Mat Size vs. Mount Size

[Justin Roxbrough]

I've been making a lot of prints at 8x10 and I enjoy the look of an 8x10 print with a 16x20 mat. I'm wondering if it's at all logical to mount my 8x10s to a small board that is still overmatted with a 16x20 board rather than using two 16x20s. My thinking being I'd save some supplies and also have the ability to jump down to a smaller overmat if I was inclined to do so. What do you all think? Thanks.

[Eric Woodbury]

You are right. 16x20 is a lot of bulk to store. You can use a small board, a 2-ply board, or no board for the 8x10. There are many styles of mounting and framing, as you are about to find out.

Justin, nice to see somebody from SLO.

[Jim Noel]

13x16 gives you 3 boards from a full sheet of board, with only 1" of waste. Most economical size I know of for 8x10 prints.

[tgtaylor]

I gradually came to eschew the coast factor and instead focused on the presentation and now mount 8x10 contact prints 14x17 (esp vertical) and 5x7 alt contact prints that leave the brushing showing to 13x16. The former cost a little more but to me the look is worth it.

Thomas

[John Olsen]

13x16 gives you 3 boards from a full sheet of board, with only 1" of waste. Most economical size I know of for 8x10 prints.

I agree with Jim, or close to it. I've standardized on 13x15 1/2 for verticals and 13x15 for horizontals. Cutting out of 32x40 sheets, this is very efficient.

[Pieter]

How are you attaching the smaller board to the larger mat? Will it hold up over time? And sandwiched in a frame, might the larger mat distort (curve inward) with the uneven thickness caused by having a smaller board attached to it?

[Justin Roxbrough]

Good points Pieter. I'll stick with 16x20 over 16x20. In the cases that I do want a smaller mat, I'll likely go with Jim's 13x16 recommendation. Thanks all for the input.

[Vaughn]

I gradually came to eschew the coast factor and instead focused on the presentation and now mount 8x10 contact prints 14x17 (esp vertical) and 5x7 alt contact prints that leave the brushing showing to 13x16. The former cost a little more but to me the look is worth it.

Thomas

I found that out -- all my 16x10s were matted to 20x24 back in my early years -- not enough space...I prefer 24x28.

But 16x20 for 8x10 prints.

[tgtaylor]

I found that out -- all my 16x10s were matted to 20x24 back in my early years -- not enough space...I prefer 24x28.

For 16x20's I went to 22x28.

[Doremus Scudder]

I buy my mat boards pre-cut, so no worries about waste (except for the window cut-outs...).

I like 14x18-inch boards for 8x10 and smaller prints as well as panorama prints in the 5x12-inch range.

My prints on 11x14-inch paper (max. 10x13, but varying dimensions) are mounted on 16x20 board.

Prints made on 16x20 paper (15x19 or smaller, varying dimensions) go on 24x28-inch board, like Vaughn does (I, too mounted on 20x24 board first and found it a bit cramped).

Best,

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

I standardize on 22X26 for 16X20's. So unless I've purchased pre-cut 22X28 and cut that down a bit, it would leave an 18" scrap left over from a 32 X 40 inch standard full sheet. So I use 18X22 for everything smaller than nominal 16X20 prints. The smaller the print, the wider the margin seems to work to call attention to it. With big prints, too wide a margin gets distracting. For 20X24 prints I use a 26X31 mount. Why this size instead of 26X32? It seems that a full sheet of board toward the outside of the stack almost always gets a bit dinged in shipping, so I want to potentially trim it down a tad. All these mount dimensions apply to white black and white print borders. I do things somewhat But if you note what I've listed, it means that I only need to keep on hand a few standardized sections of moulding in order to assemble the full range of frame sizes, namely, 18", 22", 26", and 31". My color print needs are different because I mainly make 20x24 or 30X40 color prints, or in the past, a lot of 11X14's.

[Vaughn]

For 16x20's I went to 22x28.

I tried that...it looked good for my verticals, by the proportions looked odd to my eye with my horizontal images...adding those two inches solved that for me.

Like Doremus, my actual image size was close to 15x19, and I would cut a window that was slightly larger than 16x20 (used later for 8x10s!), and dry mount the silver gelatin print to the backboard so it is floating in the opening (1/2 inch on 3 sides, 3/4" space at the bottom.) Sample below...

For one reason or another, and depending on the medium, for my own work I prefer to see the entire image rather than have the window determine it. Subject to change, material on hand, amt of smoke in the air, or other conditions, including sometimes the print just looks better some other way. The second example (4x10 pt/pd) below just went up on the wall -- a quick pic from the gallery...forgot to photograph it before putting it in the frame.

[Bernice Loui]

8x10_ish prints go on 11x14 mat boards.

10x14_ish prints go on 16x20 mat boards.

Smallish gap between over mat, about 1/4" to no more than 1/2" max.

They are dry mounted off center with a bit more space on the bottom to allow for signature, stamp and other related info.

Seen 4x5_ish prints mounted on 8x10 and larger mat board which look good if properly done with an over mat.

One thing to keep in mind, lager the finished -mounted print, more wall space it takes up and print size has an effect on viewing distance.



Bernice

[Pieter]

I tried that...it looked good for my verticals, by the proportions looked odd to my eye with my horizontal images...adding those two inches solved that for me.

Like Doremus, my actual image size was close to 15x19, and I would cut a window that was slightly larger than 16x20 (used later for 8x10s!), and dry mount the silver gelatin print to the backboard so it is floating in the opening (1/2 inch on 3 sides, 3/4" space at the bottom.) Sample below...

For one reason or another, and depending on the medium, for my own work I prefer to see the entire image rather than have the window determine it. Subject to change, material on hand, amt of smoke in the air, or other conditions, including sometimes the print just looks better some other way. The second example (4x10 pt/pd) below just went up on the wall -- a quick pic from the gallery...forgot to photograph it before putting it in the frame.
Do you trim the prints flush before dry mounting, or leave the white paper border?

[Vaughn]

Trimmed to the image ...usually slicing off 1/64" of the image. Although occasionally the easel (or board) would not be square or something, and I'd need to trim a little more off the print to make the sides parallel. It is not a time-saving way to mount, and of course, not reversable, not preferred by museums, but looks so dang good. I printed with about a 1/2 inch border to make handling the paper easier.

[Vaughn]

Trimmed to the image ...usually slicing off 1/64" of the image. Although occasionally the easel (or board) would not be square or something, and I'd need to trim a little more off the print to make the sides parallel. It is not a time-saving way to mount, and of course, not reversable, not preferred by museums, but looks so dang good. I printed with about a 1/2 inch border to make handling the paper easier.

Hopefully this image is easy enough to see -- I sign the mat the print is dry-mounted to. I use the same 4-ply for front and back.

[Pieter]

Trimmed to the image ...usually slicing off 1/64" of the image. Although occasionally the easel (or board) would not be square or something, and I'd need to trim a little more off the print to make the sides parallel. It is not a time-saving way to mount, and of course, not reversable, not preferred by museums, but looks so dang good. I printed with about a 1/2 inch border to make handling the paper easier.

Hopefully this image is easy enough to see -- I sign the mat the print is dry-mounted to. I use the same 4-ply for front and back.

Interesting that museums don't like that method. I guess it is the dry-mounting. But I have seen any number of classic prints in museums mounted like that.

[Drew Wiley]

Please don't claim you know what museums like or don't like, as if everybody that works in one has the same opinion as one another. Their job is to conserve what the artist did, not substitute their own decisions about mounting and borders and so forth unless some improper material risks long-term damage to the image. I trim the white borders off every single one of my silver prints before drymounting them, and precisely where I want the final edges to be, and not according to any rote formula.
Same goes for the exact positioning of the print on the mount. It's integral to the overall composition. But a popular custom with hand-coated Pt/Pd etc prints onto watercolor paper, which has character on its own, is to leave the torn (not cut) edges exposed, and hinge the print from behind, and even let the paper wrinkle a little. That requires a thicker window mat. It's all about the esthetics, which is ultimately a personal choice. And if there were a taboo about drymounting, museums would have to throw away about 80% of their 20th C silver gelatin collections.
And Bernice - I'll mount 8x10 prints or any other size onto whatever dimension mount I damn well wish, if I think that is what complements the image best. Please don't rat me out to the Inquisition. I wouldn't survive getting sliced up by a matcutter myself. Didn't Hitchcock do a movie about that once?

[Vaughn]

Mostly due to ease of washing/cleaning the print and/or for transferring the work to a new mat if needed in the next few hundred years. There are so many varieties of methods and reasons for each method. One positive aspect of dry-mounting is that it protects the print from any contamination from the back side -- nicely sealed. In another thread or a different forum, showed a portfolio of prints from a presentation box that were all dry-mounted on heavy (handmade) paper, no windows. Very nice.

Frankly, I am glad I have gone to alt processes and away from the need or desire to dry-mount. It is work one must be highly focused on. Cutting my own window mats, 4-ply and 8-ply, is enough.

PS...If one does trim to the image area, it does leave the edges open to damage.

PS -- A preference is a far cry from a dislike, Drew.

[Drew Wiley]

Drymounted edges are actually reinforced to a considerable degree because they're directly bonded to something tougher and largely impervious to moisture, especially in my case because I use a more precise method of drymounting than most folks do, but won't go into detail here. Then there's the fact that handling involves the mat being touched rather than the print itself, which is precisely why some conservators prefer it that way. But mounted prints also take up more storage space, so there's that issue. Otherwise, like I said, most hand-coated emulsions simply look better not drymounted. And there are technical issues why color prints are not heat mounted.

[Drew Wiley]

Think I misinterpreted what Bernice was implying. My apologies, Bernice. I was interrupted by the door. My order of AN glass for my 8x10 cold light enlarger just arrived from ScanTech, and I couldn't wait to check it out, so rushed it to the darkroom. A different variety than I've seen before; looks like a high quality product.

[Vaughn]

Drymounted print edges mounted like mine are usually safe -- they are below the level of the window. One still has to be careful with corners of other mats and such -- and with normal care, one should not flake off a little bit of the emulsion on the cut edge of a silver gelatin print, But I have demonstrated the possibilities of that for myself a few times. But it is amazing what a little spot tone can do -- just have to be more careful because the paper will absorb the Spot toner quickly without the emulsion there...and it seems it is more noticible in the deep blacks...easier to spot at least.

[Merg Ross]

Please don't claim you know what museums like or don't like, as if everybody that works in one has the same opinion as one another. Their job is to conserve what the artist did, not substitute their own decisions about mounting and borders...... I trim the white borders off every single one of my silver prints before drymounting them, and precisely where I want the final edges to be, and not according to any rote formula.

Thanks, Drew. I have never had a museum voice concern regarding drymounted prints. They were purchasing exactly what they saw, drymounted silver gelatin prints on 4/ply board. I have not sold a print presented differently, from my first sale to George Eastman House in 1959 to the present day. It is simply the way my work looks best, always drymounted.

[Doremus Scudder]

Trimmed to the image ...usually slicing off 1/64" of the image. Although occasionally the easel (or board) would not be square or something, and I'd need to trim a little more off the print to make the sides parallel. It is not a time-saving way to mount, and of course, not reversable, not preferred by museums, but looks so dang good. I printed with about a 1/2 inch border to make handling the paper easier.

Hopefully this image is easy enough to see -- I sign the mat the print is dry-mounted to. I use the same 4-ply for front and back.

What Vaughn, Drew, Merg and others here do is exactly what I do. Print borders are important to me, so are trimmed to exactly where I want them. IM-HO, the bottom mat board, to which the print is dry mounted, is part of the art work and is carefully chosen for color and texture. I don't want someone else choosing that for me. Window mats are hinged on with archival linen tape, which can be removed and the window mat replaced if necessary (with a matching board, of course!).

Best,

Doremus

[Vaughn]

Unfortunately, the mat board I used for years is no longer made. Natural White was the color I used from Light Impressions back in the good old days (4-ply and 8-ply). Just slightly warm off-white without be yellowish at all. Cut nicely, too.

[Drew Wiley]

I'd have to look through my samples, Vaughn, to see if there's a match. I once used a lot of that Natural White for color prints, but not for black and white. I do have a leftover stack of 15-1/2 x 18" 4-ply pieces if that would be of any use to you.

[Vaughn]

They would be, Drew. Let me know what you have and we'll work something out. I used Bright White for B&W silver gelatin prints, but prefer the old Natural White for my warmer alt process prints. I felt my warm highlights were having to compete with the cool brightness of the white board, instead of working together.

[Merg Ross]

They would be, Drew. Let me know what you have and we'll work something out. I used Bright White for B&W silver gelatin prints, but prefer the old Natural White for my warmer alt process prints. I felt my warm highlights were having to compete with the cool brightness of the white board, instead of working together.

Makes perfect sense. Sounds like you were using the Westminster Natural White from Light Impressions. They once sent me some in error and told me to keep it. I used it for my portraits, which were printed on warmer paper than the majority of my black & white work. For that I use 14x17 Bright White. I took a look at my samples, and the Warm White board from Archival Methods is close to the LI Bright White.

[Drew Wiley]

Looks like at least 60 pieces in the stack, Vaughn. Just PM me. I don't know if I have any full 32x40 sheets left or not, or large random scraps. Those are in a different pile in big flat file drawers mixed in with other misc leftovers, which would take some time to sort through.

[neil poulsen]

I noticed something interesting with a couple of Ansel Adams Special Edition prints that I purchased decades ago. The under-mat was sized to 13.5" x 16.5". A standard size over-mat that John Sexton uses is 14" x 17", and I'm going to assume that this was the over-mat size anticipated for Special Edition prints.

The Special Edition prints are sold without over-mats. After I created a 14"x17" over-mat, the difference in dimensions allowed a latitude of 1/4" in any direction to perfectly fit the print in the appropriate location in the over-mat opening. The 13.5"x16.5" under-mat size is also large enough to hold the print in place between the backing board (used behind the print) and the over-mat.

Once a print has been mounted on an under-mat, it's tricky to subsequently cut an over-mat of the same size and have it align "perfectly" with the print. Under sizing the under-mat by a half inch in each dimension resolves this potential difficulty.

I've taken to displaying unframed prints without an over-mat. It's less expensive, and sometimes, a loose over-mat can damage print edges. So, I now under-size my print mats as described above, or at the very least, I trim the under-mat by a half-inch in each dimension just prior to framing.

[Drew Wiley]

It's easy to do so provided the equipment is properly aligned and calibrated. Whenever I goof one it's due to me being exhausted and groggy. And now most serious pro frame shops have computerized matcutters that could turn out hundreds in a row perfectly cut as prescribed. Many of AA's prints I've seen displayed had rather clumsily cut overmats due to improper technique. Sometimes such problems arise because people assume they're starting with properly squared board, yet haven't actually checked it with a square first. Allowing a half inch margin of error is like wondering whether or not you can hit a bull with a 12ga shotgun from 3ft away. What I'd really like to have is a non-computerized Esterly Speedmat machine; but I can't justify the expense, so I'll stick with my ole linear cutter for awhile. It might outlast me.

[Sal Santamaura]

I noticed something interesting with a couple of Ansel Adams Special Edition prints that I purchased decades ago. The under-mat was sized to 13.5" x 16.5"...The Special Edition prints are sold without over-mats...There have been many mounting variations over time. The earliest ones I bought around 40 years ago were dry mounted to heavy paper. My most recent one came mounted on 14x17 4-ply board and had a same-size window over mat debossed with Adams' signature.