Matting 30x40" prints

[claudiocambon]

Hi folks,

I have a few questions about matting 30x40" prints, a size I've never printed and matted before.

What size is a "standard" mat for that print size? If I mat 16x20" prints onto 20x24" board, that's a 2ish inch border on all sides. So, should I have a 4-5 inch border on all sides and mat up to 40x50" for a standard mat size? (I have to match in overall size two paintings that will be about 40x50", but the collector does not want me to print the photo to match the image size of the paintings.) I should add that I hate mats that look skinny, and others that look too fat; I'm assuming there is a middle of the road range.

What do people think looks better at this size: 4 ply or 8 ply bevel cut windows?

Also, do people have an opinion on whether the print should be fully affixed to a backing board, or just tacked in with photo corners? Again, I'm not sure if the size dictates anything in particular.

Any other special considerations? Thanks!

[Greg Lockrey]

I use a Fibinacci type number for my ratios when I matt. i.e. .15x30=4.5 and/or .15x40=6.0" there abouts. Good luck in finding a matt board that size though unless you matt with cut corners like an extended frame. Something like that would probably have to be 8 ply. A print that size looks better fully mounted albeit it is not considered archival. You might find something larger in the big cities, but not in these parts. :o

[eric black]

I have purchased archival museum quality mat boards in up to 40x60 at local art/framing stores, so they are available (at least in Wash DC area) and I would think thicker would be better for what you are doing. With this you should be ble to get a 5 inch border around the print which I think would suffice. The bigger the print, the more I like it to sit perfectly flat- I personally mount all of my work permanently using a Coda cold mounting system. Its not archival by any means but works well for those of us who will likely never be considered an "Ansel".

[Bruce Watson]

What size is a "standard" mat for that print size? If I mat 16x20" prints onto 20x24" board, that's a 2ish inch border on all sides. So, should I have a 4-5 inch border on all sides and mat up to 40x50" for a standard mat size? (I have to match in overall size two paintings that will be about 40x50", but the collector does not want me to print the photo to match the image size of the paintings.) I should add that I hate mats that look skinny, and others that look too fat; I'm assuming there is a middle of the road range.

An art dealer who did a large amount of work with museums taught me that there is no standard size for large prints. He'd been doing this for 25 years or so and was a clever guy. He'd tried just about everything. He said the only thing he knew that would actually work every time was to lay the full sized print out on the floor (spotlessly cleaned floor of course), get a stack of copier paper and a ruler, and fold the copier paper into boarder sizes. So, like 5" boarders. Place it all around like a matte board. Then get a chair, stand on it, look down at the print and your "border" and decide if it works or not. Often you'll want a little more thickness at the bottom of the print, say an extra half inch or an inch. But you have to try it and see. And it's really image dependent -- which is why there aren't any rules-of-thumb that work well.

It's not the answer you want, I know. But if you do enough framing, this is what you'll find out. The old boy's experience is right on the money.


What do people think looks better at this size: 4 ply or 8 ply bevel cut windows?

It depends on the image. I know people who love 8-ply for everything, even framed 8x10s. For me it usually looks out of proportion in the smaller sizes. What it does is call attention to itself. And that's the opposite of what it should do IMHO. It should call attention to the art.

I've used both 4-ply and 8-ply window mattes for prints in the 22 x 28 size range. Boarders around 5.5 inches on average. Both work well, but I prefer the 4-ply mattes even in this larger size. They just look closer to "right" whatever that means.

So again, it's one of those things where you have to try it to see. Sadly, 8-ply matte board is really expensive. So it's not cheap to try it to see.


Also, do people have an opinion on whether the print should be fully affixed to a backing board, or just tacked in with photo corners? Again, I'm not sure if the size dictates anything in particular.

Ain't no way a print that big is going to be successfully supported by photo corners. Either hinge mount via the Library of Congress method, (http://www.loc.gov/preserv/care/mat.html) or dry mount it.


Any other special considerations? Thanks!

Conventional framing this size is really expensive. It's also really heavy and difficult to hang. This makes glass a problem too -- if you drop the frame and break the glass you usually also destroy the art work and bleed all over the floor too. This is why many curators will only use acrylic glazing like OP-3 UV blocking glazing. If you hit it hard enough to break the OP-3, everything is done for anyway.

This is why I don't do conventional framing at this size anymore. Any size above 20x24 inches I push to be printed on canvas that I stretch over stretcher bars like you would an oil painting. The presentation is better IMHO because you don't have the huge reflection problem of the glazing. It's way cheaper than conventional framing. It's lighter weight and easier to handle and hang. If you stretch using a "gallery wrap" (staples in the back where they can't be seen) you can even hang it as is without a frame. Or you can put it in any conventional frame you'd use for an oil painting. Or my personal favorite -- a floater frame (if you gallery wrap), which is still cheaper than a conventional photography frame and looks better to my eyes.

All that said, you are the one doing the work, and your client is the one you have to satisfy. There are many options; I'm just pointing out a few that you might not have considered yet. Clearly YMMV.

[catshaver]

As far as border size is concerned, I like the look of less mat. It makes the image look bigger. For my 15" square prints, I mat them to 20x20. I have matted them larger, but the images look smaller with larger borders. For the very large prints you suggest, I should think that a 4" border would be fine.
8-ply mat is very pricey. I would opt for a double mat of 4ply instead. This way you can cut the mat yourself without much trouble. Most artists I know pay to have their 8ply cut for them for around $40 plus the cost of the mat.

[tmastran]

I wrote a program that helps me visualize what the proportions of framed artwork will look like. I also use it to convey to framing shops what I want. Here's a screen shot showing the software with dimensions of a recent work I had made. Currently the art work is represented by the gray region. Eventually I'd like to replace this with a thumbnail of the actual art work.

[Drew Wiley]

The most annoying thing to me is when frame shops get lazy and simply cut all the mat
borders equal. I like the bottom border wider than the top. But I do all my own framing
anyway. For me it is more cost effective to print a 30x40 a little undersize so that I
can take advantage of standard 32x40 sheets of mounting board and matboard. This is
an easier size to ship too. Large color prints look like crap if they aren't firmly mounted
and smooth. I use Gatorboard (sanded) or Ultraboard, MacTac Permamount, and a high
pressure roller device. There's a distinct learning curve to this, so I'd recommend a
professional. Black-and-white fiber-based prints are drymounted. This is all essentially
as "archival" as you're going to get if you expect anyone to actually display a large print on a wall. It's less expensive to put a clear adhesive laminate directly over the
print and skip the mat altogether, but then you're definitely over the line in terms of what is and is not "archival". Just depends on your market and what look you like. I
prefer the print fully dressed.