Mat size for 16 x 20 print

[Steve Sample]

What is considered the "usual" mat size for a 16" x 20" print? I used a 24" x 28" size mat and frame and it takes up to much wall space and dominates the photo. It seems that a 20" x 24 would be better?

Of course the real answer to the question is probably; what do you like? I haven't seen anything else that I can remember.

Before I re-size I will appreciate some feed back on what most of you use? Thanks, Steve

[jim kitchen]

Dear Steve,

Attached is a PDF illustrating my basic requirements for any mounted and matted image, since this document hangs above my framer's work station, and where these dimensions are adhered to no matter what size the image happens to be, and although everyone makes their own esoteric choice, I use this template for consistency across all my images... :)

I find that my images always look balanced within a frame...

I hope it helps.

jim k

[Gem Singer]

Steve, check out these 20"x24" pre-cut mats for 16"x20" prints.

They are made by Archival Methods.

I just received a package of 5 from B&H. They look very nice and are not expensive.

B&H#16202024

[Photomagica]

Steve,
I recommend following Jim Kitchen's advice. For the very best look, avoid using stock frames as the dimensions tend to be a bit off for good proportions or they result in borders that are too narrow. I've seen many of Jim's images and I'm an admirer of the high level of craftsmanship he brings to his art.

If the dimensions that Jim's document suggests make the frame too large for your wall, adopt the same scheme of keeping the side and top borders the same and the bottom a bit wider and narrow all as appropriate - but not too much.

A better plan, where the the image and frame are too large on the wall, it is to print a smaller image for that wall and have everything, wall, frame, mat and image in good harmonious proportion, rather than having one element out of step.
Cheers,
Bill

[J D Clark]

I think 20x24 appears a little cramped, and prefer 22x28. A few years ago I surveyed web sites of some well-known people that sold prints, and 22x28 was the most-used size for a 16x20 print. Bob Kolbrenner was an exception, using 24x30 mats.

I cut my own mats, but even then, when you go from 20x24 to 22x28, the prices per board go way up.

John Clark
www.johndclark.com

[Greg Miller]

20x24 would be too small for my tastes. 24x28 would be the smallest size that I would use for a 16x20 print.

[bob carnie]

At our frame shop we use a optical center formula.
heavier at the bottom , top and sides equal.

2's and 3's
3's and 4's
4's and 5's

and you can go in-between

You get the idea larger print can handle larger matt but not always the clients consideration.

rarely will we dead nut center an image in a matt.

In the long run for framing a standard size will save you lots of money.

[Sal Santamaura]

22x28.

[SergeyT]

Depends on the frame.
Take your pic, mat and frame into PS keeping the proporitions and play with it to see what you like.
16x20 (15x19 print with .5" white borders) matted (8-ply) to 20x24 is quite clean and nice looking in a thin black frame

[jim kitchen]

Dear Bill,

Your finished images were not shabby either... :)

How the heck are you?

jim k

[Steve Gledhill]

My practice is very similar to Jim's. Specifically I don't used fixed sizes but mats and frames cut to fit the picture. I know this is more expensive and time consuming but for me an image that I choose to mat and frame deserves to be treated individually rather than be fitted into some standard size. Of course, if I'm preparing a set where consistency of size is a presentation constraint, for example where pictures are boxed or inserted into an album, then I'll use a fixed size.

[Steve Sample]

Thanks everyone for the good guidance. I have a bit of artistic visualization to do. The idea of a wider bottom on the mat had not occurred to me. Steve

[Steve Sample]

I think 20x24 appears a little cramped, and prefer 22x28. A few years ago I surveyed web sites of some well-known people that sold prints, and 22x28 was the most-used size for a 16x20 print. Bob Kolbrenner was an exception, using 24x30 mats.

I cut my own mats, but even then, when you go from 20x24 to 22x28, the prices per board go way up.

John Clark
www.johndclark.com

John,

Do you center your 16 x 20 images in the 22 x 28 size mat? If you offset them as recommended by some in this thread, what are the dimensions? Thanks Steve

[Steve Sample]

At our frame shop we use a optical center formula.
heavier at the bottom , top and sides equal.

2's and 3's
3's and 4's
4's and 5's

and you can go in-between

You get the idea larger print can handle larger matt but not always the clients consideration.

rarely will we dead nut center an image in a matt.

In the long run for framing a standard size will save you lots of money.

Bob, Are the examples in your reply ratios? For example, 2' and 3's to me, mean 2 feet x 3 feet? I didn't understand how to relate this to the optical center formula you mentioned? Thanks, Steve

[Roger Thoms]

Dear Steve,

Attached is a PDF illustrating my basic requirements for any mounted and matted image, since this document hangs above my framer's work station, and where these dimensions are adhered to no matter what size the image happens to be, and although everyone makes their own esoteric choice, I use this template for consistency across all my images... :)

I find that my images always look balanced within a frame...

I hope it helps.

jim k

Jim,

Thanks for posting this template, I found it very helpful. After trying to print and mat to standard frame sizes and not being quite pleased I'm back to custom frames. I also have a tendency to make my mats to large so I found your guidelines helpful.

Roger

[Alan Davenport]

...for a 16" x 20" print? ...what do you like?

I've become a fan of the bottom-weighted mats since I got my own mat cutter. For 16x20 (landscape) I generally use 21x24, with 3" on the bottom. For portrait orientation, 20x25.

[Noah A]

For my 16x20s I use frames that are 22x26. I don't mat though, I mount my prints and print on larger paper so the paper margin serves as a border. My framer makes spacers to keep the print away from the glass.

[Richard M. Coda]

24x28 is minimum for me. Everything else is too cramped and the ratios are off.

[Vaughn]

I have boxes of 16x20 prints dry-mounted and window matted on 20x24. 16x20 on 20x24 suck. The only good thing about 16x20 on 20x24 was that when ants nested in two of my boxes (20 prints each), the loss of the prints did not hit me as hard as it would have otherwise.

22x28 works nicely for verticals, but the borders are not very pleasing to me for horizontals. So I do both on 24x28 for the rare times I have 16x20 prints to mount. Most of my prints are 8x10 and get matted 16x20. The 4x10's are matted 12x16.

[Drew Wiley]

Vaughn - for 16X20 I standardize on 22X26, which seems to work well either vert or
horizontal, and will still fit into a conventional 22x28 box or museum case.

[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]

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/24x28.jpg

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.


http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/20x24.jpg

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]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/24x28.jpg

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.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/20x24.jpg

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

[tgtaylor]

I float-mount 16x20 on 22x28 board by centering the image on the back-board but cutting the window with a 1/4" spacing at the top and sides and 1/2" spacing at the bottom. The wider spacing at the bottom offsets the illusion of the print being bottom weighted while leaving it looked centered on the board and allows enough space for the signature.

Thomas

[Janine]

Hi Jim,

I am an artist who is finally exploring my art :) I am currently working in photography (facebook -- justjaninecreative). I would love to see your framing chart...that you mention in your post from May 2006! Can you share? I don't see the attachment. Thank you! Janine

[sepstein17]

+1 - thanx.

[DGSmith]

Hi Jim,

Do you still have the pdf you mentioned above, and if so would you mind sharing again? Much appreciated advice!

Doug

[NoBob]

Any chance of seeing the PDF too?

Thanks.