Aesthetics of framing

[bobatkins]

<p>Anyone know a good site that discusses the aesthetics of framing? Things like border width and mat choice for example, and whether an image should be centered of offset top to bottom. Obviously it depends on the taste of the photographer, but I'm looking for a site that discusses general principles.</p>

<p>I did the usual Google search but it really didn't dig much up.</p>

[stp]

<p>I wish I could introduce you to a particular framer here in Olympia, WA. While there may be written guidance, there are often a number of solutions for a particular print, and it comes down to subjective judgement in my experience (or better, the experience of watching an expert try different mat combinations, frames, and positioning). I imagine the difficulty of putting those thought processes down on paper is one reason why you've found relatively little in a Google search. I hope others can point you (and me) to some good initial guides.</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>B&h and others sells precut mats puts a certain size photo into a certain size frame.too many different combinations to mention. Thats one way to follow set boaders.<br>

But I also think that the size of the boader depends on the picture, frame and overall esthetics. Caries the creative process over into framing and the finished product.</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Interesting question. I must admit to not giving much thought to the aesthetics of framing until seeing a display of Michael Kenna's original prints a few years ago. All were framed identically in vertically oriented rectangular frames, both square prints from 6x6 MF and rectangular prints (landscape orientation) from 35mm. Prints are centered horizontally, but slightly lower from the top with plenty of space below. It's easier to view examples than to describe: http://www.artbusiness.com/1open/firstth0408.html</p>

<p>I've seen poster type reprints of his photos framed more conventionally, both in square frames and vertically oriented rectangular frames, but the latter are virtually always framed with identical spacing on both sides and the top, not quite identical to the framing of Kenna's original prints.</p>

<p>So far that's the only photo framing I've seen that caused me to ponder the aesthetics of framing. I've seen many variations of framing in photo exhibits at the Amon Carter Museum and several other museums and galleries. Most are fairly generic types of framing that don't draw any attention to themselves.</p>

<p>I'm not sure whether Rolfe Horn's prints are framed the same way - I can't find any examples online that include the framing. His work is the closest I can think of to Kenna's (and he was Kenna's assistant several years ago). Might be worth writing to either Horn or Kenna to ask them about their choices in framing.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>One of the things I'm trying to do is to try to fit some 2:3 aspect ratio images into 11x14 frames. I don't want to do 8x10, but I don't think 8x12 will look good with only 1" borders on the sides. I've mocked up some options in my image editor and 7x11 (not exactly 2:3, but close) isn't bad since then the borders are 2" on the top/bottom and 1.5" on the sides. The standard 8x10 in 11x14 has wider side borders than top/bottom, which may be better aesthetically. I'm not sure!</p>

<p>I'm trying to stick with "standard" frame sizes since I want to keep costs down and I want to try to find them locally. I think an 8x12 in a 16x20 frame will have too much empty space. Obviously I could get custom frames made but I'd rather not if I don't have to. Quick and inexpensive is my current goal for these particular images.</p>

<p>I'm also trying to find some guidelines on mat color. Again I can mock up various options, but it would still be good to find a guide that discusses the aesthetics of mat (and frame) color. I can play safe and go with a white mat and a black frame I guess. The frame is easier (black or silver), but there's a wide choice of mat colors. I'm tempted to go with white or off-white though.</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>So you want standard frames but custom mats are okay?</p>

<p>A 6x9 would go into an 11x14 frame with a consistent 2.5" mat all around.</p>

<p>Alternately, I like the look of a consistent mat top, left, and right with a larger mat on the bottom, which I also use for diptychs and triptychs (I like to put three portrait-orientation 4x5's in a 16x9 landscape frame). If you do come up with web resources discussing this, please share the links!</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Bob, the only real good treatise I've seen was a reference in a book on 19th century watercolor. Somewhere in there, the Royal Academy (UK) came up with some guidelines for exhibition to kind of level the playing field. That, and in another book, <em>Painting Masterpieces</em>, a little step-by-step beginner's painting book, I saw a practical discussion on framing. Several other painter's handbooks and instruction books.</p>

<p>At your level of skill, my guess is that your judgement and personal assessment would probably be the best guide. If you go for colors, though, the trouble is color scheme of the display area. It's easier to do colors in framing if you have some kind of idea what it would look like at its final destination. If it's going to a residence or a business, it'd be almost impossible to predict what it would look like on site, in advance. It'd be real easy to end up with something close that clashed. This is probably why so many play it safe and stick with plain setups.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Bob. I used to enter shows. The judging standard was white or off-white matting with simple metal frames. My framer and I spent a good bit of time trying to match slighty off-white mats to pickup colors in the pictures. I did mostly 13x19 in 18x24 frames which made for an even 2.5 inch border. A 2.5 inch border might be a bit much for an 11x14 frame. It's all a matter of taste but judges where I showed did not like colored mats. I have quite a few 13x19s framed around the house. One thing that bugs me is that none of the art supply stores generally do not carry 18X24 mats with a 12.5x18.5 hole. You have to get them mail order. I have tried cutting my own mats but I wasn't very good at it. </p>

[douglasely]

<p>I cannot recommend this book enough. What is unique is that his frame of view, no pun intended, is from the artist, not a frame, mat, or mat cutting machine manufacturer. "Mat, Mount and Frame It Yourself" by David Logan. </p>

<p>Mr. Logan is the designer and owner of the Logan mat cutting system. I recently purchased a mid-level mat cutting machine and I am more than impressed with it's design, quality machining, and ease of use.</p>

<p>In my quest to learn to mat and frame my own work one of the things I remeber most is a statement from a source that I can no longer remember. The comment was, "jurists stated that what often makes their job difficult is a mat and frame that is too large. As an artist, I could not agree more.</p>

<p>The following table is from David Logan's book.</p>

<p>"Mat Border Chart"</p>

<p>A chart called The Border Finder will help you.<br>

With A Border Finder you can determine the appropriate size borders for any size window you may have.<br>

Border Finder Instructions: Add the length and the width of the window size to get the united inches of the window. Example: 8"x10" = 18 united inches. Find the range into which that size falls and read into the adjoining column to determine what each of the borders should be.</p>

<p>Frame Size in United Inches ............. Suggested Borders - Each of Four <br>

8"-11" ........ 1"<br />12"-17" ...... 1-½"<br />18"-24" ...... 1-3/4"<br />25"-36" ...... 2"<br />36"-44" ...... 2-½"<br />44"-56" ...... 3"<br />56"-60" ...... 3-½"</p>

<p>By adding the appropriate borders to the window, you will discover the overall mat size but you will also discover something more - the frame size!</p>

<p>I am using this and I'm quite convinced that it is very good advice. Remember, the mat sizes are "starting" sizes. You can go larger, but I recommend not much more larger. Doing so draws one's eye to the mat and frame instead of the image.</p>

<p>I hope that you find this helpful.</p>

<p>Wishing you great success, Doug</p>

<p> </p>

[waltz]

<p>I like to have the bottom part of the mat be 25 - 100% wider than the other three sides. While it's certainly easier to crank out a bunch of mats that all have the same border width all the way around, I find it pleasing to have more weight on the bottom. The asymetry of the wider bottom also makes for some interesting possibilities, such as having a rectangular picture in a square frame or vice versa.</p>

[gertle]

<p>I've used the 11x14 mats, with an 8x10 window, and they work ok. In the precut versions the window is centered so in landscape format the sides are wider than the top and bottom. The window is not exactly 8x10, it's about 1/4 inch narrower than the print, and being two inches smaller than the photo, in the long dimension, there is some space to shift the picture for better framing, no pun intended. If you have the where with all to do your own mat cutting, I don't, you might offset the window just a bit. One of the framers I used to go to liked to make the bottom edge a bit wider than the top, maybe 1/4 inch or so. Not enough that you would notice it unless someone pointed it out or you knew to look for it. It seemed to have a grounding or anchoring effect.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p><em>One of the framers I used to go to liked to make the bottom edge a bit wider than the top, maybe 1/4 inch or so. Not enough that you would notice it unless someone pointed it out or you knew to look for it. It seemed to have a grounding or anchoring effect.</em></p>

<p>I almost always bottom weight ...but usually around a half inch, and up to an inch ...depending on the size of the picture, as well as whatever amount it takes in regard to aesthetics. Another advantage to bottom weighting is that if you do not...when seated and viewing the picture, there is an optical illusion that occurs in which the bottom portion of the matting appears to be thinner than the top or sides. For example: on a 13x19...a half inch extra at the bottom offsets this illusion. Another little "trick" I use is to add a bit more matting to the left and right sides. So, for instance...on that 13x19 I would have 3" at top...3 1/4" on the sides, and 3 1/2" at bottom. Occassionally I consider simply using 3" on all sides...it would be so easy, but I can't seem to get past the fact that these custom ratios seem to work so much better. <br />On portraits (which I almost never do)...I understand after talking with several great portrait photographers and a local business that does fine art reproduction on a national scale...bottom weighting portraits doesn't usually work well. Now if I could only remember why?!</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>My 8x12 inch full frame prints fit nicely and look good in a 16x 20 frame. The border width is 3+5/8th inches on all 4 sides. A 6x9 full frame prints looks good in a 11x14 frame and again you have a constant border on all 4 sides. If you corner mount your prints, and print the same size(8x12) this makes switching prints from frame to frame easy for different shows.</p>

[aldrich]

<p>The Mrs. and I use our own mats and mat cutting equipment for this kind of stuff. Yes, we stick to traditional frame sizes, since that's the breaker on price, but we've found it costs us about $4 to make a custom mat -- far cheaper than buying a mat at any craft store. Most important is the benefit of being able to customize mat size completely. If I want to put a 3x3 square piece in an 8x10 frame in the upper right corner, I can do it.</p>

<p>Lex, that link is very interesting indeed.</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

[hugh_sakols]

<p>I discussed matting and framing with Glen Crosby, curator of the Ansel Adams Gallery. He suggested for gallery work that it is a good idea to keep to some standardized sizes eg. even numbers. This helps them arrange an exhibit and easily frame matted prints. I now mat my 14x21 prints in 22x28 mats. I also notice that many landscape photographers now print with a half inch border that matches the color of the mat. This way the photographer signs the print and not the mat. I still prefer to have my my boarders come all the way to the print. I then sign the mat with a pencil - I find my signature is sloppy. I've been told that this is perfectly acceptable. I cut all my own mats at home using cotton rag alpha mat and a logan mat cutter. </p>

[James G. Dainis]

I put 11x14 and 8x10 prints into 14 x 18 mats/frames. I have a 3/8 space between the photo and the overmat on three sides and a 1/2 inch space on the bottom of the photo where I sign in pencil. The entire overmat window is also 1/2 inch higher than middle to give more weight to the mat below the photo. No one notices that unless the picture/mat is turned upside down and then it is very noticeable. Sort of like an optical illussion

[bobatkins]

<p>Some good thoughts here. I've attached simulations of 6x9 and 7.5x11 in 11x14 frames. I guess which looks best is a matter of personal taste but it would be interesting to see which one gets most "votes"!</p><div></div>

[James G. Dainis]

I like the top one better. I have an Ansel Adams print. It is actually 7-3/8 x 9-1/4 inches made from an 8x10 inch negative. It is mounted on a 14 x 17 inch mat. (i had to make my own aluminum frame for it.) That gives about 4 inches of mat board on on each side and about 3 inches of mat board on top and bottom

[arie07]

<p>Dear Bob, framing bottom line as I see it is a matter of taste. I do live in third world country where pre-cut frames and mats are not available and everything needs to me custom made.<br>

For that I developed "my standard" frames from designing the profiles to have them assembled into unfinished frames that I have to sand, finish, cut mats etc.<br>

I believe the "return" is a lot of satisfaction and trust that if you go along a similar path you may get to develop your own framing style that makes your work unique and let yop save big $$$ along the way.<br>

If you want to look at a sample of what I am talking about kindly go to <a href="../photo/5021905">http://www.photo.net/photo/5021905</a></p>

[sketch_tbhotmail.com]

<p>7.5"x11" gets my vote although the weighting seems more noticable.</p>

[john_hanlon3]

<p>Hello Bob,</p>

<p>I prefer the 6 x 9 in 11 x 14. To my mind the 7.5 x 11 image is overly constrained by the frame and less pleasant to look at.</p>

[yijun_liao]

<p>I write a blog on framing. <a href="http://blog.567framing.com">http://blog.567framing.com</a> . But I personally don't like matting, unless it's 8ply wide matting.</p>