Mat Calculations

[grayoo]

Figuring out mat sizes can be a bit of a pain, but I found a little free program that I really like.
It is called Mat Works! software--this is what you would google to find it. You put in mat size, print size, image size, and amount of offset, plus or minus, and hit calculate. You get a porportional image, and a box showing the dimensions. You can also use the bottom weighted button to offset the image. I use it on PC, and don't know if it available fro Mac. It doesn't say no, though. In a recent tutorial Michael included a spreadsheet to do the calculations. I think you will like this one better. The price is right.

Any comments?

[neile]

I've used it occasionally, it's a nice little piece of software and as you say the price is right. When I teach the occasional matting and framing class though I like to force the students to try and work it out with pencil and paper. Fun to see them get the width and the height mixed up

Neil

[Etrsi_645]

Looks like I nice piece of software..

[Ron Steinberg]

MatLayout is what I use, works on a Mac

[Mike Guilbault]

I just got Mat Cutter as an iPhone App... works great and allows room to calculate leaving a space for a title/signature.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Playing with the Print Size, Border/Border+ options and Corner marks of Qimage is what I do. Printed with the settings that made the best fit when I could print on matte board with the old Epsons, 1.8 mm thick, no longer on th HPs.. The template can be saved too for a recall.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Shareware too:
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

[framah]

I'm amazed at how many of you all can't do simple math with a pencil and paper.
 You already have to measure the piece to get the dimensions to type into the computer. Why can't you just write them on the paper and do the simple math?

The image is 16 x 20 and you want 1/2" white around.. that makes the opening of the mat 17 x 21.
You want 3" of mat around... add 6" on to 17 x 21 and you get 23 x 27.

Really... how hard is that that you need to have software to do it for you?

Learn to do fractions and you will be able to do this  very quickly without having to have a computer next to you all the time.

Sheeesh!

[Ernst Dinkla]

I'm amazed at how many of you all can't do simple math with a pencil and paper.
 You already have to measure the piece to get the dimensions to type into the computer. Why can't you just write them on the paper and do the simple math?

The image is 16 x 20 and you want 1/2" white around.. that makes the opening of the mat 17 x 21.
You want 3" of mat around... add 6" on to 17 x 21 and you get 23 x 27.

Really... how hard is that that you need to have software to do it for you?

Learn to do fractions and you will be able to do this  very quickly without having to have a computer next to you all the time.

Sheeesh!

There is nothing wrong with my maths. However it is nice to see a graphical representation of an image with the offset, a colored matte and the total size before deciding on what the print size should be and the frame size. It is also nice to see what an image with a 2:3 aspect ratio needs in matte dimensions to fit a frame of 3:4 aspect ratio if you do not want to crop the image or order a new frame. There are much more puzzles like that to be solved by maths but handy tools do it faster with more visual feedback.

met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Shareware now:
Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/six-canvas-wrap-actions.htm

[framah]

Ernst..
Your main problem there is that you are trying to fit an image into a frame that isn't sized for the image...or as we like to call it.. cheaping out.

So you have some frames laying around and you have some images laying around that need frames. Of course the most logical thing to do is simply slap the images into whatever frames you have handy. Forget that the matting and the frame are an integral part of the overall composition of the image.

So your only choices are to either crop the image so it fits into a frame or to cut the mats into some hodge podge cut just so your image will "fit" into your handy frame, disregarding the fact that weirdly cut mats and frames that just don't fit the proportions of the image make your work look amateurish.

What you end up doing is lessening the impact as well as the overall perceived quality of your image because you wouldn't spring for a frame the RIGHT size for your image.
I do understand that some of you just can't afford to do it right, but at sometime in your profession, if you want to be taken seriously by your prospective customers, you HAVE to spend enough to make it LOOK like a professional job and not some part time shooter.

Continuing to compromise on the matting and the frame keeps your work in the amateur level.
Case in point... one of my artist customers was always trying to make his pastels "fit" into stuff he had laying around.
After much cajoling, I convinced him to spend real money for me to do it right. It cost him $500 for me to do that.  He then added $700 to his  price and it sold. He actually made $200 more than before. He was convinced and I now do all of his work and he was able to give his work a really good price bump as it all looks very professional.

I know that was a right turn away from the OP but Ernst's post got to me and I needed to rant a bit.
Take it for whatever it's worth to you.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Take it for whatever it's worth to you.

I will do that. The 2:3 within 3:4 is actually a lay-out that I like and it is simple maths; small side of the image is 4x the matte border width (offset or overlap not counted), the longer side 6x the matte border width and equal to the smaller frame side while the larger frame side is twice the smaller image side. Equally wide borders all around.

Of course a framer asking 500 for framing while assuring his customer he will earn 700 more with that frame and by that making his customer 200 richer is a much smarter mathematical approach. I am not a framer so did not think of that.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Shareware now:
Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/six-canvas-wrap-actions.htm

[brianrybolt]

MatLayout is what I use, works on a Mac

As far as I can tell this does not work on a MAC.  It is a .exe file and won't open in a readable form.  I don't run parallels.

Brian

[jeremyrh]

I'm amazed at how many of you all can't do simple math with a pencil and paper.

I'm amazed at how a simple question can generate such a grumpy response.

Anyhow .. the maths is simple, but not as simple as you suggest, if you want to cut a matte with an "optimum" offset according to the "Golden Mean".

Here is an explanation ...
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?topic_id=23&msg_id=001Fxv

[framah]

Jibberish.

If it looks good, it IS good.

Top and sides are the same size and IF you want, the bottom can be 1/2" or more larger... ORRR.. you can make them all the same size. The biggest thing that makes an image look bad is to make the mat width too small in relation to the width of the frame. The basic rule (starting point) is a 2 to 1 ratio. If the frame is 2" wide the mat would be around 4" wide +/-. All that is a general rule and is meant as a starting point. You are free to adjust sizes till it feels right.
A "golden mean" rule of matting is nonsense and I dare you to find more than a handfull of framers across the country that use this for matting work.

The one thing that really looks bad is to have the sides the same size, and then the top another size and the bottom yet another size. It screams out amateur who hasn't a clue.

Rule number #2 is to ignore Rule #1 whenever necessary.

Saying all that... if YOU like it, then it is right FOR YOU.

...and yes, I'm grumpy, so what?

[jeremyrh]

Jibberish.

If it looks good, it IS good.

...and yes, I'm grumpy, so what?

So - whatever you have to say just gets discounted because of the gratuitously unpleasant way you choose to express yourself.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Framah has made many valuable contributions to this forum. I would pay close attention to what he has to say.

Some people here find Jeff Schewe somewhat grumpy at times, too. But he also contributes enormously.

Eric

[jeremyrh]

Framah has made many valuable contributions to this forum. I would pay close attention to what he has to say.

Some people here find Jeff Schewe somewhat grumpy at times, too. But he also contributes enormously.

Eric

I don't care if he has jewels dripping from his lips - if he cannot bring himself to address people with a modicum of respect (including actually reading what they write, before leaping to the keyboard to pen a quick put-down) I don't have the time or desire to find out what he has to say.

Jeff does indeed write in a needlessly provocative way, but from his videos I find that he also has a sharp wit and a more modest side that suggests to me that his "internet blowhard" persona is just a little act. In fact he seems more like a friendly old uncle rather than the forum bad-boy.

[Nigel Johnson]

As far as I can tell this does not work on a MAC.  It is a .exe file and won't open in a readable form.  I don't run parallels.

Brian

Brian

If you try this page http://www.jfigueras.com/COMPUTER%20Progs/Layout.html you will find that there are links to both PC and Mac versions.

You probably found that a Google search takes you to 'Mat Layout' which is PC only not 'MatLayout' unless you search for 'MatLayout mac'.

Regards
Nigel

[framah]

So - whatever you have to say just gets discounted because of the gratuitously unpleasant way you choose to express yourself.

Wow! Gratuitously unpleasant? Really? Get a grip. Your post about the "optimum offset using the golden means is exactly what I said... Gibberish. Now, as I said, you can do whatever you want and I can only tell you and anyone else that your wrong about the "optimum offset" by using some sort of formula being the best of the best way to cut a mat.

You DON'T need a formula to cut your mats to get the Optimum offset. And as I said, I dare you to find professional framers who swear by the Golden Means for cutting mats.
In my world there is no such thing as a specific "Optimum offset"  and that by using a "special" formula, you will suddenly be blessed with the very best mat cut you will ever experience.

It is all just a bunch of nonsense...which you are more than welcome to worship.

I get "grumpy" when people like you espouse something as the "Optimum" of anything when there is no such thing.
But, I do get happy when i can rile up a sensitive person like you so easily.