The simple answer would be texture. Canvas always has texture, and some images
are suited to it. I believe Loch Na Keal is one of those. If I were printing it
on paper, and decided not to use one of the papers that are made specifically
for b&w, I would use Epson's Velvet Fine Art, which has a distinct texture. I
haven't tried Trotternish Ridge on anything but my cheap proof paper, but I can
say that the test image does not have a certain three-dimensional quality
present on the canvas print. I know it's an optical illusion, but, hey,
photography is all about illusion, right? <g>
As for aluminum, I like it because it is different, and, I believe, somewhat
fashionable these days. I'm seeing more and more of it. There are four surfaces
available: high gloss, satin, sheer gloss and sheer satin. The high gloss and
satin surfaces emulate glossy and satin papers, and I believe would be suitable
for any image where you want a little bit of distinction from ordinary
paper-behind glass. The sheer surfaces are definitely suitable for certain
images only, as the sheer part refers to the fact that what's white on the
image shows through to the aluminum surface.
I have not used the sheer matte, but I did have one image printed as sheer
glossy.
http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=10076
This one was well-suited to the sheer treatment, and looks rather good on
aluminum. The paper print has sold reasonably well, so I'll be interested to
see if the aluminum print does likewise. (It's much more expensive. <g>)
Also in the near future, I plan to have the following test-printed on aluminum
for the same reason I had Loch Na Keal printed on canvas, i.e, I want to see
how it looks on metal. First I have to test it on glossy and matte paper to see
which surface is better suited. I've printed it on matte and it's right nice,
but I need to try glossy, too.
http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=8876
My reason for trying images on both canvas and aluminum is that in doing so, I
avoid what I consider to be one of the disadvantages to paper prints, i.e.,
that they must be framed behind glass. The package is heavy, and the glass lies
between the viewer and the image. For example, I am not a big fan of prints on
glossy paper framed behind glass. That's two levels of shine to deal with, and
for me it's unattractive. Luster is better behind glass, matte is best. YMMV.
But no glass at all is better still. Of course it's more expensive to put
images on aluminum or canvas, and the final cost of the product is higher for
the consumer, but so far I've sold two rather expensive canvases, and, I think,
six or seven metal prints. (The Scotland prints are principally for display in
my home. I do have a little show about Scotland planned for late winter/early
spring, but I don't intend to aggressively market the Scotland pictures. One
disadvantage in living in a place such as Maine (or Scotland) is that people
who buy the majority of photographs want photos of this area. They don't come
to Maine to buy pictures of Scotland, or to Scotland to buy pictures of Maine.
--Bob Whitmire
Certified Neanderthal
On Dec 9, 2013, at 4:34 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> Thanks, Bob. I have a widish panorama of woodland printed on
> aluminium-backed material by Whitewall, a German company. We nearly went for
> printed direct on aluminium, but that requires a certain sort of image.
>
> I'd be interested to hear what makes you choose one surface over another – if
> you could put it into words, that is.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|