Borders: Large? Larger???

[skahde]

My usual frame size is 50x60cm (divide this and the following numbers by 2.54 in case you prefer to imagine inches) which to my mind fits 28.5 x 28.5cm squares as well as 28x35cm rectangles.

Now I have some pictures asking for a print size of 24x19.2cm (just fits 25.4x20.3cm / 8x10" paper). I made some drawings and I think that they *could* look good using 50x60cm frames but could as well look exaggerated and artsy. I have some 30x40cm frames at hand but they look thin and small. The logical choice would be 40x50cm frames but adding 40x50cm to my repertoire of frames would mean another size to stock in frames as well as mattes, backboards etc. Subjects are landscape details, stone structures, some wrecks/ships/boats, megaliths...

Should I leave my usual frame size to accommodate this series or should I try larger borders? I will have to order precut in a volume of 10 or more mattes to make it economical and will most likely *not* sell these pictures but exhibit them for some time and then get them back.

Thanks in advance

Stefan

 

[ann]

This old dog just can't think in cm. I like larger borders and also use 14 x 18 as a standard board; however, i do use different sizes for some images. The image dictates the size of the print for me and occasionally that means a larger board and frame.

So my two cents would be to bite the bullet and have the frame and board match this series, especially since you will be placing them on exhibit. Put your best foot forward.

 

[jovo]

My wife tells me that mats and frames don't make images any better; they just make them look more important. Hurrah for that!! It gets people's attention! I'd go for the size that makes your photographs stand out without looking overwhelmed.

The Graphik Dimensions Ltd. firm (www.pictureframes.com) sells a series of mat and frame kits for photographers. (Their ad is always on the inside cover of B&W magazine.) The mat is large enough that the photographs look elegant, and not over done. Take a look.

 

[Nige]

we have a yearly B&W exhibition (in two weeks time for anyone coming to Melb!) at my camera club and we frame everything in the clubs 50x60cm frames (they're actually 16"x20"). Prints of all sizes get matted to suit and all look fine.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

Where and when is the exhibition?

 

[skahde]

Thought about it back and forth the other day and wasn't comfortable with the idea of buying another frame size as well as framing a small print in such a large frame.

In the end I went back into the darkroom and made *bigger prints* (28x35cm, 11x13.7"). Grain is still hardly visible, sharpness suffers a small bit (on this print, where I couldn't use a tripod). I showed them to my wife who usually knows better than me what is a good picture and doesn't get obsessed with technical details as photographers often do. She clearly preferred the bigger ones and says the print looks sharp and snappy. Problem solved! I will stick with this size.

Thanks to everyone, especially ann. Without you I wouldn't have tried hard enough.

best

Stefan

 

[Ed Sukach]

The borders am matting - and general presentation - are as much of the "image" as anything else. The viewer's perception will be affected ... and, therefore, her/his emotional reaction.

I haven't been able to formulate any hard and fast rules .. sometimes a small print in a large mat "works" - fabulously; sometimes it just appears pretentious. Why? - I haven't a clue - that is why we have the idea of "aesthetics".

One thing appears to be universal ... most artists I've talked with seem to agree that "overpacking" - trying to exhibit too many works for a given space is - *very* irritating. It is better, by far to have too few, rather than too many. The "experiencers" must be given ample opportunity to give their attention to any specific, individual work. Overpacking shouts one message - insecurity about the quality of the work.

There is one outstanding web site - showing a number of gallery installations for *one* particular photographer: [ www.demarchelier.com ]. While *certainly* NOT to be taken to imply universal "rules" for everyone, it is still of interest.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

A tough one which I have looked into a lot. Unfortunately the conlusion I came to was the bespoke option for every image (I frame them myself in Nelsen Aluminium frames. Some want bigger borders, some dont etc. This way I am happy, but of course you do committ an frame to each image with no chance of really reusing them. If you must reuse (I sell the imaged framed), bigger is better than cramped. People aill not be surprised to see small images in large frames as it will be obvious that you have standardised.