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

[DREW WILEY]

Everything is related to the specific print itself. That's why I stock a selection of mounting boards. For most black and white work I like bright
white rag museum board, then trim and drymount the fiber-based print onto that. But with color prints I try to leave an easel border. Since
chromogenic papers differ somewhat in term of the exact hue of the "white" base, I try to match that with the overmat, so that the base white
doesn't look off. With Cibachromes, the border is black, so I like black Alphamat with a white core, which gives a narrow line, then often a
deep gloss back anodized alum frame, to match the shiny black print border. There is no "one shoe fits all" option if you work with various
print media. I also like to make my own frames, maybe tweaking hardwood frames just a little during the finishing step to accentuate some
subtle toner in the print itself. It's all about relevant nuances.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

When I replace the "over mat", [which I never have] I would size the hole to cover any unfaded area. That is, cover the visible color difference.

 

[David Allen]

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.

I also used to mount with 5mm reveal around the print which was trimmed to the edges so that the reveal was the same mount colour as the matt itself. I stopped doing this for two reasons:

i) When a gallery damaged the matt and I supplied a replacement of the same colour/make you could see the difference

ii) As I started to do more exhibitions, I needed (for cost reasons) to recycle the matts and the colour then varied.

For the past 5 years, what I now do is still have a 5mm gap between the edge of the image (note not the print) and the window matt surround. Between the edge of the window and the edge of the print you then see pure paper base. This eliminates the changing colour of board problem and, because you can see the white surround on the photograph, this facilitates printing highlights quite bright but still with a trace of detail as the separation from pure paper base white to very bright highlight is very clear to see. The reason that I do not like window matts that cover the edge of the image is the edges of my photographs are very important for how I want the image to work and be presented.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[tkamiya]

When I replace the "over mat", [which I never have] I would size the hole to cover any unfaded area. That is, cover the visible color difference.

That's true, and fade of the mount board is not that severe, we can get away with it with some showing. With bevel and sun causing some more fading, it will almost be invisible in fairly short order. At that point, I won't be looking for pristine perfection anyway. With quality material, hopefully, we won't be doing this more than once.

When I do this, depending on size but edges of the prints are only 1/2" away. Making the cut out smaller to cover the fade will leave me with margins bit too small for my liking. At that point, I may choose not to float mount it so this is not even an issue.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I prefer off white.