Framing Advice for Exhibit

I have two photographs that I have to get framed for an exhibit. One specifically that I'm concerned about is 16 x 20 in.

 

My instinct is to have it professionally framed, but I wanted feedback about what people think are best practices for framing and display.

 

My idea was a white wood frame and an 8-ply mat and archival glass. I have in mind frames that I've seen in museums, that have quite a

bit of depth, maybe 3 in. or more. I'm not sure if this would be prohibitively expensive. I guess though that sometimes I'm put off when I

see cheaply framed work. It seems to devalue the work. But I know that intrinsically there's no correlation between presentation and the

actual quality of the work.

 

Generally, for a 16 x 20 in. print, how big should the frame be? Is an off-white frame ok?

 

I also would like advice on printing and scanning, but I'll ask in a different post.

<p>The frame should match your image somehow, of be an offset to the passepartout (the cardboard framing the image). If an off-white framing matches the global composition, why not.<br>

For 16x20, I'd take a frame that has at least 3-4" on either side of the image, then at least 3-4 on top (same width as sides) and at least 6-7 in the bottom (roughly calculating). A wider border to the bottom makes it more pleasing.<br>

Try to get glass which is low in reflection. I've framed some with regular float glass, and it's a pain depending on whether direct illumination is cast on the image.</p>

<p>Don't forget to stick the foto on foamboard. This give a smooth appearence of the photo.</p>

<p>A difficult choice:</p>

<ul>

<li>Plain glass. Painful reflections, spoils the image, as already stated by Monika</li>

<li>Museum glass. Virtually invisible. But the cost!</li>

<li>No glass. Your print is exposed to various risks</li>

</ul>

<p>Have you considered borderless mounting on Dibond, no glass? A proper exhibit room should have uniform, neutral colored walls, so less need to isolate the image from the environment. <br />Good luck. </p>

<p>Personally, I've never understood white frames or white matting, despite that white matting is so overwhelmingly predominant. The eye is often attracted to the lightest portion of the object, so why have the matting in competition with the print for the viewer's attention? I've heard compelling arguments for using black matting to "allow" the viewer's eye to more easily rest on the image, but that approach is in the minority. I once entered three prints mounted in black aluminum frames (check out American Frames for a variety of do-it-yourself alternatives) and double-matted black mats; the studio owner chided me for using black, saying they would never fly, yet the single judge chose my three prints for special recognition -- i.e., there's a variety of opinions.</p>

<p>In a gallery or competition, I think you have to choose between black or white. For display in a home or other less formal setting, I think you can choose matting and frames that complement the photograph, and that can include a variety of frame styles and colors.</p>

<p>Off white goes with just about anything. I agree with Monika on dimensions. Top and sides must be equal and bottom <em>must</em> be greater -- but just enough to get a visual balance. A depth of 3 inches may be too much. I hope you are not saying that <em>narrow</em> or <em>simple</em> are necessarily "cheaply framed".</p>

<p>It's easy to buy frame kits from a company like <a href="http://www.americanframe.com/">American Frame </a>and assemble the frames yourself. You save a lot of cash this way and you understand how they go together and come apart, which allows for easy re-use. Kits typically come with acrylic because of shipping cost, but you can now get UV-acrylic. Unless you scratch it, it looks great.</p>

<p>I generally matt in off-white, but the color of the walls will be far more dominant than the matt.</p>

<p>There are also some interesting options including mounting on board and standing it off the wall with a wood block on the back. More dramatic. And a friend did his prints bare with super magnets, beautiful presentation.</p>

Thank you everyone for your resplies! I am leaning away from the white frame idea, since I couldn't find a frame and mat

combination that would seem to work together, as the white of the mat and frame are invariably different. Maybe that's ok,

but I didn't have enough experience. I do remember very beautiful white frames in museums for photographs. But I think

now it may be easier to use a black frame.

 

Checking a few frame shops, framing a 16x20 in print, with an 8-ply mat, in a 24x28 in frame, which gives a 4 in border all

around, and with museum glass, costs roughly $440 - $550 depending on the framing shop!

 

So I guess there's a consensus that the lower part of the mat should be wider. I'll have to revise the framing to take that

into account.

 

I had not thought of Dibond, but it looks quite interesting..

 

I'll have to consider whether I should spend that much, or go with a kit frame.

<blockquote>

<p>Checking a few frame shops, framing a 16x20 in print, with an 8-ply mat, in a 24x28 in frame, which gives a 4 in border all around, and with museum glass, costs roughly $440 - $550 depending on the framing shop!</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />That's why the kits work so well. For about a third of the low end, you can get a nice wood frame, archival 8-ply mat, backing board and UV non-glare acrylic. You can skip the acrylic and buy a piece of cut glass locally, but a show, acrylic is fine, I've been using it for years because I have had to ship. I have put together every frame I've used for a show for the last ten years and probably saved at least $5000.</p>

<p>I just got back from John Fielder's Gallery in Denver, where his work and several other photographers' work is exhibited, almost all of which is scenic, with very few prints matted. Most had very simple frames or were mounted on board. Very few had glass. A few had the image floating over a dark background, surrounded by a very simple, but well made frame.</p>

<p>You might visit the exhibition space to see what you see, but matting and framing tended to detract from the powerful color images that I was seeing. Once in a while there was synergy, but was not the norm.</p>

<p>Stephen, I agree with you that a black over-matting would often seem aethetically and psycho-visually preferable, at least at long as the material is solid black and doesn't show white or some other color at the border between the matting and the image. But as observed, if you want to please <em>most</em> people, that's disfavored.</p>

<p>As far as frame shops versus kits, on several occasions I've bought frame-and-matting kits from Dick Blick Art Supplies and ordered the prints mounted at the lab. These all goes together in five or ten minutes, and the total cost for an 11x14 image, mounted, and a 16x20 frame runs about $100. Yours are bigger that what I usually get, and would cost more, but the savings would quite probably be very substantial.</p>

 

<p> I would probably skip using glass for an exhibit. The reason is that the glass adds a lot of weight to your exhibit and increases safety issues all around. </p>

<p> As far as the framing and matting look you wish to achieve you just have to decide on that. It's part of the art of it all. I guess you have to think about who the audience will be. I for one do not like the look of a fat bottom matt. To me it just looks like somebody measured once and cut twice. </p>

Hi, Dean,<br>

Here's another option in addition to the good advice you've already been given. <br>

<br>

For exhibits, I have 14x14" images printed, either through an enlarger or digitally, on 16x20" paper (vertically).  The paper provides the border for the photo and I can skip using a mat. Without a mat, the frame needs a spacer (black, white or clear, your decision, I use clear plastic FrameSpace), to hold it flat without touching the glass. An archival foamcore backing also keeps the photo flat. Frames are black wood but kit frames would look fine, too. <br>

<br>

Despite the odd size of the prints, the framed photos look good, I can frame them myself and re-use the frames. I've been using the same frames for exhibits for over 10 years, having chosen the square format because my camera has square negatives and I shoot as close to full-negative as possible. With this system, I don't have to mess with mats which I hate doing. --Sally

<p>From personal experience, one can get a very good metal or wood frame, the mat cut to your size of interest and a foam mounting board for all maybe a little over a 100$ including shipping, from american frame. This will in no way be inferior to any professional framing vendor. For less than half the cost of the professional framing place you can get it all done including the printing. i would weight the bottom and keep all the three sides constant. mat color preferably off white or any other color that will suit your print. hope this is helpful.</p>

Thank you for all of your suggestions and and advice!