﻿<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><channel><title>TraditionalPhotographer.NET / General Discussion / Presentation and Marketing </title><generator>InstantForum.NET v4.1.4</generator><description>TraditionalPhotographer.NET</description><link>http://www.traditionalphotographer.net/forums/</link><webMaster>admin@traditionalphotographer.net</webMaster><lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:34:16 GMT</lastBuildDate><ttl>20</ttl><item><title>The Importance of Print Size</title><link>http://www.traditionalphotographer.net/forums/Topic969-19-1.aspx</link><description>Is print size important, or is it just something you consider an afterthought?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've been listening to a Podcast by Brooks Jensen about the issue of print size, and it got me to thinking, is print size important and is it tied to the type of print. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Brooks talks about how he prefers small prints, but I notice that most of the prints he sees are B&amp;amp;W prints. I've also heard other B&amp;amp;W printers say they too prefer small prints. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However, as a color landscape photographer, I love large prints. I have a fantastic print by our very own Rich Nelridge (naturephoto1) that sits behind my desk at home (so I can look at it as I work), which is a 16x20, and I can't imagine seeing this print in any smaller size. It would loose too much of its impact. Even my portfolio consists of prints that are a minimum of 11x14 (and I sometimes carry around a 20x24 print as well).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm curious how others see this issue.</description><pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:48:50 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>roteague</dc:creator></item></channel></rss>