical photography exhibitions I've seen, either by the photographer's intent or execution – although occasionally I have been taken aback by the beauty of the prints and the acumen of the photographer/printer..

[Drew Wiley]

Sometimes the original photos are loaned and not available for actual display, or the cost of safely framing them is exhorbitant to the overall budget of the project, or one might want to clean them up visually per mold, cracks, fading, etc,
or simply enlarge them to make the content more obvious. Here our local park dept, as well a local historian & friend do an
awful lot of that kind of thing. Ctein across the Bay has done a quite a bit of this kind of thing for Ken Burn as well as
published a book on it. It's sorta fun work.

[Tin Can]

Haven't we all done this with old family photos? I have restored as much old, family photos as possible. Mostly 1910 to the 60's. All are damaged. I scan what I can or copy stand what I can't scan. The one thing I do is I maintain original format and size. I then put the original under the new one, in a frame, in case someone, someday may have better technique or my prints degrade.

I like both Dan Henderson's and ROL's idea's.

Oversize copies are fairly obvious to most and I think a bad imitation of an image's original purpose. Sort of rewriting history.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I digitized 3,110 pictures and negatives from our local historical society to anticipate a show and publication which never happened due to some territorial, asshole librarians and wannabe curators.

As you can imagine, given that the sources range from 35mm to 8x10 and and many, many glass plates, the outcomes were vastly different. As it concerned a book outcome, there was no particular problem because the limited viewing distance properly leveled scale, however the issue of 'how to present' in a gallery was most difficult.

There are no ropes in this gallery to enforce viewing distance and I suggested we either put the images up as they would be in the book, or better to normalize all to fit within 11x14 or so size. Methinks the later is more comfortable to the audience.
.

[Kirk Gittings]

I have worked on numerous historic exhibits (dozens probably) in many different capacities from the Smithsonian to state and local preservation exhibits in NM, DC and Chicago. The need for the originals to be displayed is relative to the context, content and intent of the exhibit. Making an issue that its always better to just hang the originals is (for lack of a better term right now) silly. Its like me saying that I won't ever let anyone reproduce my images in books or magazines because I only want them to experience the originals. If I can find it later I will post an image of mine of a room that was reproduced life size in a museum exhibit so as one could feel like they were walking into it.

Here it is, a woodworkers "form wall" at the National Hispanic Cultural Center maybe 2-3 years ago. Size about 11x12 feet.



This usage was totally contrary to my original intent of the image (B&W and maybe 16x16") but perfect for the intent of the exhibit that it ended up in.