During the preparations of my exhibition in the last six months I wrote a lengthy series of posts about different decisions I needed to take. Now I'm trying to analyze what worked and what didn't. Of course I don't know what the outcome would've been had I took different path, but in general I think I did a pretty good job even though I completely rethought some aspects just days before the pictures went to print.
Diasec vs showcase floater. I chose Diasec and I'm happy about it. For me, Diasec somehow represents the bleeding edge of printing technology although I do have much respect towards the classic matted and framed photos. In this case, Diasec made me able to print bigger which was necessary to fill the gallery space. Showcase floaters would have been more expensive and thus smaller.
Diasec vs anything else. I ruled out canvas pretty early, although I have to admit that after seeing Arne Maasik's Deep Sea exhibition, my attitude towards canvas changed a little bit. If the canvas in question has fine texture and is put onto quite shallow frame (not the usual 2-3cm deep things), it looks pretty good. Had I chosen the classic framing with passe-partout I wouldn't have been able to make the pictures as big, leaving the gallery visually empty again.
Glossy vs matte Diasec. I chose glossy. Definitely happy about that, because matte version reminded me of ordinary photo paper glued to foam board. I might have to rethink that after Photoville, but that's then. I would have been able to afford non-reflective museum glass had I gone down the classic passe-partout route, but then again, I really wanted to try something I cannot afford without grant money.
Sizing based on photo importance. In the early stages I thought about this, but then realized it would have resulted four different sizes. That's obviously too much (for me to handle).
Sizing based on visual appearance - that is, make both portrait and landscape pictures all the same height. It probably looks nice in the gallery, but the pictures will have different visual importance, downgrading all portraits to B-pictures. I'm happy I was talked out of it just hours before the final commitment.
Sizing based on Photoville requirements - fit the pictures into 2,3x2,3x6m container taking into account the convenient viewing distance/picture diagonal ratio. It would have certainly resulted too small pictures for Tallinn City Gallery. But as I'm not yet back from Photoville, the jury is still out there on this one.
Overall sizing. I settled with 92x76cm prints which I consider optimal for the circumstances. Not too big, not too small. It would have been nice to have one really big print, but here my rational thinking held me back - I going to need to transport the pictures quite a lot after all.
Borders vs no borders. I chose to add 6cm white borders to the pictures. No practicalities here, I just like the way they look. Maybe this will have a practical aspect to it at other exhibition venues where the walls are not plain white.
Alignment. I tried two options - pictures aligned by top border and by upper thirds. When I did the sketchups in computer, it seemed that aligning upper thirds will make the visual appearance more uniform while aligning top borders gave too much visual weight to portrait pictures. When I finally went to install the exhibition into the gallery, the guys who design and install all the exhibitions there still suggested aligning top borders. I took their advice as when the pictures are at real distances from each other, this solution looks better and there're no problems with visual weight.
It sounds so natural and effortless now that it's all decided and worked out and my wife has even teared down the brown paper placeholders from our living room I made to try out different sizes and alignment options. It didn't come nearly as easily though, if I'd need to come up with a rough estimate, I'd say 200+ hours (over 50h comes from some 7 trips to Tallinn). And that's not counting shooting, editing and postprocessing.