Square or Rect. Frame?

I personally like there to a bit more space on the bottom part of the mat than on the sides/top. So my suggestion would be; don't be stuck on standard sizes and think outside the box. Determine what width looks good for the top/sides and add about 20-30% for the bottom part. For for a 12x12 inch print I would probably go for 3 inch for the top & sides and 4 inch at the bottom making it a slightly rectangular frame. It will cost you a little bit more than a standard frame but it will look nicer and will stand out more at the show. And if you often print square at 12 x 12, you can easily re-use the frame in the future for other photos making it worth the extra $.

I've done the reverse too. A slightly rectangular photo in a custom square frame. It looked better to me than in a standard size rectangular frame.

Good luck with the show.

Menno

I had a square print I made as a gift for my inlaws professionally mounted, matted and framed and she left a bit of the white border around three sides and more on the bottom for my signature. I can see the same principle working nicely if expanded to a bit more matt in the bottom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks everyone and Merry Christmas. Lots of good ideas here, and I like the concept of "optical centering." It would be good to use a frame I already have, and I do have one that's 18x24, though that might be too rectangular.

Not sure what brought on the comment about juries. I'm not looking for acceptance or validation. This particular show is an annual one dedicated to "lo-fi" cameras and lenses, and it's one that I've followed for a while. It will be my second year participating. As far as cropping, I don't do it as a rule (short of, say, shaving off an edge here or there to eliminate a distraction). If I got into the habit of recomposing photos that I've already taken, I might lose my mind. Anyway, I think this works well as a square. I know the E-6 cross-processed colors are a bit garish, but that's the negative scan, and the test prints I've made so far are more muted.

Thanks again everyone for looking and taking the time to comment...

I think it works well as a square, regardless of how you decide to frame it.
I also don't think presenting your work to a jury is a desire for acceptance or validation. It's a show of confidence. Good luck.

Add up all the dimensions provided, divide by the number or responses to your question.

All I know is, I would have saved lots of time and money with standard frame sizes. In your case, with a 12X12 mat window or mount, the frame would be a 22X28. If you printed a bit smaller, to have a window or mount that is 11X11, then a 16X20 frame would work. Noticeable bottom weight on both accounts.

More than a feeling that's the power of square

Sirius Glass said:

For decades Hasselblad advertized that square was the perfect shape for a photograph or print. Who are we to argue with Hasselblad?

Click to expand...

Also Huey Lewis and the News proclaimed that it was hip to be square

Had a chance to contemplate this more yesterday; had lunch in a cafe in a nearby town that displays work by local artists. The current work was photography by a woman with impressive credentials (Antonelli School and LRPS) and included some film stuff even! What caught my eye were some pieces with square prints, maybe 8x8 inches, in a 16x20 frame, mounted with top and sides equal. That's about 4" top and sides and 8" at the bottom -- really looked strange. I definitely prefer the optical centering.

As many threads do, this one has wandered a lot. It was started about the framing, not the printing, but hey, it's all good clean fun.

Just another data point ...

Thanks. And just to follow up, I think I decided on 12x12 in an 18x22 frame, optically centered.

DWThomas said:

Had a chance to contemplate this more yesterday; had lunch in a cafe in a nearby town that displays work by local artists. The current work was photography by a woman with impressive credentials (Antonelli School and LRPS) and included some film stuff even! What caught my eye were some pieces with square prints, maybe 8x8 inches, in a 16x20 frame, mounted with top and sides equal. That's about 4" top and sides and 8" at the bottom -- really looked strange. I definitely prefer the optical centering.

As many threads do, this one has wandered a lot. It was started about the framing, not the printing, but hey, it's all good clean fun.

Just another data point ...

Click to expand...

I think I'd have to read this thread again to even figure out WTH "optical centering" even means, if that isn't it. You can't have equal space around a square print in a rectangular frame so I'm not sure how it can be "centered" optically or otherwise.

But what really struck me here was the ludicrous degree of oversized frame and, presumably, mat. An 8x8 print in a 16x20 frame? What's up with putting an entire wall around each side? I've seen that before and I just think it looks pretentious, "look how much space I think my small print deserves." A small print can be exquisite and can deserve a close look, but to me putting in a comparatively giant frame isn't the way to do that. Part of the appeal is that it's small. (Ok, 8x8 isn't that small, it's not like a 4x5 of MF contact print, but small compared to the frame.)

DWThomas said:

Had a chance to contemplate this more yesterday; had lunch in a cafe in a nearby town that displays work by local artists. The current work was photography by a woman with impressive credentials (Antonelli School and LRPS) and included some film stuff even! What caught my eye were some pieces with square prints, maybe 8x8 inches, in a 16x20 frame, mounted with top and sides equal. That's about 4" top and sides and 8" at the bottom -- really looked strange. I definitely prefer the optical centering.

As many threads do, this one has wandered a lot. It was started about the framing, not the printing, but hey, it's all good clean fun.

Just another data point ...

Click to expand...

I've very often seen square prints framed this way, with top and side equal and the bottom more than the other sides. Personally I like it.

Richard Sintchak (rich815) said:

I've very often seen square prints framed this way, with top and side equal and the bottom more than the other sides. Personally I like it.

Click to expand...

I think I'd like that too. But 16x20 just sounds way too big for an 8x8 print. Just MHO, and I might think differently if I saw it.

Well I lacked any measuring instruments at the time, but that's my educated guess of the dimensions. Optical centering means the print is centered left to right and mounted such that the center of the print is slightly above the vertical center line of the mount/frame. The amount of adjustment can be determined by a graphical construction as shown at the link i posted back on page 1. The adjustment is obviously proportional in some fashion to the various dimensions. My feelings about the top and sides equal is a question of the degree of difference in the bottom. That method would likely bother me much less if the lower part were maybe 1.25 or so times the top and sides (or less) versus the 2 x of the mount I disliked. The woman had quite a wide assortment of frames and mounting styles, so it was a chance to see a bunch of ideas in play.

As far as frame size vs print size, some folks like a wide margin around a print to provide its own space, isolated from the frame and surrounding pieces - a gallery within a gallery -- sort of.

So, opinions are like noses -- almost everybody has one ...

Years ago I heard of a show where one of the requirements was that all work had to be in 16x20 frames.

Edit: There is a magic condition where optical centering can reduce to top and sides equal. The interactive script at that link above actually warns of that condition and suggests regular centering, especially if the top gets smaller than the sides. Who knew it could all be so much fun!

Ah, thanks for the explanation, though I could have gone back and found it.

I understand some border. I just seem to see borders I think are extreme. I think it hits some internal reaction about wasted space and material more than anything.