Good ways to display a lot of prints?

I have about a dozen prints on my walls, and now I'm out of space. What are good ways to show a lot of images?

I could use an 8k TV, but I'm not sure I'd be happy with that. I like prints; I like the detail and texture of paper, plus 8k TVs consume too much power.

Because of this problem, I'm reconsidering photography as a hobby. The primary reason I enjoy it because of the beauty I'm able to create, enjoy, and share. But even now, I have many more prints that I'd like to put on my wall, and can't. So it seems that I have little to gain by creating yet more images.

I understand the appreciation for prints and feel similarly, having numerous matted and framed pieces. Rotate them as I do.

I still have a bunch of prints but am migrating towards digital frames. Prints are nice and all but so static. Same print every day. With a frame the image changes often. I have them changing about once, maybe twice an hour. Every time I walk by, it's a different image. My daughter also sent us a frame where she loads up pictures and controls the content. The quality is not a good, but what use is quality if you walk by it every day and pay no attention to it.

gjl711 wrote in post #19074953
I still have a bunch of prints but am migrating towards digital frames. Prints are nice and all but so static. Same print every day. With a frame the image changes often. I have them changing about once, maybe twice an hour. Every time I walk by, it's a different image. My daughter also sent us a frame where she loads up pictures and controls the content. The quality is not a good, but what use is quality if you walk by it every day and pay no attention to it.

.
I'm totally with you on this, J.J.

In today's world, we are continually bombarded by excellent photography. . We see world-class images every time we use our phone to access the internet, or whenever we sit down at our computers. . When we are literally seeing hundreds upon hundreds of world-class images every week, of course we tire very quickly of seeing any one image, regardless of how beautiful or moving it is.

Given that, seeing the same photo on my wall, day after day, does nothing for me, no matter how nice the photo is or how much personal meaning it has to me. . I have been forever changed by the internet, and my expectations have been expanded immeasurably.

Another thing to consider is this: . Personally, I don't think any image looks as good printed as it does when viewed on a high quality computer monitor. . On a computer, the light is actually coming from behind the image - from within the image! . With prints, we are stuck with the light that shines onto the image and reflects off of it. . That is what we see with a print - an image that is illuminated by light shining onto it and reflecting back at us. . Far from ideal.

For these reasons, I would LOVE to have a truly high quality digital frame in a decent size - such as 48" by 32". . Televisions of this screen size are ridiculously cheap! . Why, then, do we not have big digital frames available at similar prices to televisions?

If I could have the quality viewing experience of seeing images on a 48" high-res monitor, and have my attention deficit assuaged by seeing images on a continually rotating basis, then that would be awesome! . Hopefully super high quality digital frames in sizes similar to today's TVs will soon become readily available at prices that are on par with TVs of comparable size.


.

I’m on the other side; in purely aesthetic terms (not collectability/worth), I would much prefer an original Ansel Adams print or, for that matter, a Van Gogh painting than a digital display of either. And then there are other forms of art, such as sculptures or ancient Chinese vases, that demand actualization over digitalization to reveal their true nature.

I have paintings of which, even after more than two decades, I never tire; their beauty not so disposable as to require occasional rotations.

In regards to photography specifically, the print (darkroom or inkjet) is, what I personally consider, the ultimate expression, but even a well printed photography book produces images that, for me, are superior to their digitally displayed variants.

True, the monitor strikes out with its radiant backlighting, and this has dynamic appeal. But, for me, the print draws one in, especially black and white, whereby the tonality helps inform the reaction and, if manipulated effectively, creates a luminosity that is brilliant but not fatiguing. And I generally prefer a gloss or sheen; if one prefers matte, which a number of B&W photographers do, I can’t imagine a monitor being a satisfying option.

Other ancillary concerns exist as well, including the choice of framing and matting, as opposed to using just the one frame of a digital monitor (although matting color, if desired, and photo size could be digitally controlled).

As for the OP, and really, as for basically all of us, we all have more photos than can be plastered to a wall, but a hybrid approach might suffice. There might be some special photos that you can print out and frame, maybe change them once in a while. You can then supplement these with a couple or few digital frames, rotating through the remaining catalog.

icor1031 wrote in post #19074417
I have about a dozen prints on my walls, and now I'm out of space. What are good ways to show a lot of images?

1. Rotate them. Buy or make frames that can be opened. Swap out images every three months.
2. Print smaller. I know many people want big but there is something to be said for sets of small prints nicely framed. They make you step closer and examine... and you can fit more of them into the same space.
3. Give prints to friends as gifts then go around to visit... often.
4. Build an extra wall down the middle of the livingroom so you have more wall to hang prints on.

Seems like something of an over reaction to me.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19074971
.
In today's world, we are continually bombarded by excellent photography. . We see world-class images every time we use our phone to access the internet, or whenever we sit down at our computers. . When we are literally seeing hundreds upon hundreds of world-class images every week, of course we tire very quickly of seeing any one image, regardless of how beautiful or moving it is.

Given that, seeing the same photo on my wall, day after day, does nothing for me, no matter how nice the photo is or how much personal meaning it has to me. . I have been forever changed by the internet, and my expectations have been expanded immeasurably.

Another thing to consider is this: . Personally, I don't think any image looks as good printed as it does when viewed on a high quality computer monitor. . On a computer, the light is actually coming from behind the image - from within the image! . With prints, we are stuck with the light that shines onto the image and reflects off of it. . That is what we see with a print - an image that is illuminated by light shining onto it and reflecting back at us. . Far from ideal.

My reaction to my own prints is becoming that. My pictures are too familiar, so I don't notice them, so to speak.

And you can deal with the reflections by using anti-reflective glass, e.g. museum glass.

sapearl wrote in post #19074917
I understand the appreciation for prints and feel similarly, having numerous matted and framed pieces. Rotate them as I do.

That would work, but I'm lazy. And it's expensive to have excess frames with which to rotate.

gjl711 wrote in post #19074953
As for the OP, and really, as for basically all of us, we all have more photos than can be plastered to a wall, but a hybrid approach might suffice. There might be some special photos that you can print out and frame, maybe change them once in a while. You can then supplement these with a couple or few digital frames, rotating through the remaining catalog.

Yeah, if I'm willing to pay the cost of powering digital frames (I'd use TVs). I have to think about it more.

icor1031 wrote in post #19075451
And you can deal with the reflections by using anti-reflective glass, e.g. museum glass.

.
Yes, but I wasn't talking about reflected glare.

Even when there is no glare - for example, a matte finish print with no glass in front of it. . Even in that case, you are looking at a surface that is reflecting the ambient light back to you. . And as we photographers know, ambient light in indoor spaces usually sucks. . It is subject to strange color values and so forth.

So things in our homes never really look right, because we are seeing them when they are illuminated with less than ideal light. . The print on the wall may look a bit cooler than it would ideally look, or a bit warmer, or it may have a slightly orangey color cast to it, or any of a myriad of things could look a bit "off" about it, because it is being illuminated with light that is not ideal. . This is why furniture, decorations, artwork, etc. in our homes never really looks right. . Our eyes and brain try to adjust to compensate for this, but they can never really adjust enough to cancel out all of the poor qualities that exist in the ambient light.

Photos that are internally lit by a monitor or TV do not have this problem, because we can calibrate the display to be exactly what is should be. . Plus, the tones and colors are just richer and more vibrant, because the light is coming from within ...... we are literally looking at colored light, instead of a colored surface that is reflecting light back to us. . I believe that is why things we see on a TV set or on a computer monitor look so much more appealing than anything that we ever see in real life.

Also consider that when you go to the movies, you are looking at a projected image on a screen. . So light is reflecting back at you instead of coming from within the image itself. . That is why the movies in theaters never look anywhere near as good as the same movie looks when you see it at home on your TV or computer. . Wouldn't it be incredible if the movie theatre had a huge hi-resolution monitor instead of a screen/projector setup?!!!

.

So, you want to minimize the effort and cost required to rotate photos, but you also want to use the medium (physical prints) that requires the most effort?

I guess you could just mat a bunch of prints, and then pay someone to rotate them into the same set of frames.

If the problem is serious enough to make you want to hang up your gear, but you're not willing to compromise, maybe you already know the answer.

I have to admit that the whole idea is foreign to me: I don't produce that many "wall-worthy" photos, and I don't quickly get tired of looking at them. But we're all different.

moose10101 wrote in post #19075645
I have to admit that the whole idea is foreign to me: I don't produce that many "wall-worthy" photos, and I don't quickly get tired of looking at them. But we're all different.

I probably have three to five dozen images that I want to print. The main problem right now might be that I have a relatively small space, and I do 13x19 prints. I don't like 8.5x11; too small.

This thread made me laugh. Thank you.

Mike

I’ve seen a rail on a wall holding matted prints. Easy to swap them out.