Using standard frame sizes without sacrificing mount or image dimensions

[ashaughnessy]

All my mounted and framed prints currently have custom made mounts and frames. I'd like to move to using standard sized frames to reduce cost and increase convenience but I'm aware that this can either mean asymmetrical mounts (e.g. sides thicker than top and bottom or vice versa) or significant cropping of the image area. Has anyone else managed to do this and achieve a successful compromise?

My pictures are either 3/2 or 4/3 aspect ratio (APS-C or m4/3 sensors). I make prints between A4 and A3+.

Anthony

[PeterAit]

I would never crop a photo to suit a frame because the "proper" crop is an important element of presentation. If you use metal frames, the sections are available in any size you could want and I have never seen a discount for buying a lot of one particular size. I have standardized on several frame sizes with different aspect ratios and one of them has, so far, been a close match to all my photos.

[BradSmith]

.....My pictures are either 3/2 or 4/3 aspect ratio (APS-C or m4/3 sensors). I make prints between A4 and A3+.

Anthony

Those are your sensor ratios.  Do you crop your images at all?  If you crop, do you maintain the 3/2 or 4/3 ratios?
Answers to your question may depend on this information.
Brad 

[ashaughnessy]

Most of the time I don't crop, hence why I quoted the sensor ratios. Obviously if I crop I'll have to accept it will be an arbitrary size.
Anthony

[DeanChriss]

All my mounted and framed prints currently have custom made mounts and frames. I'd like to move to using standard sized frames to reduce cost and increase convenience but I'm aware that this can either mean asymmetrical mounts (e.g. sides thicker than top and bottom or vice versa) or significant cropping of the image area. Has anyone else managed to do this and achieve a successful compromise?

My pictures are either 3/2 or 4/3 aspect ratio (APS-C or m4/3 sensors). I make prints between A4 and A3+.

Anthony

IMO it's impossible to use standard frame sizes without sacrificing mount or image dimensions. If you compose for a "standard" aspect ratio when you capture the image you'll probably end up with less compromise more of the time. Even so, images don't come in standard aspect ratios, so forcing them all into one results in undesirable compromises much of the time.

I agree completely with Peter. If you come up with a few standard aspect ratios of your own, like the 3/2 or 4/3 you mention, most of your images will work well with one of them. For instance I've been using 1:2, 2:3, 4:5, and 1:1, but I still make an occasional odd one-off size when none of them will work. Having a set of "standards" allows more re-use of frames if needed and usually allows you to use an aspect ratio that works well with your images. Your high costs may have more to do with "custom made mounts and frames" than the sizes you need. If you are willing to do a bit of the work yourself there are many online shops where you can buy matting and framing in any size you want at reasonable prices. If you go that route it's only a matter of assembling the pieces.

[ashaughnessy]

Thanks DeanChriss. I think I've come to similar conclusions on my blog. I do do my own mounting, mostly because I enjoy it and it's satisfying. If I do get some more frames made I'll have a look for web sites that make aluminium frames which I can disassemble and reassemble. I currently have some like that and I have had call to swap prints between them but fortunately I had mounted them to the same size.
Anthony

[BradSmith]

My pictures are either 3/2 or 4/3 aspect ratio (APS-C or m4/3 sensors). I make prints between A4 and A3+.

Anthony

OK.  If you really want to use "standard sized frames", I'm afraid you've got to figure this out yourself.  Here's how I'd do it. 
Start with one of the two aspect ratios photos.  For example, 3/2.    Then think about how big you want your image to be.  I usually do this by deciding approximately how large I want my long dimension of the image to be printed.  This also leads me to a paper size to use, because I print on cut sheets, not from a roll.  Then calculate how wide that image would be for that length.   Then identify what "standard" sized frames are available to you with a long dimension that gives you a border that is in the "reasonable range".  Subtract your print long dimension from the frame long dimension, divide by 2 and that will be your long border.  Then subtract your print width dimension from the frame width dimension, divide by 2 and that will be your width border.  Are the resulting borders acceptable to you?  If yes, you're done.  If they are too wide, choose a larger image long dimension and recalculate the resulting image width and then image borders.   Conversely, if the borders are too narrow, choose a smaller print size and recalculate the borders.  If all of these are not to your liking, try this same process for this image with another "standard" frame size that you think might work.

In other words, it is an iterative process based on what you can identify as "standard" frame sizes, the physical dimensions of your printed image and your artistic impression of border widths around your image. 

Easiest way to do this is to create a spreadsheet that does all these calculations for you.  I've attached a screenshot of a spreadsheet I created to do this.  I'm using inches, not metric.  There are 2 ways of using it.  In the top part, you input image dimension in pixels.  Then just below that, it shows various print dimensions and the resulting borders for several "standard" frame sizes available to me.   At the very bottom is another way of approaching the problem.  You input  the print's  long dimension and frame size.  It calculates the borders.

[davemiller]

I doubt that i've ever made a picture that didn't need cropping for impact, so working within the confines of fixed ratios doesn't work for me.
I use standard frames and mount with equal borders top and sides and slightly wider on the base. Keep it simple works for me. 

[ashaughnessy]

Sorry Dave, I don't understand that - you don't want to be constrained to fixed ratios, but you use standard frames?

[BradSmith]

Sorry Dave, I don't understand that - you don't want to be constrained to fixed ratios, but you use standard frames?

Dave was referring to his image sizes being non-constrained, ie, he crops his image so the image looks best, then uses a standard frame.  He then matts it so that his sides and top are the same, and the bottom is whatever it is.

[BobShaw]

The only time I use a standard size mount is if I am entering a competion requiring a 16 x 20" or 400 x 500 mm size. Any other time a symetrical custom mount is the way to go.

There is hardly ever a time that I would not crop an image to some extent.

[ashaughnessy]

Yes, I've ended up at that conclusion - I'll stick with custom sizes, though at least when I haven't cropped I can standardise on the 3/2 or 4/3 aspect ratios.
Anthony

[JimAscher]

Dave was referring to his image sizes being non-constrained, ie, he crops his image so the image looks best, then uses a standard frame.  He then matts it so that his sides and top are the same, and the bottom is whatever it is.

I generally print my pictures for display on standard 13-inch by 19-inch paper (which only means that the -- usually cropped -- photos themselves are variously smaller in size and ratio than that paper size and ratio).  I then mount the prints on 16-inch by 20-inch mat board and drop them into (fairly-inexpensive) frames that are designed for that size mat.  With, as Brad elucidates, the top and side borders being equal, it's the bottom border that is variable, usually larger (which is good for inscribing the captions -- and name of photographer).