PDA

View Full Version : Need help picking frame



Chris Strobel
16-May-2007, 11:32
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

http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/78889164/original.jpg

Ole Tjugen
16-May-2007, 12:10
You think too much.

Go for the one on the right.

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

Ron Marshall
16-May-2007, 12:16
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
16-May-2007, 12:20
You think too much.



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

Vaughn
16-May-2007, 12:21
You think too much.

Go for the one on the right.

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

...or not enough :p

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
16-May-2007, 13:35
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
16-May-2007, 15:15
I agree with Jerome, the one on the left with some "bottom weighting" would be my choice.

brian steinberger
16-May-2007, 15:39
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
16-May-2007, 16:31
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
16-May-2007, 18:09
Ok here it is per Jims dimensions, weighted on the bottom.Better?


http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/78903695/original.jpg


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

Doug Dolde
16-May-2007, 18:15
Left one looks best to me.

JW Dewdney
16-May-2007, 20:00
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

That's actually a bit of a myth... well, a bit. The reason why an equal-all-sides matte looks LOW in a frame is generally because it IS - there's normally a bit of slop in the rebate and gravity keep the mat low... so the bottom border is fattened up a bit ... so it'll actually look (and BE) even all around.

photographs42
16-May-2007, 20:52
That's actually a bit of a myth... well, a bit. The reason why an equal-all-sides matte looks LOW in a frame is generally because it IS - there's normally a bit of slop in the rebate and gravity keep the mat low... so the bottom border is fattened up a bit ... so it'll actually look (and BE) even all around.

???
With all due respect, visual balance is not a “myth”.
Jerome

JW Dewdney
17-May-2007, 02:24
???
With all due respect, visual balance is not a “myth”.
Jerome

balance is in the eye of the beholder. Anyway- an old gallerist in new york told me about this - he was VERY into framing. Seems like a plausible theory to me. Most mattes with an eighth or more added look way out of whack to me. But some people like the artificial thickness added on the bottom - to give the impression of 'weight' below the image. Anyway - all I was trying to imply originally - was that this was a framer's adjustment that began as 'slop compensation' for shifting mattes... but I think, through hearsay, became it's own sort of myth. But lots of people like that. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. I just think, especially in light of this fact, that it gets overdone in most cases.

photographs42
17-May-2007, 07:13
balance is in the eye of the beholder. Anyway- an old gallerist in new york told me about this - he was VERY into framing. Seems like a plausible theory to me. Most mattes with an eighth or more added look way out of whack to me. But some people like the artificial thickness added on the bottom - to give the impression of 'weight' below the image. Anyway - all I was trying to imply originally - was that this was a framer's adjustment that began as 'slop compensation' for shifting mattes... but I think, through hearsay, became it's own sort of myth. But lots of people like that. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. I just think, especially in light of this fact, that it gets overdone in most cases.

I agree. Visual anything is “in the eye of the beholder”. Why else would there be black velvet art?

Still, there are certain aspects of design that most people agree on. The ancient Greeks took the “visual compensation” issue to an elaborate level. Many of the classic rules of design were worked out in painstaking detail based on what “looked” right in terms of scale and proportion and there are many visual “tricks” in common use in classical architecture.

As to the bottom weighting issue, yes, it’s overdone in many cases. I concluded many years ago that a difference of about ¼” is a good rule of thumb…. for my eye. I’m not trying to establish myself as “the” authority but I have been matting and framing art since 1967. I started doing photography and matting and framing my own work in 1980. I realize that the fact that I’ve done it for so long doesn’t make my opinion any more valid than anyone else’s, but I have also studied design and have been an Architect for 40 years. Design is what I do every day and visual balance is a huge part of that.

Jerome :) :) :)

Dawid
17-May-2007, 12:36
Well, well. To continue this debate on bottom weighting...

I got taught this principle in school woodworking - when making a panel. Usually you'd look down at an angle towards a panel of say a cabinet, door etc. With the bottom frame being further from and at a more acute angle to the eye you will need to make the bottom part of the frame wider for it to appear equal to the top one. This would not happen when framing a picture because you'll most probably hang it on eye level with both top and bottom parts of the frame almost the same distance from the eye.

Bottom weighting then ( to me anyway ) is purely personal preference.

cheers
Dawid