Matting prints centered

[jeroldharter]

When I mat prints, I float mat borderless dry-mounted prints. I leave ~ 3/8 inch of space between the print edge and the window mat on 3 sides and a slightly larger gap of 1/2 inch on the bottom of the print to sign the matboard. I center the print horizontally (of course) but position it slightly upward vertically so that the bottom margin of the window mat is larger than the top margin.

That works well, but is a bit tedious in practice. Also, it means different dimensions for vertical vs. horizontal prints. I am preparing for a large frame order so I have been toying with the idea of ordering pre-cut mat windows such that the print would be centered and the "float" margin between the print and the window mat would be the same all around. That way, I could use the same mats for horizontal or vertical prints and I could use a single jig for positioning/centering the print for dry-mounting.

Good idea or bad idea? Thanks.

[Jim Noel]

I think it is a bad idea. Some images will look like they are falling out the bottom of the frame.

[vinny]

That's how i've always done it and none of my customers have complained of any prints falling out. The instructor who told me we should make the bottom margin thicker was a horrible teacher and I never understood the "falling out of the bottom of the frame" theory. Who came up with that anyway?

[Brian Ellis]

I originally matted like you do now, later decided to center everything just like you're considering. I didn't see any problem with centering, nobody ever commented or said anything was falling out of the bottom of the frame. It looked fine to me.

[jeroldharter]

I know I will have to mount one that way, horizontal and vertical, to see what I think before I spend a lot of money but it helps me to know what others are thinking/doing.

[Kirk Gittings]

That's how i've always done it and none of my customers have complained of any prints falling out. The instructor who told me we should make the bottom margin thicker was a horrible teacher and I never understood the "falling out of the bottom of the frame" theory. Who came up with that anyway?

I don't know who came up with it, but I find it to be true IME. Centering the image for whatever reason always looks like the print is below center. I tried not doing it once for an exhibit and hated the look. It didn't matter whether any one else noticed it-I noticed it. I have always found my criteria to be higher than 99% of my audience and like it that way.

[ROL]

Well, there are no rules, and while understand your desire to speed the process, I see no reason to change your present mounting scheme. IMO it is artistically lazy to center mount. True, some may not notice or care.

The precut center cut mats seem to be aimed at students, or at the most, portfolio use. Is that the message you want to convey to your audience? Ask yourself if ease of process is what LF is all about. Why not just digitally point and shoot and inkjet the images? I don't mean to be cavalier in this last suggestion either. If all you care about is the image itself, and not the physical end product, what's the difference?

I keep notes (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/Fine%20Art%20Print%20Presentation#drymounting) on all my mount sizes and orientations. They're easy to refer to and I don't use a "jig". While the process is not automatic, it does reflect some artistic decisions and care.

[Vaughn]

To my eye, centered prints seem to be slightly lower than centered. An optical illusion that I have to measure to be sure of. Just does not feel right to me.

I mount my silver prints in a similar way as the OP, tho the window is up about 1/2 inch from center, and a little more space around the print (1/2 on top/sides and 3/4 on bottom). It is what I feel looks the best, and thus is worth the extra effort. Buyers of my work just have to put up with it.

[ROL]

...the "float" margin between the print and the window mat would be the same all around.

Also...

FWIW, I standardized on a 1/2 inch float margin all around, as it does simplify mounting calculations quite a bit, and by my eye looks the same or better than the slightly larger width bottom margin prescribed by Adams in The Print. The reason given for the enlarged bottom margin was to accommodate a signature more easily.

[jeroldharter]

Well, there are no rules, and while understand your desire to speed the process, I see no reason to change your present mounting scheme. IMO it is artistically lazy to center mount. True, some may not notice or care.

The precut center cut mats seem to be aimed at students, or at the most, portfolio use. Is that the message you want to convey to your audience? Ask yourself if ease of process is what LF is all about. Why not just digitally point and shoot and inkjet the images? I don't mean to be cavalier in this last suggestion either. If all you care about is the image itself, and not the physical end product, what's the difference?

I keep notes (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/Fine%20Art%20Print%20Presentation#drymounting) on all my mount sizes and orientations. They're easy to refer to and I don't use a "jig". While the process is not automatic, it does reflect some artistic decisions and care.

Excellent website and video.

Although I understand that every print is a unique bit of wonderment that deserves unique treatment...nevertheless 90% of my prints end up a standard size: 7x9, 11x13, or 15x19. Most are horizontal orientation, some vertical. Given the time and expense involved in framing, the amount of space and degree of organization required to stock different frame sizes, significant bulk discounts, etc. I was wondering about standardizing to a single window size for each of my 3 frame sizes. Further, I could have the supplier cut the 8ply board for me and life would be good. More time printing.

As I look at examples though, I think my eye favors the slightly upwardly displaced option. So I can still standardize to 6 frame/window sizes, 3 for vertical and 3 for horizontal. Then I can manually cut the odd ducks.

I think I will keep all 4 float margins equal.

I like using jigs because they also serve as my notes. I can easily center and align prints and often frame multiple copies of the same print. On a recent project, I matted 100 7x9 prints so I appreciated the jig.

[Jim Jones]

Years ago I cut mat windows and mounted prints with the image slightly above center. No longer. Now it is usually 10x14 prints centered in a 1" larger window which is also centered in 16x20 mats. Precut mats ordered in quantity are as inexpensive as 16x20 mount board. They can be used for portrait or landscape formats. After decades of exposing and projecting 35mm Kodachrome, the idea of making the image capture fit the format is second nature. My customers in rural Missouri appreciate the price savings. Of course, in a sophisticated upscale market, other rules prevail.

[Emil Schildt]

It semms there are no rules, but I can't understand some people can't see the optical deception...

I always make sure, there's more space under the image. as much as possible, the same spacing on the other three sides.

Except for one (interesting) format: the square format.
Here the format is so dynamic, that you can have the same border size all around the image.

[Joseph Dickerson]

The convention is to offset slighty higher as stated above. There is an optical illusion the makes a centered image look lower on the mat.

The reason pre-cut mats are centered is simple. They can be used for both vertical and horizontal images. It just makes sense from a marketing perspective. Doesn't mean it's right though. :o

JD

[tgtaylor]

To me an off-centered matt cut, unless so slight that it is impreceptable, is a distraction that calls attention to itself and away from the image. It's original intent was probably to call the viewers attention to the fact that it wasn't a commercially cut matt.

Across from where I am sitting typing this at the kitchen table there is a 11x14 color print about 10 feet away on the wall above the kitchen TV that is center matted and framed to 16x20 . From my seated perspective it looks, if anything, cut slightly above center but upon standing appears exactly centered.

To center a print or not is simply a matter of taste.

Thomas

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm in a group show right now in Santa Fe at a museum-maybe 80 prints all together. It opened last night and I was thinking about this issue. I had no involvement in the matting and framing as I delivered them loose prints, but like me they "centered' the images about a quarter to half an inch above center depending on print and mat size.. They all look perfectly centered. We had a dinner later at the Verve Gallery same thing.

Slightly above center is (FWIW) the usual professional standard and has been since I started showing in 1970.

[Richard Wasserman]

I have always bottom-weighted mats. That said, for a show I currently have up, given the image and frame sizes, and the fact they were mixed horizontal and vertical, it made the most sense to center them. I did this with quite a bit of trepidation as it was something I was always told strongly not to do. I was pleasantly surprised at the results—they look quite good. This is a group of 35 photos and the logistics of framing that many told me what to do. If I was framing individual photos I would still make the bottom margin larger, but I can certainly see how this is a matter of taste and not rules.

[Mark Sawyer]

There is a standard method for "optical centering" on a matte. Here's a page that explains and also has a little calculator to figure it, and even an app for your smart phone/android.

Personally, I "eyeball" mine, as I find the above method is sometimess off visually, at least to me. I have a few templates I use to position prints/plates, then spacers to draw lines at the proper distance for the area around them.

[ROL]

To me an off-centered matt cut, unless so slight that it is impreceptable, is a distraction that calls attention to itself and away from the image. It's original intent was probably to call the viewers attention to the fact that it wasn't a commercially cut matt.

Just to be clear, the whole point of bottom–weighting is to fool the human eye into the accepting the work as being centered on its support. This can become quite problematic with works of more oblong dimension, requiring some degree of aesthetic rigor. Obvious and visible off-centering of the work, a choice preferred by some (not me), is another matter.

[jeroldharter]

There is a standard method for "optical centering" on a matte. Here's a page that explains and also has a little calculator to figure it, and even an app for your smart phone/android.

Personally, I "eyeball" mine, as I find the above method is sometimess off visually, at least to me. I have a few templates I use to position prints/plates, then spacers to draw lines at the proper distance for the area around them.

Your link did not post but I found the optical center information in Way Byond Monochrome.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Interesting. I've been matting and framing my own work for about 8 years. I've heard of the 'slightly higher than center' approach, yet I've matted hundreds of pieces of my own and others always on center, and have had eleven shows/exhibitions of my work. No one has ever commented that the images were not offset. Nothing has ever looked odd or appeared to be 'falling out' the bottom. I have seen presentations of work of small size prints, from polaroid to 8 x 10, where the images were put in much larger matts and offset towards the top by a few inches, to achieve a desired look. I kinda thought they were falling out the top.

To the OP: Do you never crop your images? Purchasing a group of identical pre-cut mats indicates that. Cropping is your most powerful compositional tool. Every images tells me, along with my experience and study, if and how it should be cropped, although some require none. Therefore, most images have a unique size which requires a matt cut just for it.

[jeroldharter]

...

To the OP: Do you never crop your images? Purchasing a group of identical pre-cut mats indicates that. Cropping is your most powerful compositional tool. Every images tells me, along with my experience and study, if and how it should be cropped, although some require none. Therefore, most images have a unique size which requires a matt cut just for it.

I try to crop as much as possible in camera through changing lenses or camera position.

I don't have a 4x10 but sometimes I pre-visualize that in camera. But 80+% of the time, the 8x10 (or 4x5) format suits me. That is why I want to keep things simple if possible.

Also, I don't think I could cut 8-ply and I prefer it to 4-ply mats. So it is much cheaper to buy pre-cut 8-ply windows with bulk discounts if I could standardize to a particular size for the majority of my framed prints.

[Mark Sawyer]

Your link did not post but I found the optical center information in Way Byond Monochrome.

Oops! My apologies! :o

http://www.russellcottrell.com/photo/centering.htm

[redrockcoulee]

That's how i've always done it and none of my customers have complained of any prints falling out. The instructor who told me we should make the bottom margin thicker was a horrible teacher and I never understood the "falling out of the bottom of the frame" theory. Who came up with that anyway?

Your horrible teacher taught the same way as other works on paper instructors teach. I learn that way at college taught by an ex air force photographer and my wife at three different fine art schools. Never heard it was falling out of the bottom but it visually does look off centre when it is centered.

[Darin Boville]

First off, I don't think it is central to the artist's job to worry about matting. Which is to say, do it right, like everything else, but if you are talking about running out of time and money it would be better to cut time/money out of matting rather than creating the art itself!

But if you do do it, I've always found that for larger prints the above center rule doesn't apply as strongly as with smaller prints. But that probably depends on the visual weight of the matt surface versus the print surface--on smaller prints the matt seems more of a factor.

--Darin

[Merg Ross]

Again, a thread without a single correct answer. It is your work, and your presentation. However, the traditional preference for mounting prints has been to leave a larger bottom margin. I took a quick look around the house and find that Ansel, Caponigro, Weston, Sexton, Baer and Garnett all preferred this method. Also, it is worthwhile noting that none of the aforementioned prints were provided with a window overmat.

The window mat, in my experience, originally came about as a museum presentation, or at the request of a purchaser of a print. In either case, the original weighted preference of the photographer can be overcome by a larger window overmat provided by the purchaser. So, the decision is yours; if you prefer a weighted look, provide the overmat, while acknowledging that any future alteration or presentation is out of your control.

If you look at the really stellar books of photography, you will note that the images are never centered. I think this same concept carries over to prints on the wall. Again, personal preference.

[Curt]

I'm in a group show right now in Santa Fe at a museum-maybe 80 prints all together. It opened last night and I was thinking about this issue. I had no involvement in the matting and framing as I delivered them loose prints, but like me they "centered' the images about a quarter to half an inch above center depending on print and mat size.. They all look perfectly centered. We had a dinner later at the Verve Gallery same thing.

Slightly above center is (FWIW) the usual professional standard and has been since I started showing in 1970.

I totally agree with this method of display.

[neil poulsen]

I often center my prints within the cutout and sign on the back. So, I don't need the extra room on the bottom for a signature. Through experimentation, I tend to like a 9mm border between the print edge and the edge of the cutout. But at the same time, I raise the cutout so that the over-mat is bottom heavy. Perhaps this helps the print not look low when it's centered within the cutout.

What used to drive me crazy was deciding how much to raise the cutout for different sized prints. I'd try to visualize different heights so see which would look the best. It had to "feel" just right. Like I say, it drove me crazy. For example, if I was mounting different sized prints, some would look unnecessarily higher than others. They wouldn't look right together.

But during a workshop with Steve Anchell, I was introduced to a special ruler one can purchase that raises the cutout in a systematic way. I forget how the thing worked, but taking some measurements, I determined that it worked to the following simple formula:

T = 0.45*(Lm-Lp)

where T is the width of border from the top edge of the mat to the cutout, "Lm" is the vertical length of the mat, and "Lp" is the vertical length of the print. One can determine the width of the bottom border by subtraction: B = Lm - T - Lp. In other words, subtract the top border and the vertical length of the print from the overall vertical length of the mat, and what remains must be the width of the bottom border. The width of the side borders of the overmat would both be S = 0.5*(Wm-Wp), where "Wm" is the horizontal width of the mat and "Wp" is the horizontal width of the print. To avoid the obvious problems with fractions using a standard ruler, I measure everything in millimeters.

To allow for a 9mm border between the cutout and the print, I would make each side of the overmat 9mm less than what the above formulas would indicate. If I didn't want a border around the print (rare for me), I would subtract about 3mm or so from both "Lp" and "Wp" so that the overmat would overlap the print by about 1/16th of an inch.

But in using this formula, I found that it didn't raise the print quite enough for my tastes. So instead of multiplying by 0.45, I tend to multiply by 0.435, and to my eye, the prints come out just fine. Moreover, if I'm mounting different sized prints, they all look consistent with one another.

[Vaughn]

The square image presents its own set of possibilities. Some one already mentioned using a square mat with the same size border all around. I have always preferred to mount my square images high on vertical rectangles. Say, a 10x10 image on 20x16 board, mounted 3" to 4" from the top (bottom 6" to 7").

Vaughn

[jp]

Just to add to the "do what you want" .... I use 16x20 frames for everything from 8x8" square silver prints to 13x19" inkjet prints (with the mat covering the borders of the images so it's actually a bit smaller.)

For the 13x19, there isn't room to make it off center.

For pretty much everything else, I use 1/2" upward adjustment for verticals (frame orientation), but horizontals are centered. 2/3 of what I do is either vertical or square images mounted in vertically oriented frames. For some reason, square images don't look good in horizontally mounted frames, perhaps because we're used to looking at vertical paper in books, magazines, newspapers, etc...

Writing down the cutting measurements is helpful in reducing the math and potential errors involved in cutting mats. I also lightly pencil them on the back of the mat, so I know when I'm working with the material that the side I'm preparing to cut is set for the right measurement, and so the verticals which share the same measurement can be cut sequentially before I adjust the mat cutter.

[ROL]

Also, I don't think I could cut 8-ply and I prefer it to 4-ply mats. So it is much cheaper to buy pre-cut 8-ply windows with bulk discounts if I could standardize to a particular size for the majority of my framed prints.

How about just cutting 2-ply mats?

Last Saturday my wife persuaded me to stop by the Getty on our way home for the free parking (after 5 PM) and even free–er sunsets. :cool: I was interested in seeing the new Pacific Standard Time (60's – 70's LA Art Scene) and Illuminated Paper (watercolor) exhibits. After spending a couple of hours appreciating real art and coming to the inexorable conclusion that I was not nor ever would be a real artist, we ended up at the permanent photography wing, where in the past I have had my personal evaluations nullified, realizing that photography can stand shoulder to shoulder with contemporary art. Not so this time. Clouds is one room of mostly dark vintage and some inexplicable photographs, looking to me as if they had been curated for a high school thesis.

But here's the relevant part. Intriguingly, a couple of the photos were matted in a particular way I have not consciously encountered before, at a museum. They were overmatted, into the print with 2-ply, with 8-ply windows over them, giving a double windowed presentation. One of these, Adams' Moonrise... was so displayed. The mat actually cut into the photo, something I believe Adams himself would have been none too happy about. In fact, it was the first time I had seen a presentational non dry mounted, floated Adams print.

What I'm suggesting, and you would have to work this out for yourself, is that you could forego dry-mounting, hinge mount (still deciding on whether to bottom-weight or not), and overmat with 2-ply cut to to each print's dimension. Then order precut window mats of one or two sizes, ensuring that the window itself is large enough to reveal the largest print, using one precut window for several sizes. This could make an effective, professional looking presentation even if one frame/mat size (the largest required) were used for all the prints. Being all of the same frame size, pictures of varying size could be hung on the same wall with a minimum of distraction.

Though not my personal preference at this time, I am wholly supportive of the archivally acceptable hinge-mounting method, particularly when photographs are printed with a sufficient margin to allow both a signature and overmatting to secure the work against its matting. But if the artist him/herself overmats into the picture proper, at least the artist is making the decision, the same as in flush dry mounting, on exactly what defines the visible area of the work. Just make certain to sign and provide provenance (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/photo-business#provenance) somewhere on the print itself.

Something else to chew on...

[Ed Kelsey]

How about giving up this stodgy old standard of matting and putting prints under glass ?

Try getting a Lightjet print made with Fujiflex Supergloss and having it face mounted to acrylic. Or get a dye infused metal print made.

Neither need a mat or glazing and can still be framed if you wish.

[Vaughn]

If the acrylic gets scratched, can one re-facemount the print to a new piece of acrylic?

[Ed Kelsey]

No but there are acrylic polishes that will remove fine scratches. Metal prints are pretty much scratch proof unless you take a sharp object to them.

[ROL]

Metal prints are pretty much scratch proof unless you take a sharp object to them.

Oh great. Thanks for implanting that thought into my mind. :eek:

[patrickjames]

Obviously at this point in the thread it is easy to see there is no right way to matt a print. I personally prefer a little more space on the bottom like many people do. For whatever reason it just seems more balanced. Back in the day when I first started matting prints I usually centered the window on the matt but allowed space around the image and space for the signature so, in effect, the image was slightly high visually because of the signature even though the window was cut centered. Now I cut matts off center and matt all the way into the image so there is no space around the image. As a result, I don't sign the front of prints anymore.

One thing to mention here is that the vast majority of people don't really care how a print is matted or framed. They just accept it unless you do something totally wacky.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Again, a thread without a single correct answer.

I actually think there were numerous correct answers!

[Merg Ross]

I actually think there were numerous correct answers!

Thanks, we are in agreement!