Matting a series of prints: Same size or different?

<p>I'm preparing about 15 images for sale; three sizes each. The image sizes differ for many of the prints. For instance, some are 9.5x7.5; others 9x6; same for the larger sizes.</p>

<p>When I mat them, it would be great (easier, cheaper by a lot) to use the same size cut for all (i.e., all 8.5x11s, all 13x19s, etc.) as opposed to have 12x3 different mat sizes and managing that, which adds a layer of difficulty. If you are looking at a series of prints and the mat cuts are different, does that look sloppy or simply a valid artistic choice?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>RON</p>

<p>It's okay; and, beyond facing page color, matting is a structural choice more than an aesthetic one.</p>

<p>If all the photos have different aspect ratios (long side to short side proportion), then it only makes sense that their mats are different. When too much of the picture gets covered up by the matting, just to fit the mat on there, that's going to look like a beginner flub.</p>

<p>If it was within an inch, I might make those the same. Start covering up the photo too much to put the same mat on there, and it'll look like you were covering up the photo to put the same mat on there.</p>

<p>The structural function of the mat is to keep the photo from coming in contact with the glass for an extended period of time. This helps to reduce structural damage as the materials in the frame assembly expand and contract naturally with subtle humidity and heat variations. So, the mat is not just a decoration, it's a functional part of displaying the picture in a frame.</p>

<p>Just like wire on the back that helps to hang the frame, the mat is a mechanical part of the frame assembly that holds the photo. Nobody would tell you that you made ugly art just because there was a small difference in picture wire length on the frame backs.</p>

<p>When I had a show of my work last summer, I decided to keep it simple and buy pre-cut mats, in one size only.<br>

I had to recrop only two photos to make them all work in 2:3 mats. Only for one of those did I feel that recropping seriously affected the composition.<br>

Making them all the same size simplifys the task of mounting and framing the prints, but may compromise your vision in a way you don't like.<br>

<Chas></p>

<p>If you're going to be doing a lot of matting in the future, I think you will quickly learn how much easier it is to have standard aspect ratios. Doing a good job of composing in the viewfinder is the best place to start. When cropping, having the crop tool set to a standard ratio will reduce the amount of future work. I'm in the process of establishing a price list based on print sizes, and it has to be done for each individual print (> 100 images total). A job like this is immensely easier when the images are based on standard aspect ratios.</p>

<p>My girlfriend and I usually create 8x10 or 11x14 (B&W) and almost always mat them to 16x20. I do the cutting. We have occasional dark room prints that call out for larger so we use a pro-shop. BTW the frames are simple.</p>

<p>Very much appreciate your insights. I have the feeling I'll end up with both, most of the shots cropped to near the same size but a few outliers.</p>

<p>Again, thanks.</p>

<p>Ronald: The frame type we use is Nillson-Bainbridge (sp?). These are in most art stores and I think Hobby Lobby. The NB come in packs of two, such as 16" or 20" (by far the most popular) so you by one pack of each size. The packs come with all the hardware and are so easy a child could put them together (I am still looking for that child :-) ) Seriously, the ones we use are black and about 3/4 inch wide. The come in other colors.</p>

<p>When my girlfriend (the aforementioned "child") and I had a show, almost all the photos were matted to 16x20 or 20x16 with NB frames. Putting some framers out of business.</p>

<p>I use the Logan mat cutter, good up to exterior 28". I now only screw up may 1 in 20.</p>

<p>Theoretically and ideally, a mat should play second fiddle to an image. Its aspect ratio, size, color, etc. should support and enhance the image's.<br>

But I take a rather pragmatic approach, much like Charles' and Stephen's. I tend to compose my shots to fully fit in the 35mm viewfinder, with the intent of no or minimal cropping in my prints. Unfortunately, pre-cut mats are not made for prints from 35mm full frame shots. (Why is another discussion.) I ended up learning to cut my own mats, which not only fit my prints of a consistent aspect ratio, with either landscape or portrait orientation, of different sizes, and with varying border widths (such as wider bottom ones). My mats are custom in a very subtle way, often not noticed by the casual observers. But I think they provide a feeling of coherency, especially when exhibited as a group.<br>

It may seem like a lot of work and cost. But since I reuse these mats, along with the frames and glasses, for different exhibits, I think I have actually come out ahead over time.</p>

<p>In my experience (which might or might not be helpful to you), mats serve multiple functions: for home decorators, the mat coordinates with the rest of the room (probably not your first concern, but consider that a buyer may want to change the matting out for that reason); for museums and galleries wishing to make the work look expensive and precious, all standard size, as large as possible, and all the same color (museum matte board is acid free and doesn't usually come in all that many colors unless you're buying cartons of it); and for the creator, the mat should accentuate the work, which means all custom sizes and custom colors.<br>

Although if I were mounting a show, I'd likely put everything same size/same color in order to present a unified show.<br>

Did I just belabor the obvious?</p>