Prints vs. Mat Size?

[ajz]

Not sure is the correct Forum - but the subject deals with prints vs. matt size.

I typically use 16"x20" frames for my work and usually crop to suit the image and then cut the mat borders to suit - within acceptable range of 1" to 2" or so (not always the best scale). At times I have standardized my mat borders to about 2" (slightly more at the bottom), then fit the image to the mat opening. To me this seems limiting. However, when I hang my work at a show or in a gallery the variation in the mat borders from frame to frame tends to look un-uniform and distracting. When I standardize the borders and hang 12 or so images, the impact is more consistent. So, I have seen both approaches used. I tend to go for sizing the image as appropriate - but would appreciate others thoughts on the matter. I hate to go to larger frame size since most shows have a limit of 16"x 20" frame.

thanks,

ajz

[Mark D Segal]

If you are of the school of composition that every square inch must count, then you are necessarily cropping the photo to suit the requirements of the composition, unless at the time you composed the photo the pre-determined linear dimensions were part of the composition decision.

[JeanMichel]

"Standard" image proportions are just someone else's idea of what works commercially. I find myself paying much attention to the edges of my images: what remains and what is left out. Those decisions do not always fit the 'standard' frame.  Decades ago, I went through a phase when I had my enlarger masks machined so that I could print the edges of my negs, that was OK, but that limited me to 2:3; 4:5 and 1:1 proportions. It is worthwhile spending some time examining such things as the Fibonacci scale, or comparing picture or page proportions to musical intervals. Interestingly enough, the 2:3 proportion of the '35 mm full frame, 24 mm by 36 mm' works out to be the fifth musical interval: notes C - G. Spending time in art galleries and museums will also be worthwhile, as would picking upside textbooks on composition and such. Do not be hostage to pre-manufactured frames and mats.

When designing books, I refer very often to Robert Bringhurst's book 'The Elements of Typographic Style. Especially Chapter 8, Shaping the page.

Another idea is to make friends with a reputable framer and listen to her or his advice.

Jean-Michel

[luxborealis]

I also prefer to present my images with my intended composition and aspect ratio which, at times does not conform to “the standard”. What this means, though, is significantly higher framing costs to accommodate the custom mat and framing required. With standard framing, I can actually see a reasonable return on investment, but with custom framing, the framer makes all the money. So I know precisely where the OP is coming from!

I notice many watercolour and acrylic artists sticking to standard paper sizes, perhaps for the same reason.

[Chris Kern]

My feeling is that cropping isn’t something that we do to an image. It does it itself – demanding to be constrained in certain ways. Sometimes there’s more than one way, but it eventually becomes obvious what the photograph itself wants. This isn’t metaphor. The best photographs demand to be a certain shape. The rest make no such requests, and that’s what separates the winners from the also-rans.

—Michael Reichmann, Understanding the Art of Cropping, March, 2011

[luxborealis]

—Michael Reichmann, Understanding the Art of Cropping, March, 2011

+1. I miss Michael’s matter-of-fact way of engaging us in thinking about our seeing.