• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

mounting prints on ... white ... buff ... or black?

David Lyga

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
3,449
Location
Philadelphia
Format
35mm
The most common thinking on this is to mount on either white or buff matte board. I do not understand this standardization and these are the reasons why:

1) One would think, in purely objective terms, that the presenter would want the eye to be drawn into, towards, the (important) 'light' and not have the (peripheral) matte board light competing with the print. (But, perhaps, a valid counterargument would be that the surrounding brightness allows the eye to be drawn into the density of the print.)

2) One's eyes are taxed a bit more when having to see so much brightness surrounding the focus of attention.

3) A black matte board presents an empty space; a 'nothingness'. The print, thus, becomes the only important element therein, and, thus isolated, is able to attract more visual attention.

I would like to hear both objective and subjective arguments for or against the options. - David Lyga
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I always liked gray (roughly equivalent to Zone IV in the prints) that matched the tone (color) of the prints because it provides contrast to both bright and dark areas of the prints. If the print was overall gray then the matte just added to the "grayness".
 
Perhaps that gray surrounding is now legitimatized in this instance, becoming a 'standard' for judging the continuum of tonal variations within that print. And you are correct with asserting that on a low contrast print (i.e., overall gray) the blending would then become counterproductive. - David Lyga
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the past I've done both, and chosen-subjectively-which one looked better in terms of setting off and drawing attention to the print. I have a print in my office made on Portriga Rapid and the window mat is a dark red, it really adds to the effect.
 
There's a whole school of thought on this sort of thing, but something I haven't investigated much.

There's even a line of TVs (Philips?) that have coloured light projecting out the rear of the TV to colour / brighten / dim the wall behind it, based on what was on the screen at the time.
Whether you believe the ads or not, and all the variables with all the different viewing conditions in peoples' houses obviously makes it rather subjective as to whether it works or not.

But still, I find that a lot of my prints look better on black, with 4x5 contact prints I don't use easel blades, I burn the borders black.
All of my digital shots and scanned negs look better on my screen with a dark-grey background.
I even paid for a Smugmug site because it was customisable enough to put a black background on, I hate Flickr's white background, hurts my eyes.
Even the desktop-backgrounds on my various operating systems are all black or near enough.

In short, I vote black.
 
It depends. . . . A print floated on a slightly off-white mount board appears brighter than if mounted on white.

When we consider each mounted print by itself, a mount board can well be selected to enhance the appearance or mood of that print. However, when many of one's prints are shown together, coherence of the entire show should be considered.

A quality image intended to be digitally displayed needs no mat unless the mat is a significant reason for displaying the image.
 

Right... I understand. I often preferred overall light prints on black matte and overall dark prints on white matte. The gray-ish prints are difficult. At any rate... how does one provide homogeneous observation of one's work, both light and dark... and gray? I say on dark gray.
 
some prints i mount on white board
if it is a white image, like a night view as a negative
( that looks like a pencil sketch ) or there is a lot of white
in the print i might mount in with black mat board ...
 
It depends on the paper.
It depends on the photograph.
It depends on the frame.
It depends whether or not the print was toned.
There are many more colors for mounts than white, bluff and black.
 
David,

One of the necessity in making prints last is to process and use all archival medium. This medium must be stable in size and chemical make up for long term. As far as I know, all colored pigment or dye change in time and potentially affect the artwork. If you mount the artwork onto a mount board, medium and the artwork is touching each other. If you permanently mount it, such as dry mounting, if the mount board goes bad, you cannot remove the artwork without causing damage. They are, for all intensive purposes, permanently attached.

One of the accepted and most standard is to use uncolored and natural rag boards, which is either white or off white.

Another thing is, use of off white has an advantage in black and white imagery. Pure white will look whiter than not-so-white natural color of off-white mountboard. For your eyes, it enhances the whiteness of the white (of the print). Blacks on print stands on its own without competing with color on the white board. If you used black mount board, you run the risk of making blacks on the print not-so-black. Your eyes determine color density in relative terms, not in absolute.

That's all I can share with you.
 
I like to use black. Most of my work is shot on infra red. the strong blacks look better on black mats.

Howard
 

+1 plus it is very rare to find a museum quality matt that is really black. Long ago it was very fashionable to mount prints on black boards in black frames. I never personally liked this because either the blacks in the print looked lighter than the matt or, if the print was well made with full Dmax and Selenium toning, the print's blacks were clearly darker than the, supposedly, black mount. One other consideration is that, living in a country where envelopes with a black surround denote notification of a death, black has a somewhat negative implication for me.

Personally, I settled years ago for a slightly off-white PAT-tested museum board and use this for all of the window matts for my exhibition prints. The whites in the print are clearly lighter than the matt and everything from the mid-tones down are clearly much darker than the matt. My prints are always made 344 x 277mm on 400mm x 300mm paper. The frame/window matt are 500mm x 400mm and the aperture in the matt is 5mm greater than the photograph (image rather than paper) in each direction (i.e the aperture is 354mm x 287mm). This reveals a 5mm of the white surround on the photograph and this enables printing highlights quite bright but with detail as the separation from pure paper base white is clear to see..

Anyway, that is what works for me.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de
 
Last edited by a moderator:

This is an interesting qualification but one that needs to be verified: Does colored (any, including black) matte board tend toward problems with archival issues? If, 'always, yes', then that matter must be placed into consideration. If, today with acid-free board available in any color, then, perhaps, no. Do others have responses to this?

Subjectively, 'off white' is said by tkamiya to conflict with nothing in the print, but, she posits, pure white or pure black would. Maybe this is true but I have not had enough viewing of the possibilities to analyze this statement, pro or con. - David Lyga
 
Last edited by a moderator:
David,

I am neither a chemist nor a conservationist. I will leave the verification to you with more authoritative sources. This is what I was told from people I trust and respect, so this is my practice.

Please keep in mind, most "pure white" is actually not pure white. Most of them has optical brighteners in them, so if you look at it under light containing ultraviolet, they actually look blue. I didn't like them, so I don't use them.

For point of reference:

My standard mount board is THIS one:
There is "white" and "pure white". "White" is actually slightly off white and has a hint of cream tone in it.

http://www.framedestination.com/mount_board/2ply_alpharag_mounting_board/item/MB2ARG0000/

For matting, I use 8647 - Pearl White from this page:
http://www.framedestination.com/matboard/alpharag_4ply_matboard_blank/item/MU4ARG0000/

This is more creme than "white" mount board but only slightly.

I find this combination most pleasing and enhances white while not affecting black or meaningful shades of gray.

I'm sure there are many here who have knowledge in the area you seek. So I'll leave my claim where it is and go in "stand-by" mode.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

There are suppliers of archival and museum-quality mat board that offers them in colors.
 
It's an artistic decision you only you can make which depends on the print,it's purpose, and where it be displayed.
 
... and how long you want it to last.
 
When I began mounting I used a bright white mat board; however, I found that it was too bright and could draw the eye away from the image. I have standardized on a cotton rag mat board that is ever so slightly less reflective than paper white. For example I find Nielsen Bainbridge AlphaRag "white" to be just ever so slightly less white than Ilford Multigrade Classic Fiber paper. This way the mat still looks white but specular highlights in the print are still just a bit brighter, so your eye is still drawn to the photograph. Call me a traditionalist, but I don't care for colored boards, most of which are not​ archival. I have also noticed when viewing prints mounted on black board the darkest shadows appear to lose some of the deep inky appearance that good silver papers with toning applied are capable of.
 
Nathan King said:
Call me a traditionalist, but I don't care for colored boards, most of which are not​ archival.
Click to expand...

Indeed most matboards are not rated or sold as archival but there are still many coloured ones that are so rated and their manufacturers are only too happy to produce the laboratory certificates that attest to that fact. Archival means not much more than that the board will not contibute in any way to the deterioration of the artwork it is in contact with. It does not mean that the colour will not fade over time - all matboards do and this is one of the reasons that many people stick to light coloured neutrals.

Of course, true archival framing also demands that all the materials used must so rated which excludes most timber products, adhesives and tapes and even some types of glass.

If you sell prints matted but not framed to the public rather than galleries or museums please remember that many of those prints will never be expertly framed, irrespective of how much the purchaser paid for the print. For reasons of either personal taste or economy, neither will many be framed in a way that truly compliments the image. Another issue is that the supplied mat/s will sometimes be discarded in favour of another perhaps chosen from the cheapest grade of board because of a particular colour. For this reason, I sometimes question the logic of photographers using expensive mats on prints that are not sold framed. For many purposes, a conservation grade board would suffice and I say this as both a photographer and picture framer. OzJohn
 
Another point to consider is that rag boards are known to fare well as many has done so in real environment. Newer brightly colored boards were tested in lab for shorter period of time for certification purposes. We really don't know how they will actually perform in real environment. I think, for a mount board, this is an important consideration as they cannot be separated and are in direct contact with the prints.

With that said, I'm not sure how much of these concerns actually matter for what I produce. I'm pretty sure they will be lost, forgotten, and disposed of, after my passing. It's fun to discuss theoretical stuff like this, but value of this is questionable, at least for me.

I use rag board for mount board because they are readily available and are rather inexpensive. Slightly off color kind works for me aesthetically as well. If it makes the image look better, I don't hesitate to use color for mat boards for over mat. Colored surfaces are not in direct contact with the print, and as long as they are rated, they should be fine. I am careful with mount boards for aforementioned reasons.

I don't use buffered acid-free type for anything. I have personally seen they discolor in few years.
 
If the mat fades, the print can be rematted and put back in the frame. A faded mat does not change the print just by fading.
 
Sirius Glass said:
If the mat fades, the print can be rematted and put back in the frame. A faded mat does not change the print just by fading.
Click to expand...

If you dry mount the print and float the mat like I do then this becomes a problem. The mount cannot be replaced and a new mat will almost never match the older mount board, which shows in the well between the print and mat. This will probably not be an issue for most photographers.
 

I am not sure I understand what you are describing. I dry mount my print on archival stock. The overlaid mats are not attached to the archival stock or the print and may be changed at any time.
 
Sirius Glass said:
I am not sure I understand what you are describing. I dry mount my print on archival stock. The overlaid mats are not attached to the archival stock or the print and may be changed at any time.
Click to expand...

I cut my mats between 1/4" and 1/2" larger than the print. This keeps the edges of the print from being cropped by the mat, so some of the mount board is visible at the edge of the mat window. It also serves as a convenient place to sign the work.

So, while I can replace the mat, the new board will be less faded than the exposed mount, which can't be replaced. There will be a visible color difference.
 
There is a reason that museum exhibitions by the great photographers are mounted on white board. The prints look better that way.

There are all different grades of "acid-free all-rag board." The only truly archival one is ArtCare AlphaRag. See the reproductions here at the end of the article:
Dead Link Removed

Michael A. Smith
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register