Be Honest - What do you think?

[Colin Southern]

Thanks Steve,

The bit that intrigues me though is that I HAVE seen this style of presentation used by many photographers who are unmistakably classed as the "movers and shakers" of the industry.

As a case-in-point, if Annie Leibovitz jointed CiC, and presented an image that she'd make in this style, would you or anyone else comment along the lines of "nice image, pity about the presentation"?

PS: I should add that in reality, what I'm referring to is almost exclusively in the presentation of a physical image - and usually in a gallery type setting; online presentation is different.

[Colin Southern]

OK Guys,

Just try to imagine that this was a framed print - hanging in a gallery - with lettering like this on the matte. What would you think?

[peterb533]

OK Guys,

Just try to imagine that this was a framed print - hanging in a gallery - with lettering like this on the matte. What would you think?

Sorry Colin, still reminds me of the prints you see in places like Ikea. Wouldn't make any difference if it was attributed to Annie Liebowitz or any other 'master', in my opinion, it somehow seems to devalue the work, makes it 'mass produced'.

[carregwen]

Colin

As I see it, anything that we as humans take in through the senses comes in raw. Our brains register it, but then our minds form opinions or emotional reactions based upon our conditioning. Poster prints are no exception. I'm afraid that when I see a poster print, with a printed border and larger stylised lettering I think the following. This is not a comment on your work, but a general point.

1. It's a rather lazy way to create an 'artistic' effect.
2. I think I have seen the shot before. Normally, I haven't, but the style of it makes me think that I have.
3. It's a case of style over substance.
4. It's more a statement about the artist than the actual content.
5. It's 'dated'.
6. My first thoughts/emotions are about the style of it, when they should be about the content.

When you go to an art gallery you rarely look at the frame - you look at the painting.

However, to answer your original question: I think smaller lettering with lower opacity is the way forward for this style. Like this...

[Bannacht]

Title hand written above image.
Sign your name and date discreetly but legibly lower right of image.

[rick55]

6. My first thoughts/emotions are about the style of it, when they should be about the content.

As has been discussed in "photography as art," the raw pixels captured from the real world are just one part of what goes into creating the result that gets shown to a viewer. If I convert to monochrome, posterize, or go high-contrast, I'm stealing away content that the viewer might think about, so I can direct the viewer's thoughts/emotions in a way that I've conceived. What's wrong with adding external style elements as part of that directing? If a big matte and a big title helps me direct the viewer's attention and evoke the feeling I'm looking for, I say go for it.

Cheers,
Rick

[Colin Southern]

For what it's worth, I've gone to the expense of having images framed in the past - without any kind of matting - and to be honest, it just doesn't do them justice. In all honesty, I suspect that something along the lines of the above (probably a variation on my 3rd attempt) would probably make the image more saleable, although having said that, I do believe that the execution of the matting and writing is critical, needing to be "not too big, but not too small", and in my case definately with the name below the title. And in reflection, I think that Rob's sizing is better than mine (less "in your face").

[danattherock]

This is what I was trying to convey in my earlier post. If I was walking through a shop and saw this, I would buy it. Lovely. I think the photographers name beneath the title of the image gives respect to the capture. I think it in some small way shows character in the form of being humble. I like it and would have no reservation about hanging it on my wall. Far improvement from the earlier versions to my way of thinking.

-Dan

OK Guys,

Just try to imagine that this was a framed print - hanging in a gallery - with lettering like this on the matte. What would you think?

[Letrow]

OK Guys,

Just try to imagine that this was a framed print - hanging in a gallery - with lettering like this on the matte. What would you think?

It all comes down to personal taste I think. Having the title first and the photographer's name second (in smaller print) looks better.
For me though, I would prefer to see the print first and foremost. The lettering distracts me. If I like the print and buy it I would like to know the photographer's name as well.

Great photographers (HCB and the such) are recognisable. It is nice to see their name to confirm the suspicion you already had about who shot the photograph.

On the wall in my living room I don't need somebody's name to stand out. It would be too pushy for me. The photograph is the work of art, not the guy/girl behind the lens.

But, as I said, this is (my) personal taste.

[Maritimer1]

I don't dislike the second version, and would happily display it, but because I think Colin's work is likely quite recognizable in his area, if I was buying a photograph from Colin I would like to have it signed, in the right front corner of the photo itself. For me, that would define it even more as a piece of art and add to its value.

Myra

[Colin Southern]

I don't dislike the second version, and would happily display it, but because I think Colin's work is likely quite recognizable in his area, if I was buying a photograph from Colin I would like to have it signed, in the right front corner of the photo itself. For me, that would define it even more as a piece of art and add to its value.

Myra

Anything can be arranged for a price (just kidding!)

Thanks for the input Myra (and Peter). To be honest, I deliberately make some of my example images in this thread a bit over-the-top. In reality I've found that I do prefer the large white matte with the black frame -- and I think it works best with the image title underneath (but not distractingly large, nor distractingly dark), with my name in a more petite size under that. Some might think that that's a bit ostentatious (and they're probably right!) -- but for me it's also about presentation and to a (slightly) lesser degree, branding.

[Klickit]

Some might think that that's a bit ostentatious -- but for me it's also about presentation and to a (slightly) lesser degree, branding.

If I buy any type of art, I would expect the maker's name to be on it somewhere. We don't necessarily buy something because a certain someone made it - unless we are a collector or a snob - but because we like it. It was created by someone and should be referenced back to them. After all, we'd hardly buy a book without the author being acknowledged, would we.

*far too many words - my brain is cold today*

[William W]

OK Guys,

Just try to imagine that this was a framed print - hanging in a gallery - with lettering like this on the matte. What would you think?

It would make me think it was taken by one of those Photographers that grew out of the Mass Print Era of the late Nineties and I would expect I could buy the 11 x 5 version and any of the incrementally various sizes up to the 5ft wide version.

I’d also expect there to be 19 other “interpretations” along the same theme and all available in 5 sizes.

I would look for the name in three years time in shopfronts at international airports and most visited international tourist destinations.

I’d expect with five years there would be the self help digital Photography Book and CD and also bookings being taken for the classes . . . on location.

It would make me think that it really depends on the target market and the ability to swing with it and keep ahead of it - at the moment there is a market for it. I think keeping ahead of the game with the subject matter is the key, of course that is second to marketing, which IS the KEY: and BRANDING is the cornerstone there, is it not?

(geez I love it when I mix metaphors)

With Photography Art I believe one has to do the Maths – How many and at what Price? Better to have 100 limited editions “affordable” and sold in 12 months than sell them for 4 times the price and sell only 10.

That brings me back to the style and presentation which is what you are asking about – to me that style indicates “affordable” and a print run of between 100 and 300 . . . BUT I can cite instances where that style is used by some and is beyond what I term “affordable” but more into the category of Art Originals (i.e. one off artworks) . . . but that is in the eye of the beholder and the pocket of the person being marketed to – if there is a market created . . . then there is a want to buy it.

Best to you, Colin.
Regards
Bill