Ithildin, I assume those frames are NOT the ones on offer from the Bodleian??

thomas spoke wrote:

Thank you for sharing these here! I had posted on Reddit and had half a mind to post here, but wasn't sure if this content would fly here.
Does anyone have any insight into the Canvas material over the photographic paper? I'm wondering what the relative advantages of the Canvas would be.

One difference is that the Canvas is available in a slightly larger size - but I'm not sure how crucial that is since the paper options allow for up to 80 cm (which is quite large in my book!).

And those photos look lovely, Ithildin!

The paper vs canvas thing in reproduction artwork has always puzzled me. The cost differences are usually obscene, though oddly enough that doesn't seem to be the case here. I usually see a 5x price or more for paper vs canvas, which never made sense to me.

For these pieces though canvas makes little sense. The only time canvas makes sense is if the original is an oil painting and you are trying to replicate that look in a gallery wrapped piece that can be framed without a mat. The texture also looks more like an oil painting. But for these the texture would be distracting and not at all accurate to the originals.

my 2 cents

I do wonder how these differ from the boxed sets the library sold during the exhibition. Those were quite limited as I recall. I managed to snag one of the LOTR ones when there.

Tapuvae wrote:

Ithildin, I assume those frames are NOT the ones on offer from the Bodleian??

No, I’ve ordered only the prints from the store, because this was a cheaper way for shipping. Furthermore you can order a framed version only with acrylic glass, not real glass.
My prints were framed by a local frame builder.

Tapuvae wrote:

thomas spoke wrote:

Thank you for sharing these here! I had posted on Reddit and had half a mind to post here, but wasn't sure if this content would fly here.
Does anyone have any insight into the Canvas material over the photographic paper? I'm wondering what the relative advantages of the Canvas would be.

One difference is that the Canvas is available in a slightly larger size - but I'm not sure how crucial that is since the paper options allow for up to 80 cm (which is quite large in my book!).

And those photos look lovely, Ithildin!

The paper vs canvas thing in reproduction artwork has always puzzled me. The cost differences are usually obscene, though oddly enough that doesn't seem to be the case here. I usually see a 5x price or more for paper vs canvas, which never made sense to me.

For these pieces though canvas makes little sense. The only time canvas makes sense is if the original is an oil painting and you are trying to replicate that look in a gallery wrapped piece that can be framed without a mat. The texture also looks more like an oil painting. But for these the texture would be distracting and not at all accurate to the originals.

my 2 cents

I do wonder how these differ from the boxed sets the library sold during the exhibition. Those were quite limited as I recall. I managed to snag one of the LOTR ones when there.

Purely from a cost of printing perspective, printing an A3+/Super B canvas is not *that* much more expensive than using fine art paper for the same. Honestly, if I wanted one of these, I'd scan the image from the best source I could find and print it myself. I've bought enough copies of the Hobbit, Pictures, Art of The Hobbit, etc, that I would not feel remotely bad doing so for personal use. And that end of the day, it isn't a really a collectable (IMHO), it is just something to make the wall look nice.

Epson Premium Canvas Satin (350gsm) 13" - 330mm x 6.1m - (C13S041845) roll costs about £50

Obviously for larger sizes (beyond Super B), you need a pretty expensive printer, so home printing isn't really an option unless you happen to know someone who has one.

Canvas looks good for oil paintings and for wax pencil that was original done on heavily textured media, but otherwise, fine art paper is the way to go.