Presentation quality - How important is it *really*?

[Tom Stanworth]

Hi Tom,

I can appreciate your feelings regarding keeping things out from under the glass, over and under cuts on the mats etc. Sometimes, you just have to learn to leave things as they are. The more you fool with things the greater the likelihood of damaging the photo, glass, and mats if you keep trying to remove dust, etc. Unfortunately slight over and under cuts can not be avoided. We try to as much as possible. But, this comes about in many/most instances because the boards (frequently as they arrive from the mill) are not totally square. As a photographer, artist, frame shop, etc. we try to minimize the problem and correct them to be the least noticeable as possible. My friend who is a custom framer tells me that the rule of thumb is you get things as perfect as you can so that it is not visible at arms length.

Rich

I respectully disagree (to an extent). It is indeed possible to produce mats without visible under or overcut. I produce them myself on a quality Keencut mountcutter as I got sick and tired of hamfisted work from so called professionals. Unlike them, I don't have to work quickly so make sure that I square off unsquare mats before cutting. In this regard of course an amteur can challenge professionals who have to bang out their product. I also change blades frequently so that the 1mm or so overcut is very sharply done so that a swipe with a burnishing bone or simlar makes it disapear when under glass. Any undercut is sorted using a razor blade rather than left fluffy. I rarely have undercut as I set a default of about 1mm overcut, which therefore sometimes ends up 2mm but sometimes less.

I agree with the arms length principle. I was not referring to producing framed images devoid of microscopic particles, just the visible fluff or streaks that one so often sees after professional framing. It is not too great a bother for me to remove an image and remove an annoying streak I missed but it is a major bother for a customer!

I agree that too much tinkering exposes things to risk, but if carefully done and without haste this is not really an issue IMO. The biggest killer for me was a print that was 95% coverage max black. My goodness that was nightmare and I had to chill out over that one or I'd have gone mad.

 

[catem]

I always think, even if it's true that some people who look at my finished prints won't be able to tell the difference, I know I can tell the difference, and that's what counts.

Sometimes I think that my own perfectionism is more like a curse, but if you've taken all that time effort (and ingenuity ) to create a print that's worth showing and/or selling, it seems a shame to let it down in any way at the last hurdle.

So...I always cut my own matts, I also very quickly grew tired of sloppy 'commercial' standards there....and I never sneeze near the finished article.

Cate

 

[naturephoto1]

Hi Tom,

I do not disagree with you regarding the over and under cuts. Unfortunately for much of my work (printing large), I use a full 32" x 40" mat board coming in directly from Rising. They are often too large and not totally square. I can not afford right now the $1400 or $1500 for the wall mounted Fletcher cutter (I am also renting my house) to trim the boards. My friend has the cutter and I will probably have him trim the boards. Unfortunately in the mean time, I am hand trimming the boards trying to remove 2/16" to 3/16" from 2 sides of the board getting the boards the right dimension and as squared as possible. With the slight over or undercuts, I use the burnishing bones and other framing tricks to make these "mistakes" as un-noticeable as possible.

Also, when we (takes 2 of us) are worKing from 40" x 60" mats and 30" x 37.5" photos it becomes quite a challenge.

Rich

 

[Jim Jones]

The photograph is the most important thing; it is not the only thing. A fine photo deserves a fine mat; a poor photo needs a great mat.

 

[naturephoto1]

Jim,

Well put, but maybe a poor photo needs a phenomenal mat.

Rich

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't like overcuts, but I've noticed that at some shows I've seen at places like the Art Institute of Chicago, almost every cut on every window is overcut. It strikes me as sloppy and inept (if you're cutting a whole show's worth of mats, you've got plenty to practice on, and it's not that much harder to get it right), and I wouldn't do it myself, but at the same time, maybe we shouldn't be too hung up about it.

One fashion that I think is fading is absolute print flatness. No one would dare drymount an unmounted vintage print--strictly corner mounting for anything of historical value. Increasingly new prints in photography galleries in New York are hinge mounted. They can be pretty flat, and in good lighting the wrinkles aren't a distraction, but at the same time, they'll never be as flat as a drymounted print.

On the other hand, there is a trend for large prints to mount on aluminum or for glossy color work to face mount on acrylic or plexiglass.

 

[reellis67]

The overcuts were more obvious than many that I have seen, and certainly more noticable that the mats the other photographer was using. I get most of my mats pre-cut (since I mainly print in standard sizes) so I can't really complain about it too much other than to say that these could be seen from 3 feet away. I think that if the print quality were higher the overcuts would have been a minor isssue.

The biggest issues I had was the, er, item on the face of the one print and the other print which showed poor processing technique (large bubbles) clearly visible in the sky area. I felt the muddy tones were an issue, but my wife thought it possible that the photographer was trying to print in a very low contrast way.

- Randy

 

[naturephoto1]

Hi David,

The reason for and the preference by Museums, Galleries, Frame Shops for archival (corners, t-hinging, etc; I generally t-hinge) preparations is that the image mounting is reversible and repairable. This is not as easy or in many instances not possible with cold and hot/warm mounting methods. As you have said the images prepared as an archival mount are not as flat. However, they can be prepared reasonably flat and when lit properly the roll or wave is not as noticeable. High gloss papers (which I use) will have more reflection and the roll or wave may be more evident than a mat finish.

Also, be aware, that many Galleries, Museums, Frame Shops are of the opinion that by using non archival mounting methods, the photo is devalued compared to those prepared by an archival mounting method.

Rich

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yes, I'm aware of those considerations, and generally I agree with them. I usually hinge mount myself. I've been drymounting my albumen prints, though, until I can perfect my starch mounting technique.

 

[User Removed]

As long as the marks on the print are intentional and add to the concept of the artwork, it's okay. If that boogie was supposed to be attached to that EXACT part of the print, and those corners of the mat were supposed to look like they were cut with a chainsaw...that is okay. If they are mistakes and lack of skill by the artist, that is not acceptable.

However, craft is nothing more than a skill that must be learned. Therefore, there is no excuse to not take the time and learn how to create a perfect print.

Personally, I do not show nor sell prints that are in anyway marked, poorly crafted or not presented in a clean manor. All my prints are as humanly flawless as possible.