Favored print size? Native resolution or custom dimension?

[Rocco Penny]

Hi and thank you for the space.
Is there such a thing as favored dimensions that printmakers use?
I mean, for instance, a full sheet of matte is 40x32 inches.  It only makes sense that a 16x20 would yield two equal pieces, so I'd expect that frames would be available in 16x20.
So for my native resolution sized prints(14x9) to be able to maintain an even margin of matte,\I have to make custom sized frames?
Now the reason I'm asking isn't because I can't make frames.  I can and do.
The reason I'm asking is because I'm wanting to make pieces that are practical to do.
So, glass, matte, backer, stretchers, frames and of course paper is considerably easier to deal with using  commonly available dimensions or obvious derivatives.
So, what size prints do you like to make?
Thank you for any advice.
Rocco Penny

[dct123]

I'm assuming you are using a digital camera with a standard 4:6 aspect ratio. First, the print does not have to be the same size as the mat. So if you want to print an uncropped photo that fits standard mat/frame sizes, let's say a 12x18 print on 13x19 paper stock, you would use a standard mat size opening of 11.5x17.5 and print a little larger (11.7x17.7). This standard mat opening would have an overall outside mat dimension of 18x24, which is also a standard US frame size.  All materials, glass, frames, mats, etc. are readily available for the 4:6 aspect ratio.

Here's a chart you may find useful:

[framah]

First... a 32x40 piece of mat board will give you 4 pieces at 16x20, not 2.

Second, if you make your own frames then if you can make a 16x20,  you can just as easily make a 12x20 or whatever you want. I disagree with your assumption that it is easier to do this when the materials are in "standard" sizes.  You cut what you need and throw away the scrap. It takes the same amount of time to cut a 16x20 mat as it does to cut a 12x20 mat.
In your attempt to standardize to save time, you stand to lose something of your image or you have to compromise on the mat size so it will fit into the frame.

The image should be the final arbiter of the size needed.  This is the final composition that makes the piece succeed or fail.

I stopped trying to make my images fit a ready made frame about a year after I started shooting.  

What happens when you have an image that doesn't fit your "standard size"?  What do you cut off so it will fit?

As nice as it is to compose your images in the viewfinder, you should never consider it the final step in the composition process.

My print sizes are whatever  the image requires to convey what I want.

[Bruce Watson]

The reason I'm asking is because I'm wanting to make pieces that are practical to do.
So, glass, matte, backer, stretchers, frames and of course paper is considerably easier to deal with using  commonly available dimensions or obvious derivatives.

It's true that all the off-the-shelf framing materials are somewhat easier to use if you stick to "standard" sizes and aspect ratios.

But that's not really the point of photography is it? I think you've got the cart before the horse. The point of photography is the image. The framing has to serve the image -- not the other way around.

To that end I tend to use sizes and aspect ratios that suit my images. I in particular like the golden ratio (about 1:1.618) and tend to see and compose in that ratio a lot. That there are no standard framing supplies to support my efforts doing this doesn't really matter. There are plenty of shops who will cut frame stock to order down to the quarter inch or so. Glazing too. And matte cutting isn't difficult. And once it's done it looks great on the wall and it supports my vision. Extra work? Yes. Worth it? To me, yes.

[bill t.]

I often pick sizes to make best use of available materials, especially frame moulding.  For instance for a 3" wide moulding I can cut two 48" wide sides out a single 114" stick (assuming it's not warped, a fairly big assumption).  So out of three sticks I can cut two 21" x 48" pano frames with low wastage of expensive, high client appeal moulding.  Or one frame roughly 30" x 70" out of two sticks.  Those numbers also work out well for using 4x8 foot mounting board and I suppose if one just has to use them, mattes.  In general I manage less than 10% materials wastage when I frame a lot of stuff at once as for an art fair or large show, which are good times to economize or at least not be profligate.  The 21" vertical dimension is selected to gang print on 44" wide rolls with low waste, etc.

Of course this is not to suggest the absolute size of an image does not important aesthetic consequences.  But in a surprising numbers of cases, buyers will choose BIG aesthetic images over small aesthetic images when the price is right.

[JeffKohn]

I tend to stick to a few fairly standard aspect ratios (3:2, 4:5, and square for regular shots, 3:1 and 2.5:1 for panos). If you only shoot for yourself and are willing to get everything custom-framed, I guess it doesn't matter. If you want to sell of gift unframed prints, sticking to standard sizes is much more practical. Even for myself standard sizes are convenient, because I like to rotate out the prints that I have on display. If every print is is a custom size you can't re-use frames (or at least, not the mats). Common sizes can also give a sense of cohesiveness to a series of prints.

[neile]

I'm mostly with framah for work that I'm selling or donating to various things, although with one slight variation. When printing panoramas I pay particular attention to the size and try to keep the final frame width to 40" or less. Any more than that and my standard sheets of plexi and matboard no longer work and I have to get the Bigger Stuff which costs more and is a pain to keep around in my tiny house. Usually an inconsequential crop can be made to get it to fit.

For my casual work I'll print to whatever size is right to the image, but then mat to a standard size frame. I don't mind so much if the top and bottom are a bit bigger on the mat than the left and right.

Neil

[Thomas Krüger]

I cut the matboard down to standard sizes, so the mat will fit in standard frames (like from Ikea). Cutting the image window on the mat you have all possibilities to define your own images sizes.
Or I take standard frames with mats like 30x88 cm frame from Ikea and cut the existing mat with windows for 5 images for my panorama images. But you need your own matcutter for that...

[bill t.]

In regards to standard sizes or standard this or standard that, I can only say that I sincerely recommend the highest possible levels of standardization to all my competitors.     There should be no perceptible difference between their presentation and everybody else's except mine.  Nothing fails to sell as quite as well as the ordinary.

In particular, putting your photographs in black metal frames with as many mattes as possible is an extremely effective way to discourage the art buying public from purchasing your work.  Only a photographer could love a treatment like that, and they don't buy art.  You can effectively prevent the sales of your best images using that one technique alone.

[dct123]

Everyone who replied against standardization should consider the fact that many of my most successful photo artist clients compose in the viewfinder and I dare not crop their artistic efforts, and print full frame for them. Some use the standard mats that I supply, others buy the stock sizes, single, double or whatever, as sold by suppliers such as Redimat. Recently I printed for 3 photographers who entered their work in our local Amador County Fair. Out of the 12 prints that I made for them, 10 placed first or second in their various classes, and one print won a best of show. All were 'standard' sizes. If someone buys a particular photo it's not because the size is unique or doesn't fit the norm, it's because the image is unique, outstanding, or because they love something about the artist's vision. Most working photographers don't want to get caught up in the minutea of matting, framing, and other chores that take away from their time doing what they do best...taking photographs. Also, a lot of the galleries here in California are also frame shops. They like their exhibitors to leave the fancy framing to them. After the print is sold, the customer sometimes will choose a custom frame or mat to suit their taste. The bottom line is...do whatever your market dictates. Study the photographers who are really selling. I don't mean a print here or there, I mean photographers who make a living from their photography. Chances are that they are most concerned about the quality of the print and how it conveys their artistic effort, and most likely use a simple frame and mat that does not distract from the image.

[Bruce Watson]

The bottom line is...do whatever your market dictates.

I couldn't disagree more. Artists must do what their vision dictates. If they aren't true to their vision, they aren't making art.

If your vision resonates with buyers, they'll buy your prints. If it doesn't, they won't. "Standard" or non-standard aspect ratios have little to do with it.

[bill t.]

Well, I'm a photographer who makes his living from selling landscapes, and that only went forward when I started paying very close attention to the minutiae of framing and presentation by bringing those things (and their profit potentials) under my direct control.  A cavalier attitude towards framing is a suicide pill that too many photographers carry around with them, which is fine with me.

[dct123]

Well, I'm a photographer who makes his living from selling landscapes, and that only went forward when I started paying very close attention to the minutiae of framing and presentation by bringing those things (and their profit potentials) under my direct control.  A cavalier attitude towards framing is a suicide pill that too many photographers carry around with them, which is fine with me.

Great shots Bill...and, of course 'standard' size doesn't apply to panoramas, and I agree that 'standard' sizes don't work for all photographers.. It's also great that you have the time to do your own framing and matting, etc. The point I was making is that for the photographer that composes their shots in the viewfinder, 'standard' sizes do apply. Out of the 50 or so fine art photographers that I print for, only a dozen could actually be classified as working photographers...clients who have no other source of income other than the prints that they sell online, in galleries, and at art fairs. I've watched one of my photographer clients take hours to complete a landscape shoot. This same photographer (like a lot of my other clients) also doesn't spend any time to speak of in post-processing. Maybe that goes back to his years of shooting film where a photographer didn't have the luxury of firing off dozens of frames without regard for cost....as we now do in digital photography. But he's not alone. As I said previously, many of my clients spend a lot of time getting the perfect shot and don't spend a lot of time in post-processing. They do rely on me to make minor final adjustments to their image to achieve the optimum results for the media they direct me to print on. As far as framing goes, some of my clients do go to extremes on framing. Museum glass, exotic hardwood frames, custom matting, etc. Do they sell more than the others? They have one handicap to start with...cost...which is enevitably reflected in a higher sell price.

[Rocco Penny]

Hello,
Thank you all very much.

Having some artists and printers comment on my own process is a real illumination

I'll agree my art should determine ancillary concerns like matte size, cost, or anything else.

Thank you for righting this listing vessel.

have a nice day
rocco