Thanks for your feedback. The frames are indeed generating a lot of comments--I don't know whether that's good or bad. These frames were not entirely my idea, but in the end I was happy with them. I have had many of my photos (micrographs and photos from my dSLR and other cameras) printed/matted/framed for display in my own house, office, and for other people/customers. I've always gone with very simple black wood frames and fairly generous mat dimensions. I think that in most cases this is the best decision, however lately I have begun to question the dogma (ok, maybe that is too strong a word) that you always need a mat. The conventional wisdom I have heard is that it "sets the photograph apart from the wall", but indeed this is greatly dependent on the frame. In this case, if we had gone with simple black frames, the mats would be very necessary to set the grayscale image off from the gray walls. However, in this case, these gold frames certainly have no problem setting the photo off from the wall by themselves.
Also, I have a small collection of Maxfield Parrish prints from the early 1900, and some Japanese woodblock prints. All of these are in fairly ornate gold leaf frames, and none of them have mats. Obviously many paintings in museums lack mats as well. So, I wonder how the dogma about always needing a mat with a photograph became established.
