Framing? with or without matt

[gandolfi]

that's always a question.

as I have said before, I'll never even consider selling an image with white matting..

but many of my images are not suited to matting at all..

so I have uploaded an image that shows how it can be done...

I've done three of those kind of framings till now..

(this is one of my concerns in selling ower the net. I'd like my images to be framed in old used dark frames. black or mahogany. I've been "collecting" mahogany frames for 20 years for this reason only.
it isn't easy to send overseas..(the glass is old too - that SP more beautiful than the modern glass..))

if you want to see my example, it is here:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[mark]

I am sure someone will tell you that it has to be dry mounted on WHITE (I Believe it must be capitalized when you write it) board to be professional, and every one should do it their way, and they will be very willing to give pointers on how to do it correctly.

I onthe other hand do not agree with that sentiment at all. I love the image and the mount accentuates it. The photo, in it's mount, becomes a fine piece of furniture. It is also a very appropriate mount for that image.

It truely amazes me how an "artist" cannot see all of the possibilities in the presentation of their work. I find it laughable that there is only "one" professional way to display, if one wants to be taken seriously.

I prefer my POP prints on Black board because it allows the Magenta "blacks" to stand out. When they are on white boards that magental looks too black.

I think, ultimately, the way a photo is displayed is up to the artist and or the buyer. If I want something matted in neon pink metal then that is my business as the buyer. As an artist, If I want the same thing then the mount becomes part of the vision of me, the artist.

 

[BWGirl]

Just a word of caution... If you do not mat, put in spacers so your print does not touch the glass.... it will, over time "become one" with the glass... not a good thing.

That is probably the main purpose of matting... to protect the print from the glass.

 

[RichSBV]

I agreee with your presentation. It is very good looking and I'm sure the computer image doesn't do it justice.

I laugh at the "must be white matting" thing (sorry but I refuse to capitalize it). I find nothing more distracting to an image than a bright white background...

And yes, POP prints on black can't be beat ;-)

 

[gandolfi]

Just a word of caution... If you do not mat, put in spacers so your print does not touch the glass.... it will, over time "become one" with the glass... not a good thing.

That is probably the main purpose of matting... to protect the print from the glass.

yes, I know.
but here there is no glass. it wouldn't look right.

 

[wfe]

I believe that presentation is the artist's personal choice and is in fact a large component of the image. I don't believe that there is a "right" way to do it. At this point in my photographic evolution I perfer white mat board but I still love well presented photographs that don't follow my choice.

 

[gandolfi]

I believe that presentation is the artist's personal choice and is in fact a large component of the image. I don't believe that there is a "right" way to do it. At this point in my photographic evolution I perfer white mat board but I still love well presented photographs that don't follow my choice.

I totally agree with you (except the white issue )
but I have the problem that no one has bothered to explain why it has to be white matting.

I don't know - when I go to photographic exhibitions, I so often get frustrated/dissapointed with the seemingly consensus, that all images are matted white - they are very often the same size - they are framed with a tiny metal frame, and they hang so straight, that if you place your hands on your back - bend over a tiny bit, you can "do" any exhibition in 45 sec or less....

and the "why" is still there..

(I have never done an exhibition that way myself, though. I always have different sizes - different matting if any and different frames. that way it looks like an exhibition...)

 

[wfe]

I totally agree with you (except the white issue )
but I have the problem that no one has bothered to explain why it has to be white matting.

I like it because it is simple and clean and I feel that it does not present any level of distraction to the image. Simply put I like the look. Also I did not say that it HAS to be white. White is my choice.

 

[mark]

I totally agree with you (except the white issue )
but I have the problem that no one has bothered to explain why it has to be white matting.

Maybe the person who proposed the "requirment" of a WHITE mat can help out.

 

[gandolfi]

Maybe the person who proposed the "requirment" of a WHITE mat can help out.

doesn't think so...

 

[roteague]

I believe that presentation is the artist's personal choice and is in fact a large component of the image. I don't believe that there is a "right" way to do it. At this point in my photographic evolution I perfer white mat board but I still love well presented photographs that don't follow my choice.

I too prefer white matting. However, I triple mat my images - one mat for the print, followed by a colored layer (one in harmony with the print), followed by an upper white mat. The colored mat only shows 1/8" all around, so it is very subtle. I use this method for all but my two largest sizes; 30x40 and 40x50, where I only double mat (white).

For the frames, I prefer wood; mostly a reddish or honey colored wood. I am considering using Koa (a member of the Acacia family) for some images, but Koa is rare and hard to come by; which drives the cost up significantly.

 

[roteague]

I don't know - when I go to photographic exhibitions, I so often get frustrated/dissapointed with the seemingly consensus, that all images are matted white - they are very often the same size - they are framed with a tiny metal frame, and they hang so straight, that if you place your hands on your back - bend over a tiny bit, you can "do" any exhibition in 45 sec or less....

It is irritating , I agree. While I do mat in white (see my previous post), for exhbitions, I prefer a variety of sizes and a variety of frames (frames are chosen to complement the image). In the exhibit I am currently working on, I have a number of framed 16x20 (11x14 images) and 24x30 (20x24 images) prints, as well as one 34x44 (30x40 image) print.

 

[gandolfi]

(frames are chosen to complement the image)..

that's the sentence I can't understand.

i fthe frame is to compliment the image, and thereby will change by the image, why not the matting colour?
I think it is a whole.

 

[roteague]

that's the sentence I can't understand.

i fthe frame is to compliment the image, and thereby will change by the image, why not the matting colour?
I think it is a whole.

Yes, I agree they are a whole. But, I change the only inner mat color and the frame, to compliment the image. But, I still have the top mat white.

I don't see anything wrong with changing the mat color when double matting.

 

[blansky]

Back when I did color portraits I always used brown wooden frames with no glass and no mattes. Most of the pictures were canvas mounted.

Now that I do strickly black and white I use the sort of "New York Art Framing method" which is either silver or black frames with a white matte.

I guess in theory the frame and the matte sort of disappear and your are just left with the picture.

I rarely like multi color matts with color pictures. It always seemed to me to be that framing places like to stick as many color mattes down to jack up the price.

Michael

 

[davetravis]

I'm wrapping up my second year on the art show circuit.
Last winter, I took several pieces to a local gallery for "critique."
They were double colored mats, in colored aluminum frames, under plexi.
The gallery director was blatantly distressed.
She said they would never sell to the public, because "everyone in the business" knows you must use the "museum" presentation, and to show with colors will limit where and how the customer can hang them.
I explained to her that I tried the "museum" presentation on the circuit, and never sold a single one. She was perplexed, but still refused to accept them as they were. The lesson I learned was better to sell and be wrong, than not sell and be right.
Besides, cutting my own mats and selecting my own frames adds that little extra uniqueness that is fun for me, and the collector.

 

[Struan Gray]

My personal favourites are the huge blackwood frames popular in the sixteenth century. The trees are gone now.

Failing that, Edwardian-style framing for drawings looks good to me. If you want new, these people do good replicas: www.holtonframes.com.

 

[gandolfi]

The lesson I learned was better to sell and be wrong, than not sell and be right.
Besides, cutting my own mats and selecting my own frames adds that little extra uniqueness that is fun for me, and the collector.

this lesson is the one I don't want to learn.

the next sentence makes a lot more sense to me.

I don't usually sell anything worth mentioning, but when I am dead, the museums in question (should they care) have to take the whols packet..

I can see it before me: "ooh - look at those frames.. he was special.."

 

[Flotsam]

As far as decorating, I have always thought that the mat color should transition the color of the art into the color of the environment. Therefore I would hesitate to suggest a mat color without knowing the color scheme of the room where it will hang. The same goes for a frame style. It should fit both the room and the photograph. I would just as soon let the decorator deal with that.
That said, since I shoot B&W almost exclusively, I always use a neutral mat, generally white. I offer to cut mats for my prints because they are rarely a standard size and shape.

 

[davetravis]

I can see it before me: "ooh - look at those frames.. he was special.."

Gandolfi, That would certainly be true, it the photographer/printer also hand-made a beautiful frame to display his work.
But who has the time?
My basement is full of "experiments" that the public rejected.
One must be pragmatic to pay the bills, even at the expense of some personal preference.

 

[firecracker]

In the last photo exhibit I did, I had all my pics (8x10" FB) on cut pieces of foamcore pinned to the walls. During the exhibition, which went for one week, I was worried if my prints curl up, fall, get torn up, etc. Since the space was tiny and I had 30 images to display, this method worked good, but I will never use it again because it's too cheap and unsecure.

There was one time, I only used bookmattes for the display in a cozy setting of a group show in a gallery. But again, if that show would've been longer than it was, which was one week, I would have not done that. I'm still going through this frame shopping and stuff, and it seems I can never find what I like for my prints.

But for the next exhibit I'm hoping to do next year, I want to do it in a standard way. Right now, I'm preparing 40 to 50 prints (11x14" FB) to be matted and framed. The good thing is the gallery I'm planning to use lends frames for its users at free of charge, so I don't have to worry too much about what kind(s) of frames I want use, etc, which takes forever for me to decide sometimes. And this is something I don't want to spend too much money and time for.

 

[KenM]

Personally, the mount and frame should be as unobtrusive as possbile. They should be neither complimentary, nor should they degrade from the image. They should be invisible - they're there to hold the image so one can look at it.

The last compliment I want when someone is looking at one of my photographs is "Great Frame", or "Nice Mat". If you get that, you've done something wrong.

I want people to look at the *image*, not the frame or the mount.

Just my $0.02 worth....

 

[roteague]

I like the mat and the frame to enhance the image. However, my choice of frames is quite conservative; mostly thin wood frames.

 

[Donald Miller]

Personally, the mount and frame should be as unobtrusive as possbile. They should be neither complimentary, nor should they degrade from the image. They should be invisible - they're there to hold the image so one can look at it.

The last compliment I want when someone is looking at one of my photographs is "Great Frame", or "Nice Mat". If you get that, you've done something wrong.

I want people to look at the *image*, not the frame or the mount.

Just my $0.02 worth....

Ken,

I totally agree with what you said.

 

[gandolfi]

One must be pragmatic to pay the bills, even at the expense of some personal preference.

I'm taking pride in not being the "one"...