Mat size for 16 x 20 print

[Vaughn]

That is an excellent point, Drew. I have to do with the next size up for storage boxes -- and there is lots of extra space in them.

I am looking at one of my 16x20 prints (actual image size is about 15x19, but the hole is a touch over 16x20) matted and framed 24x28, and I like what I see. Lots of nice breathing room around the image.

It is a vertical -- 3.5" top, 4" sides and bottom (this is the width of the window mat border -- not from the edge to the image area). There is 1/2" between the window and the image on the sides and top, and almost an inch on the bottom.

Quick snap with one of my boys' digi cam

Image: Arch, Yosemite National Park

[MumbleyJoe]

Very interesting on all accounts.

Out of curiosity, what is the thought behind bottom-weighting the framing/matting (such as in Jim's excellent PDF)? I have not considered that, but it seems from reading here that it's an established approach.

[Drew Wiley]

I always bottom weight. Paul Frederick over at the SF framing school used to teach
a golden mean proportion to the offset. This get pretty annoying once you try to figure
out just how much of the mat margin is going to disappear behind the frame rabbet anyway. So now I just use a simple 2:3 ratio for 16X20's. When I mount tiny prints
onto a big mat it's more a matter of winging it, just how it strikes me. Remember, it will
look different on a wall at viewing ht than down on the mounting table. Custom framers routinely used keep the bottom margins wider for visual balance. Then they seem to have simply gotten lazy, just so they don't have to adjust the matcutter
again.

[Drew Wiley]

Vaughn - please don't post any of your prints, or you'll make me coveteous. But when
Light Impression was still viable, I would simply order stacks of 22X28 so one cut would
size them down. But you had to make sure they properly squared at least one side
themselves. Now I prefer to buy only full sized Rising 32X40 4-ply rag sheets. After
the 22X26 is removed, the scrap leftover is still big enough for wide-margin small print
work.

[Vaughn]

The print (but in a black frame) is going up in a local show tomorrow, along with a couple more silver gelatins, , four or five carbons, and a group of three platinums -- up for a couple months if you wander up this way. Upstairs at the only surviving camera store in the county.

I ordered 25 32x40 rag boards from LI for a long time -- until their service went south. I would have very few scraps left after I was done with a sheet (that is what's nice about cutting a hole slightly bigger than 16x20!)

[Alan Klein]

I use 24"x28" for my color 16x20's. Looks nice and balances well.

[jeroldharter]

I think 20x24 is the smallest and least expensive mat size. If you are trying to economize, you might print a bit smaller on 16 x 20 paper so you can use 20x24 mat board without being too tight at the margins.

My preference is 22x28 which is somewhat of a standard size but the cost is significantly higher than 20x24. If you are going to mat and frame a lot of 16x20 prints, you will save money but standardizing to one size, regardless of which size you prefer, and then ordering in bulk. You will save more if you buy full sheet mat board and cut it down to size yourself. You will save again if you cut your own window mats.

You will save more if you buy a good mat cutter. I picked up an Esterly Speed Mat wall mounted mat cutter and it is fabulous. If you can find one used at a good enough price, definitely buy one.

I prefer a slight bottom weighting as well.

[Ken Lee]

Above is a 16x20 images with a 24x28 mat and a 1 inch black frame. This is a fairly standard, reliable approach which works for a variety of images.

Above is the same photo with a (smaller) 20x24 mat and (smaller) 1/2 inch black frame. There is less matting, less frame. To my eyes, it's a more effective rendition because the subject comes forward out of the frame and feels more 3-dimensional, more present.

Popping out of the frame is not a universal goal: some images are convex and want you to peer in. However this image seems to benefit from a more "convex" treatment.

With every image, a different treatment may be required. Matting and framing are the last creative steps, no less important than choice of equipment, composition, exposure, development etc.

[Gary Tarbert]

Above is a 16x20 images with a 24x28 mat and a 1 inch black frame. This is a fairly standard, reliable approach which works for a variety of images.

Above is the same photo with a (smaller) 20x24 mat and (smaller) 1/2 inch black frame. There is less matting, less frame. To my eyes, it's a more effective rendition because the subject comes forward out of the frame and feels more 3-dimensional, more present.

Popping out of the frame is not a universal goal: some images are convex and want you to peer in. However this image seems to benefit from a more "convex" treatment.

With every image, a different treatment may be required. Matting and framing are the last creative steps, no less important than choice of equipment, composition, exposure, development etc.

in this instance i agree

[ImSoNegative]

I did a show recently, my prints were 12x18 matted and framed to 20x24, looked really nice