Need help picking frame

[Chris Strobel]

Hi, ok I have narrowed down my mat and frame size for 16x20 prints to either 25x29 (the size I believe Ansel used), or 24x29.They are of course very close, and I'm going nuts trying to decide.If you have a second could you have a look at my scaled example below and chime in on which you think looks better.This is for wall hanging not portfolio.Thanks!

Chris

[Ole Tjugen]

You think too much.

Go for the one on the right.

Edit: I've looked at them now, and I agree with me.

[Ron Marshall]

I find the 24x29 places very slightly more emphasis on the image as oposed to the mat than is the case with the 25x29. Therefore my preference is for the 24x29 so as not to detract from the image.

[Chris Strobel]

You think too much.

Hmmm..............one more thing to think about

[Vaughn]

You think too much.

Go for the one on the right.

Edit: I've looked at them now, and I agree with me.

...or not enough

How about hortizontal images? For example, a 16x20 vertical looks fine on the "standard" size of 22x28, but not hortizontals -- so I go with 24x28 for both.

But for the vertical image shown, I'd go with Ole's choice.

vaughn

[photographs42]

Of the two, the one on the left looks better to me, however, it looks like the mat is equal all around. My real preference is to have an equal mat on the top and sides and a slightly wider mat on the bottom. This is an ancient custom of bottom weighting, which makes the mat “look” equal all around, gives a better visual balance to the mat.

Jerome

[Dawid]

I agree with Jerome, the one on the left with some "bottom weighting" would be my choice.

[brian steinberger]

You're talking a difference of a 1/2" off each side. Not many people are going to notice that. I am actually a framer by profession, and prefer even borders on all sides (easy when you're cutting custom frames) but I actually prefer the one on the right. The smaller borders on the sides make the vertical presentation more bold.

But what really matters is which one YOU like better....

[jim kitchen]

Dear Chris,

Your image looks great, but I would like to suggest that you balance them just a bit differently, and you should adjust your mount board size. In the past and going forward, my finished 16X20 images are mounted and matted as follows, where all measurements are measured from the edge of the finished image:

My images are mounted:

Top: 3 1/2"
Left and right sides: 3 1/2"
Bottom: 4 1/2"

Portrait mount board size: 28"X23" (hxw)
where,

20" + 3 1/2" + 4 1/2" = 28"
16" + 3 1/2" + 3 1/2" = 23"

Landscape mount board size: 24"X27" (hxw)
where,

16" + 3 1/2" + 4 1/2" = 24"
20" + 3 1/2" + 3 1/2" = 27"

My mattes are cut to the following:

Top: 1/2"
Left and right sides: 1/2"
Bottom: 1"

These dimensions apply to all of my portrait and landscape orientations. I believe that an image should be presented with a balanced top, and equally balanced sides, and where the bottom of the finished image should allow enough room for your signature.

jim k

[Chris Strobel]

Ok here it is per Jims dimensions, weighted on the bottom.Better?

Dear Chris,

Your image looks great, but I would like to suggest that you balance them just a bit differently, and you should adjust your mount board size. In the past and going forward, my finished 16X20 images are mounted and matted as follows, where all measurements are measured from the edge of the finished image:

My images are mounted:

Top: 3 1/2"
Left and right sides: 3 1/2"
Bottom: 4 1/2"

Portrait mount board size: 28"X23" (hxw)
where,

20" + 3 1/2" + 4 1/2" = 28"
16" + 3 1/2" + 3 1/2" = 23"

Landscape mount board size: 24"X27" (hxw)
where,

16" + 3 1/2" + 4 1/2" = 24"
20" + 3 1/2" + 3 1/2" = 27"

My mattes are cut to the following:

Top: 1/2"
Left and right sides: 1/2"
Bottom: 1"

These dimensions apply to all of my portrait and landscape orientations. I believe that an image should be presented with a balanced top, and equally balanced sides, and where the bottom of the finished image should allow enough room for your signature.

jim k