Is 20x24 frame for 11x14 too much?

[Chris Strobel]

Hi, I have some 11x14 b&w prints I want to frame.So far I've always done my 8x10's in a 16x20 frame as 11x14 frames seemed to cramped for my 8x10 prints.I've always used thin matte black aluminum frames and white mat.Now that I have some 11x14's worthy of framing I'm not sure if I should go 16x20 or 20x24 on the frames.I've never really seen any 11x14 prints hanging in a gallery, so I have nothing to go by.It seems 16x20 might be a little cramped and 20x24 a bit overwhelming, so I'm looking for some opinions.Subject matter is mostly still life, plants, shells, etc.Thanks!

Chris

[Louie Powell]

I frame 11x14 prints (or anything printed on 11x14 paper regardless of the actual final dimensions) in 16x20 frames.

[Ron Marshall]

I think a frame with dimensions half-way between 16x20 and 20x24 would be ideal, ie. 18x22. But this if from trying to visualise the effect. Why not do a mock-up using cheap wrapping paper or cardboard, at either actual size or scaled to have a better idea.

[Doug Dolde]

I print 13 x 16.25 to max out my R2400 and 20x24 mats look just right. For an actual 11x14 I think 16x20 is OK but barely big enough.

[Harold_4074]

A couple of possible considerations: the subject, and the nature of the image.

It seems that portraits can look fine in frames that would be too small for landscapes or still-lifes; in fact, a small portrait in an enormous mat can look a bit pretentious.

Another factor is the amount of isolation needed between the image and whatever lies beyond the frame. A simple, bold composition doesn't need as much help as something that depends on fine detail and subtle textures. The matting, framing and background play into this as well. A gold-tone aluminum sectional frame, with ivory matting, against a dark brick wall will probably need to be larger than a black frame with a pure white mat against the same wall.

And, of course, there is the matter of where the framed work will be shown; a gallery with nine-foot ceilings is one thing, and the breakfast nook in a small apartment is quite another (contact prints in 5x7 frames, maybe?).

[Capocheny]

My personal preference is for 16x20... but everyone's tastes may not mirror that of your own.

I've only mounted one 11x14 on a 20x24 before and I didn't like it at all... so it went back into a 16x20.

I'd also recommend what Ron suggested... do a few mock-ups and see what works for you!

Cheers

[shadow images]

If you are going to put them in ready mades I would go 20x24. I personal don't like the ready made look and prefer a 3 or 4" mat depending on the print size with a custom frame.

[Dave Krueger]

I frame my 16x20s in a 28"x32" frame and would have no problem going bigger. It depends on how it will look in the wall space you plan on hanging it. White space around a picture always enhances the visual effect. I did an exhibit with 58 such pictures, but I can't speak for galleries in general. If you're hanging it in your house, the only opinion that matters is your own.

-Dave

[JW Dewdney]

I've always felt double the linear dimensions is MINIMUM, though it's a real bear if you're starting off with a big print. So - 8x10 should be in a minimum 16x20 frame. My reasoning for this, is that it allows the image to 'breathe' and the subject matter can be unencumbered by whatever's going on with the frame.

[Keith Pitman]

Try it! Do a mock up on a tabletop with a print and masking tape to outline the 20x24 frame and see if you like it.