I saw some John Wimberley prints last weekend that just knocked my socks off. They are some of the most beautiful black and white that I've seen, and some of his most well known.
They're a special edition set that are printed on 8x10 and are initialed by the photographer. (As opposed to signed.) Among them are his Crater Lake and his Descending Angel photographs.
If you're interested in first-rate fine art photographs at a reasonable price, consider these.
They're a bit of a pain to find on the web, but WOW!
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
Neil, where did you see them? I'd like to see them in person.
I went to his web site and it appears that the prints for sale in this initialed category are 6x8 unless I am missing something. I like the price and I like the images but a 6x8 print of the subjects listed is to small for my taste. I have seen 4x5 and 5x7 contact prints of "micro" subjects that look marvelous in this size but his subject matter is of the grand landscape and that is probably why his regular edition prints start at $800 for 11x14 and go up in both price and print size from there. If these work for you it appears to be a good deal.Originally Posted by neil poulsen
Cheers!
"I have seen 4x5 and 5x7 contact prints of "micro" subjects that look marvelous in this size but his (John Wimberley) subject matter is of the grand landscape and that is probably why his regular edition prints start at $800 for 11x14 and go up in both price and print size from there. If these work for you it appears to be a good deal.
When its a great image. Size doesn't matter. Look at all the Ansel Adams prints that are "Special Editions". Adams printed "big" of subjects that are of the grand landscape but he also had his assistants make smaller prints that were more affordable to the public. Those prints now go for $1700 or more.
John has no assistants. So, you are getting a orginal hand made print by the photographer. It's a sweet deal.
[QUOTE=
When its a great image. Size doesn't matterl.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. There is a minimum size at which it is perceived as just a picture postcard, not as a representation of the scene envisioned by the photographer. I believe that is about 55 square inches for horizontal B&W, slightly less for verticals, more for color.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
Re: John Wimberley's Special Edition Prints
I own several images that are 4x5 or slightly larger. One being Henry Gilpin's "Highway One" I've seen this image enlarged to 20x24 but there is something about the smaller size that makes me want to hold it at arms lenth and think that its a gem. The larger print is nice but this smaller version just sings to me!
Everyone has their opinion. I have heard how galleries all believe that big is best. Specially with color images. They sell by the foot it seems. But, I also have heard fellow photographers say smaller is nice as well. The Contact Printers Guild beinging such a group.
I was at the Photographers Fanfaire, Where John Wimberley was selling his Special edition prints and there were some big prints there but it was the small prints that were moving out.
Last edited by Robert Brummitt; 12-Nov-2006 at 14:04.
Robert, I didn't mean to imply that there is anything wrong with the small prints. Only that there is a difference in the way which the image will be intrepreted by the mind from large ones.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
It all depends on the impression you want from a photograph and how you want to look at it.
I don't think it would seem "correct" to me to print a big grand landscape panorama taken on 6x17 as a contact print. It would seem more at home in the realm of 8 or 10 inches on the short side. Just the same I love many (though not necessarily all) LF portraits and still lifes shown as contact prints, no matter the format. Not sure why I think this way but I'm sure other do, too.
Re: John Wimberley's Special Edition Prints
That's the beauty of what we do. I sing high. You sing low. Together we sing in harmony.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks