Thirds

ebwest

I know you've all seen the pictures (usually 3) that are actually one large print, split, and mounted side by side. Hopefully I explained that correctly. If so, would it be better to have a large print, mount it, and then cut it? Or, would it be better to take the large shot and split it into three seperate pictures and then print and mount them? Thanks in advance, I hope I asked that right.

Andyman

My guess is that it would depend on how you plan to frame them.

If you wanted to do three 4x6 frames... then you would need to make a print either 12x6 or 4x18. For such an odd size, you might be better off just printing three 4x6's. It'd be cheaper and easier - rather than print like a 16x20 then waste time cutting it and a few bucks. Granted, it's not tons of time or money, but you know.

However, if you want precision, make sure you have prior experience with whoever you use to print the photos. Some places cut the edges wrong or very slightly off the actual size (even when you size it properly in PS or something). I've found this to be trouble sometimes when I attempt to print out a panorama on multiple 4x6's and one or two of them come out a couple millimeters off and therefore don't line up properly.

I know 4x6's aren't "large prints" like you mentioned, but it's an example.

ebwest

Thanks, 4X6 is smaller than I was planning, but now that you mentioned it, it would be a good size to play around with before I went to the biggy.

cabbey

I've had more success doing triptychs with three seperate prints than with just one. Mostly I think because of the overlap of the mat with the image... if I want the entire image visible then I need an extra 1/4" of print at the overlaps, otherwise things just look weird. Especially if you have a diagonal element that goes between two frames. In one that I did, I actually left out a portion of the image, so that after framing and matting and hanging on the wall with some space between the diagonal elements actually lined up. (the math on that was a major headache... but I got it right on the second print set.)

ebwest

cabbey wrote:

I've had more success doing triptychs with three seperate prints than with just one. Mostly I think because of the overlap of the mat with the image... if I want the entire image visible then I need an extra 1/4" of print at the overlaps, otherwise things just look weird. Especially if you have a diagonal element that goes between two frames. In one that I did, I actually left out a portion of the image, so that after framing and matting and hanging on the wall with some space between the diagonal elements actually lined up. (the math on that was a major headache... but I got it right on the second print set.)

Math? I gotta use math?:uhoh One big picture is sounding better.

gus

The word your after is 'triptitch' (sp?) There was a whole photo challenge dedicated to it here if you do a search on the word with maybe diff spelling...i couldnd find it.

..ok its spelt with a Y

Here it is...
http://www.digitalgrin.com/showthread.php?t=5062&highlight=tryptich