A matting question...

[Kimberly Anderson]

So I have a show going up in May through August. It'll be work I did from Sweden two summers ago.

I have a lot of 5x7 two-panel images that I want to frame. I have been thinking that I want to present them in one frame under one matt.

I also want to enlarge the whole negative, edges and all, with a black border.

So...here's what I've mocked up. Yes I will make the prints on an enlarger in a darkroom. I've basically committed to that.

What I am wondering if about the matt dimensions. Are the side/top borders too small at 3 inches? The goal is to stick to a standard 40" board and not deal with anything larger...so if the borders go wider the prints will go smaller.

Here's what I have been thinking...

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/423244_2864503849770_1174959715_32533259_1400283509_n.jpg

Looking for some feedback. These will be printed on Ilford Warm Tone with a white/off white matt board and a black metal or wood simple frame.

[Greg Miller]

Your dimensions aren't too different frompanoramas that I have framed. I think you pushing it about as far as you can, and personally would opt for smaller images with more mat.

[Brian Sims]

I agree with more matt and smaller images. You might want to play around with the black borders...see what it looks like with something more delicate. The example you provided feel like we are looking at the images through Buddy Holly's glasses. Good luck with the project.

[ROL]

A simple way to approach the aesthetic geometries here is to consider all the images to be the dimension of one combined large print (piece). Then adjust based on any rigid frame considerations. If you're into matting at all, the effort of presenting diptychs, triptychs, etc., can be a fascinating process.

BTW, your project is a diptych. Here is an example of a triple–cut window mat for a triptych of mine (center, hanging wall), based on a standard frame size:


http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/SupportPics/WalkROLCFA/WalkROLCFA-8.jpg

The prints are each 5 3/4" X 9 1/2" (small, for me) on 24"X30" mat/frame. See Wildcat Falls Triptych (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/Yosemite/Wildcat+Falls+Triptych.jpg.php).

[bob carnie]

Michael I like the format you have chosen with 3's and 4

I prefer less between the images but just a quirk of mine.

[Vaughn]

I would go for prints about 11x15, 2 inches between the prints, Bottom at 5" and the sides and top 4". Matboard would be 20x40.

And minimum black around the images (max 1/8").

Vaughn

[ROL]

I agree with more matt and smaller images. You might want to play around with the black borders...see what it looks like with something more delicate. The example you provided feel like we are looking at the images through Buddy Holly's glasses. Good luck with the project.

Buddy Holly's glasses... Good one – that'll be the day.:D

[Kimberly Anderson]

This is pretty close. I think 2 inches between the prints is too much. I am sticking with one inch.

And, as far as the dyptich term is concerned, I have always taught that a dyptic is comprised of two images that are designed to be shown together but don't necessarily have shared elements. These images are indeed a two-panel panorama. I wouldn't consider them a diptych.

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/428368_2868223262753_1174959715_32533940_1709004894_n.jpg


I would go for prints about 11x15, 2 inches between the prints, Bottom at 5" and the sides and top 4". Matboard would be 20x40.

And minimum black around the images (max 1/8").

Vaughn

[bob carnie]

Michael

my two cents is the images should be reverse to what you have posted, the energy of each image tells me this... what the hell do I know.. but try interchanging them I think it would work better, and I do agree keeping the space between them close.


bob

[Kimberly Anderson]

Bob, maybe the story behind the image will help... ;)

The empty frame on the left is where my great-great grandfather's homestead was. The rock on the right is where the missionaries came and sat on top and preached to the locals. The orientation of the frames is accurate to the scene.

But...I do have to admit, I want to place the rock on the left even though I know it's not supposed to be that way.

[ROL]

And, as far as the dyptich term is concerned, I have always taught that a dyptic is comprised of two images that are designed to be shown together but don't necessarily have shared elements. These images are indeed a two-panel panorama. I wouldn't consider them a diptych.


Honestly, I wouldn't comment on the images themselves except to say that it is not easy for me tell what the reason for presenting them together might be, that being your decision as "artist". Examining them once again, they do not appear to me, as a casual viewer, to be parts of a panoramic either. I just don't personally get the relationship they have to each other – but that relationship, if it exists, shared elements or not, would make them a photographic diptych.

[Vaughn]

...But...I do have to admit, I want to place the rock on the left even though I know it's not supposed to be that way.

Print them backwards and switch right image with left image...:D

Us carbon printers do it all the time...;)

Vaughn

[Kimberly Anderson]

I'll start pouring tissue in a few minutes...

[cpercy]

I thing the relationship between the images would be much stronger without the black borders. I think leaving the black borders would be much more effective if both of the images much darker overall, but since they are not and you are showing them together the black border tends to cause an unnecessary separation.

[sun of sand]

i like more matte width
to me it looks like it would feel a bit closed especially being so airy

and more middle space