PDA

View Full Version : Is 20x24 frame for 11x14 too much?



Chris Strobel
7-Sep-2006, 10:14
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
7-Sep-2006, 10:27
I frame 11x14 prints (or anything printed on 11x14 paper regardless of the actual final dimensions) in 16x20 frames.

Ron Marshall
7-Sep-2006, 10:36
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
7-Sep-2006, 13:06
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
7-Sep-2006, 13:24
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
7-Sep-2006, 14:20
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
7-Sep-2006, 14:51
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
7-Sep-2006, 16:56
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
7-Sep-2006, 17:23
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
7-Sep-2006, 19:22
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.

Chris Strobel
7-Sep-2006, 19:48
Well here is a scale I did of one of my images with the left one an 11x14 print in a 16x20 frame, and the one on the right in a 20x24 frame.Which one do you guys think works better.

Chris

http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/66484320/original.jpg

alec4444
7-Sep-2006, 19:49
I agree with the mock-up idea. That usually helps me decide. I've liked 11x14 in 16x20, but this is based on the fact that in my hallway where they hang, the audience is forced to be very close to the photograph. If they had the ability to back up 3-4 feet, my choice may change.

That's cool, Chris. I still think it depends on how far away you stand.

--A

Ron Marshall
7-Sep-2006, 20:14
I think the 20x24 looks better because it places more emphasis on the image, while the 16x20 seems to emphasise the frame.

Mark Sampson
8-Sep-2006, 05:47
It really depends on where the print will hang. This is an interesting thread. I've always used 16x20 mats, but now I'll have to check out the 20x24 idea.

shadow images
8-Sep-2006, 08:52
I would go 20x24. It creates much more emphises on the print and a more pleasing package to the eye. The 11x14 is to crowded. Jmho

Greg Lockrey
8-Sep-2006, 09:51
I believe in using the Fibinacci number whenever I set my ratios because it occurs more in nature, and the 20x24 would be closer to that number with the 11x14 print.

Kirk Gittings
8-Sep-2006, 09:56
Definitely the 20x24. I have gone back and forth on this a little over the years, but the 11x14 on a 16x20 is generous (the other feels crowded) and to me makes a statement about the work.

photographs42
8-Sep-2006, 11:18
Chris,
For 11x14, I would recommend a 4” mat on the top and sides and 4 ¼” on the bottom. The reason for the slightly larger bottom width is that, visually, the bottom has to be wider to look the same.

You don’t indicate whether or not there is a border on the print. I have never liked the look of a mat that doesn’t follow the proportions of the image. When there is a small difference, it looks odd. When the difference is huge, it looks contrived, like the mat is more important than the image.

Above all, there is no reason to limit yourself to a so-called “Standard” size.

Jerome

Here is the image matted as above with a 1/2” frame.
618

Keith Pitman
8-Sep-2006, 11:24
I think Alec makes a good point: It depends, in part, on where it will hang and how close people will have to stand -- too close and you would lose the effect of the larger frame.

Chris Strobel
8-Sep-2006, 15:01
Me likes!Yes there are borders.So far I've printed my 11x14's actual size at 10.5x13.5 as thats what the pre cut mats I've seen say the actual opening is.Interesting note on the bottom width.


Chris,
For 11x14, I would recommend a 4” mat on the top and sides and 4 ¼” on the bottom. The reason for the slightly larger bottom width is that, visually, the bottom has to be wider to look the same.

You don’t indicate whether or not there is a border on the print. I have never liked the look of a mat that doesn’t follow the proportions of the image. When there is a small difference, it looks odd. When the difference is huge, it looks contrived, like the mat is more important than the image.

Above all, there is no reason to limit yourself to a so-called “Standard” size.

Jerome

Here is the image matted as above with a 1/2” frame.
618