To matte or not to matte

Everything besides death and taxes is a choice. There's still room for best practices.

And when it comes to hanging prints, there are an array of best practices.

Before Jackson Pollock, dripping paint on a canvas wasn’t exactly a best practice, and to this day still may not be. But it was a creative one. Best isn’t always the goal.

“Best” is often a matter of what has traditionally worked for others in the past. Sometimes, what’s more important is what I want to try or even experiment with in the present.

To me wall space seems too precious to waste it with mattes. I admit that @ Supriyo's example looks good but I am too lazy to earn multiple houses, to hang prints that way.

I don't know about your location, but where I live (real estate is still quite expensive), we have some wall space to hang a nice print or two, and that too with some accompanying mat :). If you think, the mat is just wasting valuable space, then obviously the mat is not compatible with the print. May be try a different mat style. For me, the mats actually add to the content of the prints.

"Share the work load; try to be a good shooter and leave being a great gallery interior designer to others." Would be my recommendation, since everything else gets too complicated.

Unless you are a great photographer with funding or have funds from other sources, there is usually no "others". You are left to your own devices, unless you are ready to pay talented people to do the decorating, but then thats incompatible with "too lazy to earn money", right? As Shadow said, I too think its good to be aware of how to present your work to an audience, besides developing your skills as photographer.

since everything else gets too complicated.

If you have basic aesthetic instincts (and some knack of observation), then designing a room decoration is not too difficult or different than composing a picture, at least not in my experience. Instinct plays a big role in certain complicated works we do, like having sex :D.

BTW, one of my prints was ruined by sticking to glass. I think, its due to the condensation on the glass from rapid change in room temperature.

Instinct plays a big role in certain complicated works we do, like having sex

And here I thought sex was simple! :eek:

And here I thought sex was simple! :eek:

I think, instinct makes it simple for us, so that we can enjoy it, but come to think of it, sex has so many steps and moments in it and variants of them. It has its own initiation, rise, fall, climax, like a great orchestral piece, but thinking about all these takes the fun out of it, like thinking about why a great joke makes me laugh :p.

I think "best practice" applies to presentation to viewers not related to the photographer, as in a gallery or museum. For less formal interactions, I like to use an iPad, which has resolution comparable to a very good print with better dynamic range. Using the Lightroom app, You can thumb through the images or skip around very easily, and you don't have to rent space from Google or Amazon if you're a subscriber to Creative Cloud. Collections are very easy to organize, even from disparate locations or directories.

The OP was talking and asking about printing and hanging his own photos in his home.

The OP was talking and asking about printing and hanging his own photos in his home.

The key word is "hanging", not tacking to a cork board or sticking under a magnet. I can't imagine why the OP would ask about matting a print just to display it on a refrigerator. The photos my wife chooses to hang are mounted, matted and framed. I didn't limit this treatment to galleries and museums. Those were merely examples of how most people would decorate formal areas in their homes,

I can't imagine why the OP would ask about matting a print just to display it on a refrigerator.

He didn’t. He asked about hanging them on a wall in his home. He’s received some pertinent responses. It’s up to him what advice to take and which direction to go in. I wish him the best. Displaying my own prints is usually both a challenge and a pleasure.

I'm curious how you feel about matting and hanging pictures now?

I have expressed how I feel about matting and hanging pictures, when and shy. You have expressed yours, Shadow. That does't mean I'm wrong, nor you.

Ahhh the pressures of greatness.

My photography is crappy enough to save me lots of money on frames and mattes......

Ahhh the pressures of greatness.

My photography is crappy enough to save me lots of money on frames and mattes......

Leave the sojourn of mediocrity and feel the pressure of greatness on your sail, Moving On! ;)

I’m trying......;)

I’ve been thinking about moving up to Designer Shoeboxes......

I used to have to cut my own mats as a student. For archival purposes, mats should be PH-neutral or acid-free. It should also have another mat as a backing board with the print sandwiched and kept in place between the two mats in a way that makes it possible for the print to be removed (so the print not being glued to the backing board). Then there’s the issue of proper balance when it comes to the cut-out. Placing the image and cut-out dead center will make it appear that the image is placed lower than normal, which is why it’s advised to have proportionally more width at the bottom than to the top and sides. There’s also the possibility of double and triple matting to create more attention to the image. There’s a reason to keep with the standards when those are in place because they have already eliminated what doesn't work by going over all the trial and errors.

 

You can present prints however you please, just don’t be too delusional about the effectiveness of it.

In school, we used to use a non-reacting masking tape, one that didn't peel off the paper when removed. Just 2 pieces would usually do the trick attached to the backs of the mat and the pic and just letting the picture hang. Not having to affix it to the backing.

I listened to a photographer I like and was following for a while, Renato Dagostin, say something like (I am paraphrasing),

"I used to matte my framed images, but I was never comfortable about it for some reason. Then I realized I felt it was killing my photographs."

The exhibition I witnessed, his images were top mounted against simple white or black matte backgrounds, not a lot of it showing around the edges. Simple white or black frames matching the matte color, with nice conservation or museum grade glass. White for B&W prints, black for color. It was an amazing affect, in my mind at least- the images really stood out.

That said, a buddy of mine has a handful of wonderful photographic prints he bought from famous photographers who were showing their work in NYC back in the day. He pretty much did the exact same thing to all of them- white matting, about 2.5 or 3 inches showing all around on the larger ones and less matte showing in the smaller ones- in simple black frames.

In the end, we all do whatever we think best, according to our own taste and aesthetic. While I would never advocate publicly showing a print which wasn't protected behind glass, if that's what a person wants to do with his or her own work then so be it.

A friend of mine who is a painter said this just the other night: "If you're going sell a print, it should be framed and ready to hang so a buyer can take it home and put it directly onto a wall in their house".

Which does seem to make sense (to me). He failed to mention matting!

I used to have to cut my own mats as a student. For archival purposes, mats should be PH-neutral or acid-free. It should also have another mat as a backing board with the print sandwiched and kept in place between the two mats in a way that makes it possible for the print to be removed (so the print not being glued to the backing board). Then there’s the issue of proper balance when it comes to the cut-out. Placing the image and cut-out dead center will make it appear that the image is placed lower than normal, which is why it’s advised to have proportionally more width at the bottom than to the top and sides. There’s also the possibility of double and triple matting to create more attention to the image. There’s a reason to keep with the standards when those are in place because they have already eliminated what doesn't work by going over all the trial and errors.

 

You can present prints however you please, just don’t be too delusional about the effectiveness of it.

As a person who has bought a fair amount of art, some of which needed to be framed, I get what you're saying BUT will also add that there is a huge business with obviously a fair amount of profit in matting & framing artwork. Some folks would believe that a frame & matte job should enhance or lead you into the piece. Others, such as the photographer I referenced above in my other post, felt his images were suffocating under matte and "liberated" his work as described.

I personally probably have one foot in each camp- depending on what it is I want to display- sometimes it's appropriate to matte & frame a work to both enhance and compliment the piece, and sometimes I don't want anything (or not much) in between me & the piece; don't care to have anything distracting me from the impact of the artwork. Suffice it to say, however, that I will always choose to turn work over to the professionals, have invested plenty of money in displaying artworks, and have come to the opinion that the best glass is the conservation or museum grade glass, which truly does make a noticeable difference in how something is seen.

As to the so-called "effectiveness" of a frame/matte job, again we are back to personal preference- however if the photograph is FOR SALE, then by all means have it be absolutely perfect and professionally done, not a garage or basement hack job, an obvious attempt to save money.

Not sure which forum this belongs in.

 

I've started a project to print, mount and hang a small subset of the many thousands of photos sitting on my computer onto the walls of our house. In the past the natural thing to do would be to print the photo and hang it framed with a matte but there seems to be a modern trend to hang them without a matte, especially those printed on canvas or metal. Having been to a number of exhibitions with prints exhibited without mattes, I've decided to mount the prints onto gatorboard and hang them without a matte. An advantage of this method is that they take up much less space on the wall and you can hang many photos at high density. The down side of this is that each photo has less impact.

 

I'm curious how you feel about matting and hanging pictures now?

I haven’t used a matte yet. My goal is to get the photo out of the computer and look at it on the wall. Have 13”x19” paper and found simple 13”x19” frames (Target). I try to maintain original aspect which produces unequal borders. Not a perfect solution but it’s just for me.

I used to have to cut my own mats as a student. For archival purposes, mats should be PH-neutral or acid-free. It should also have another mat as a backing board with the print sandwiched and kept in place between the two mats in a way that makes it possible for the print to be removed (so the print not being glued to the backing board). Then there’s the issue of proper balance when it comes to the cut-out. Placing the image and cut-out dead center will make it appear that the image is placed lower than normal, which is why it’s advised to have proportionally more width at the bottom than to the top and sides. There’s also the possibility of double and triple matting to create more attention to the image. There’s a reason to keep with the standards when those are in place because they have already eliminated what doesn't work by going over all the trial and errors.

 

You can present prints however you please, just don’t be too delusional about the effectiveness of it.

That's exactly how we were taught to mat photos. They had us "hang" the photo using the right kind of tape (name escapes me) with two small strips of tape and to cut the mat so it wasn't centered, but offset a bit with more space at the bottom.

One low cost approach is to buy pre-matted and glassed frames at Ikea, where they are very affordable, and then print to fit. There are various sizes and styles available at reasonable cost, as opposed to professional matting and framing (for which they will not be mistaken). I like mattes for my work because it allows me to show with less impact from the background materials, and to place individual prints on a more even footing. It also allows me to trade-out framed prints and store the not-displayed images in the protection of frame, matte, and glass. Presentation- or gallery-grade prints would only be professionally matted and framed. I observe that uncovered prints are even more vulnerable to fingerprints and abuse than those in museums or galleries.

Your point is profound. Print to fit the frame/matt and not the other way around. I’ve been knocking myself out trying to find the ideal frame size when it’s much easier to adjust print size (hitting my forehead with the heal of my hand, duh,).

Your point is profound. Print to fit the frame/matt and not the other way around. I’ve been knocking myself out trying to find the ideal frame size when it’s much easier to adjust print size (hitting my forehead with the heal of my hand, duh,).

When I had my darkroom years ago, I only made prints that were 8x10, 11x14, or 16x20. Easy to find matts and frames for those.

I understand that printing to certain dimensions might make life easier when it comes to matting and framing, but my practice is to crop and print to the dimensions that work best for the image and then mat and frame to suit the image. It can be more costly and not as easy, but such is life for me. Many of my images get cropped and/or printed to non-standard sizes and I then figure out ways to deal with that. When printing for gallery displays, I will often print to the same height, so the frames can be a consistent size, and the widths may vary and therefore the thickness of the mats will vary. But, for me, the image drives the process and the framing and matting support that image.

My point was not to diminish custom printing/matting/framing in any way. That's the only way to go to obtain the very highest quality outcome. But, it is expensive, and there are viable alternatives for those of us for whom money IS an issue. And, given a very good image, it should still be good when sensibly adjusted to fit standard mat sizes. A common exception could easily be a wide panorama, which would likely require a more creative or customized display.