Presentation of the square.

[Gary Holliday]

I took a print for framing recently and as it was in a square format, the framer recommended that the bottom of the overlay matt should be slightly larger at the bottom for added 'weight'.

I know that this is one of the rules of framing, but is this an old fashioned idea? I felt that my geometric abstracts needed a precisely square frame.

There is a fashion that square images are placed in 16x20 frames, but I'm stilling getting my head around this idea, perhaps this is done for economics by keeping things standard.

How do folk matt their square photographs?

 

[ann]

basically, i am a fan of the standard bottom heavy windows; except when it comes to squares and then i tend to present the work entirely square.

I also use a square frame.

It really boils down to a personal style IMHO

 

[Gary Holliday]

Is adding an extra 1cm or so to the bottom, a correct framing technique?

 

[Dave Miller]

As I understand it, the technique results in the image appearing to be in the centre of the frame.

 

[Paul Goutiere]

Is adding an extra 1cm or so to the bottom, a correct framing technique?

I do picture framing for a living as well we have a small gallery and sell art supplies.

One of the first things, I like to tell a customer "the only rule, is, there is no rules". Tradition only, suggests that the matt should be bottom weighted. It seems to balance the picture. I'd like the frame to protect the picture is my only concern.

Most people like to matt their square photos with an extra 1/2 inch added to the bottom. A 12 x 12 image may have 3 inches top and sides with 3 1/2 inches at the bottom.

 

[Bluechapel]

It is standard practice to add a little to the bottom of the matte-it's all an optical illusion that makes the image look centered when done. However, it is generally considered to be overkill to frame a square print in a rectangular frame.

Example: 12 x 12 print hung in a 14 x 14 frame: you'd want to offset the window in the matte by 1/16" leaving it 2" on each side, 1 15/16" on top, and 2 1/16" on bottom. Sounds insane, but trust me, it won't look balanced without the offset.

 

[Sanjay Sen]

Well, I don't know of tradition or standard practice, but I stick to what looks good to me. I have my square prints (8x8 or 11x11) matted with equal borders on a square frame. So far, all of these have been landscapes/cityscapes. I haven't thought about doing any portraits yet, so I am not sure how I will frame those.

I usually buy frames from the store, as opposed to a DIY approach, so square frames in the right size/color are not easy to find. I guess this will eventually force me to use "standard" frames which are much easier to buy in a store. I cannot justify paying the money it costs to get a custom framing done.

YMMV.


Best wishes,
Sanjay

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Correct or not, here's what I do. I print on 8x10 or 11x14 paper most of the time. The 8x10 ends up being a 6.5" square, and the 11x14 ends up being a 9.5" square.
For 8x10 I mat in 11x14 cotton rag, and I put in a vertical fashion with a 7" square beveled cut-out. 2" on each side to the frame, and then I leave 3" on top and 4" on the bottom for a noticeable shift upwards. I just think it looks more balanced to me that way. My wife tells me she would rather have had the top border as wide as the side border, leaving 2" on top and 5" on the bottom. Either way, a shift to the top to come off dead center.
That is if I have a rectangular frame. If I have a square frame (more common), I mount it dead center.

- Thomas

 

[KenS]

framing technique

Is adding an extra 1cm or so to the bottom, a correct framing technique?

Many years ago I was taught to place the image in the "optical center", since ant 'title, signature and or date" on the window mat below the image has the tendency to add "weight" to the bottom. This seems to be a more important consideration with rectangular images over square ones. If you a 'search' for "Optical center" (centre?) you will find a "mechanical" means whereby you can place any size image in any size of frame, which, IMHO, is preferable to the usual measured system. I will admit that I do have a preference to seeing a mat whose 'width' is a minimum of 1/3 the width/height of the image area.

Ken

 

[jovo]

I've posted this link before, but I think it's appropriate to post it on this thread as well. There are some quirky aspects to it, though, that have been amusing. My Logan SimplexPlus 750 mat cutter will only allow about a 5.75" maximum border. The program suggested a 5 15/16ths bottom border for one of my prints, but since I couldn't do that, I made it 5.75 and compensated with a little more at the top border. It looks fine. I think this program would be incredible if it allowed the user to input custom dimensions that would then be displayed, instead of only the optical center, equal top and sides, and vertically centered choices. But.....it's nonetheless excellent for what it is.

http://www.russellcottrell.com/photo/centering.htm

 

[DWThomas]

In recent history I haven't done enough framed prints to have a strong opinion. I have gone all square a couple of times, but I also liked one that I did in a rectangular frame using optical centering from the link jovo provided above. At this point, I'm willing to believe I might even find the best approach dependent on the actual subject and also the amount of mat relative to picture size.

I think it's something one just has to experiment with a little and consider the "rules" as only "guidelines."

For no particular reason, I have photos of some of my pieces showing the presentation here. "Up!" is an optically centered 10.6 inch square in a 16x20 frame.

That framing utility jovo linked is a Java script that can be downloaded and run locally; It might be possible to enhance it further, though I've not yet tormented myself with it.

DaveT

 

[DWThomas]

Semi-custom frames

I usually buy frames from the store, as opposed to a DIY approach, so square frames in the right size/color are not easy to find.

One thing to consider here is the sectional frames. These are typically sold in pairs sized in one inch increments; you need two pairs to make a frame. As such, you can make a square or various aspect ratio rectangles fairly easily. Most are fairly easy to assemble. Admittedly they're probably not as cheap as a ready made frame in ***Mart or Target. Plexiglas window glazing is fairly easily cut with a scoring tool and a straight-edge, although some of the stock in the big box home centers gets a lttle bedraggled from poor handling and storage, one has to examine the stuff thoroughly.

I've had window glass cut at a local glass shop that was pretty reasonable too. (But don't ask about "museum glass!" :rolleyes

DaveT