Altering other photographers’ prints

[mooseontheloose]

So, I’ve been going through all the prints I have that I have either bought from fairly well-known (and not so well-known) photographers, or received through print exchanges here. There are quite a few that I would like to frame and display, but I’m facing a bit of a quandary. Some of the images are small (say 5”x5”) but are printed on larger papers (8x10, 11x14). With few exceptions, they are not matted. In some cases I don’t mind this as I like the aesthetic of the extra white space around the print. But the reality is I have limited wall space here in Japan, and I’d like to use a number of frames that I already have. The image will fit the frames, but the paper will not. Is it considered a normal thing to trim the paper for framing, or is the convention to keep the entire thing (image plus original paper size) intact?

I know in the end that I can do what I want, and I doubt any of the prints I have will explode in value over the years, but for whatever reason I feel reluctant to trim the paper, even though it makes the most logical sense to do so. Am I over thinking this?

 

[guangong]

I would imagine that a 5x5 printed on 8x10 was primarily because the printer only had 8x10 paper at hand. At one time printing paper came in a variety of smaller sizes, but no more. I wouldn’t frame tightly in 5x5, but I see no harm in somewhat larger frame with adequate white framing print. I suppose the answer is whatever enhances the print.

 

[rick shaw]

I know in the end that I can do what I want, and I doubt any of the prints I have will explode in value over the years, but for whatever reason I feel reluctant to trim the paper, even though it makes the most logical sense to do so. Am I over thinking this?

I do not see anything wrong with what you are proposing because you are not altering the contact of the image. A lot of photographers, myself included, sell unframed prints for the very reasons you mention, which allows the customer full flexibility in how to display the print.

 

[grain elevator]

My default assumption would be that very large borders (beyond whats practical and needed to matte and display only the image area) are intentional and intended to be shown. And I would hesitate to alter them, same as I wouldn't alter anything inside the frame. But if after deliberation I came to the conclusion that the the borders don't add anything and are in the way, I might trim.

 

[Ian Leake]

An exceedingly small number of photographers' prints are valuable and should remain untouched, but for most of us it's up to you. For most of us, I think, just having our print on someone else's wall is a great reward without worrying about whether they were trimmed to fit.

 

[Cloudy]

You are very considerate, but IMO you are overthinking it, trim away!

 

[JBrunner]

Beyond a normal border I wouldn't be bothered.

 

[BradS]

Trim! Especially if it makes the difference between being displayed and not being displayed.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I'd only worry about the signature, or anything else that would be cut off, otherwise the prints are yours, so do with them what you will.

 

[Sirius Glass]

So, I’ve been going through all the prints I have that I have either bought from fairly well-known (and not so well-known) photographers, or received through print exchanges here. There are quite a few that I would like to frame and display, but I’m facing a bit of a quandary. Some of the images are small (say 5”x5”) but are printed on larger papers (8x10, 11x14). With few exceptions, they are not matted. In some cases I don’t mind this as I like the aesthetic of the extra white space around the print. But the reality is I have limited wall space here in Japan, and I’d like to use a number of frames that I already have. The image will fit the frames, but the paper will not. Is it considered a normal thing to trim the paper for framing, or is the convention to keep the entire thing (image plus original paper size) intact?

I know in the end that I can do what I want, and I doubt any of the prints I have will explode in value over the years, but for whatever reason I feel reluctant to trim the paper, even though it makes the most logical sense to do so. Am I over thinking this?

Sure, why not cut down the size to emphasize the photograph in a small and more suitable size.

 

[TmRn]

I don't think there is any right or wrong here. If it is possible to contact the photographer I would do so as a courtesy. If I were the photographer I would be thrilled that someone wants to display my work.

 

[MattKing]

A very well know photographer might be known for the wide borders on their prints. If that is the case, then trimming those borders might reduce the value of a print in the collectors' market.
Other than that, I would trust your judgment Rachelle.
If a non-photographer asked this question, I'd be less likely to trust their judgment, and suggest that they leave generous borders.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Trim them.

 

[Ariston]

To me it is like murder. It is okay, as long as no one else finds out about it.

 

[BradS]

Reminds me of a time when I was invited into the home of a woman who had bought one of my prints - a somewhat abstract photo of kelp on beach sand. To my shock and surprise, she had hung it up-side-down from how I had envisioned it. No biggie. I was still thrilled that one of my prints had merited space on the wall in her home.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Thanks everyone, that makes me feel better.

 

[Vaughn]

I cut window mats for my professor f or a show he was having. He gave me the prints and I measured for the openings (slight over-lap), cut the mats and put them all together. Studying each print and deciding where to crop was an intense way of studying his images. Quite the experience.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

You are very considerate, but IMO you are overthinking it, trim away!

+1