8x10 Mounted on 16x20 Mat

Discussion in 'Presentation & Marketing' started by Alex Hawley, Jul 18, 2005.

  1. Alex Hawley

    Alex Hawley Member

    Messages:
    2,894
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Location:
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Need opinions before I potentially waste a print and matt board. Is a 16x20 mount too big for an 8x10 print? This one will be framed and goes to the local gallery for sale.

    Thanks in Advance.
     
  2. Jorge

    Jorge Inactive

    Messages:
    4,532
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    It is what I always used....to me it looks fine.
     
  3. VoidoidRamone

    VoidoidRamone Subscriber

    Messages:
    490
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    New York Cit
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    That's what I typically use, so in my opinion, "no." I like the large borders look.
    -Grant
     
  4. User Removed

    User Removed Guest

    Messages:
    1,298
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Shooter:
    Plastic Cameras
    It depends. I say YES, its okay. I used to do an 8x10 print, but do a overmat with a 1/2inch border around the print edge. So, it makes the window 9x11. I would set the print up 1/2" also. I think this looks fine, but if you are window matting INTO the image itself...I think it gets sorta small. Remember thought, big matting is always better then small.

    To save money and for other reasons, I use 14x17 for all my prints 8x10 and smaller now.

    Ryan McIntosh
     
  5. Sparky

    Sparky Member

    Messages:
    2,099
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    that's ridiculous!

    Hell - I mount 4x5 and SMALLER contacts (when doing diptychs etc.) on 16x20 matte board (in frames though - picture frames). Looks great! Looks a bit precious perhaps. But I've heard no complaints at all. If anything - I think the preciousness makes you consider the image more.
     
  6. Alex Hawley

    Alex Hawley Member

    Messages:
    2,894
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Location:
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Thanks for all the input.

    Ryan, I've been using 13x15 which I think looks good. Haven't had any complaints yet on any that I've sold either.

    Sparky, that's some hellacious border you're putting around those 4x5s!

    Alex
     
  7. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    17,922
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Big borders look great, but for myself, I usually mount smaller. Wall space is just too scarce in Manhattan.
     
  8. Alex Hawley

    Alex Hawley Member

    Messages:
    2,894
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Location:
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    LOL: Probably very expensive too!
     
  9. lee

    lee Member

    Messages:
    2,913
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Location:
    Fort Worth T
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    14x17 is a nice size for an 8x10 also but by far my favorite is 16x20

    lee\c
     
  10. User Removed

    User Removed Guest

    Messages:
    1,298
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Shooter:
    Plastic Cameras
    Probably the main reason why I do not mat my 8x10 prints too 16x20 anymore, is because 16x20 is a standard frame size. When selling photography in a standard frame size, people tend to purchase cheep, premade frames. These frames are usually not good quality and there is not much a selection...so people end up putting a beautiful photograph is a cheep walmart frame!

    By using 14x17 (or some other random size), it requires the buyer of my prints to have the print custom framed, therefore getting a better quality frame, but also getting a frame that would compliment the photograph and match their home. By doing this, they have more selection and can get a frame that not only looks well with the photograph, but also will look good in their house! Custom frames are usually sealed on the back also, which stops dust and bugs from getting inside.

    I no longer use Standard frames sizes for my photography for this reason, but also because there are sizes that I think look better then just standard sizes. I get tired of seeing everyone frame their photography too 16x20, because it starts too look generic to me. Here are my normal sizes-
    4x5, 5x7, 8x10- 14x17.
    11x14- 18x22.
    16x20- 25x29.

    Take care,

    Ryan McIntosh
     
  11. mark

    mark Member

    Messages:
    5,261
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    IMO 16x20 is big and the image has to be able to stand up to that much white space. I'm not saying it is not possible because I have some that do. Both mine and other folks. On the other hand I some that seem diminished in that size. An 11x14 mat fits them well. I say it depends on the image.

    I had a prof who said "if you have a bad print make sure you frame it in an expensive custom frame so people see the framing and will hopefully forget you bought or made bad art."
     
  12. mfobrien

    mfobrien Member

    Messages:
    163
    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, M
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    IMHO 16x20 is too big for an 8x10. You are spending a lot of extra $$ for that big piece of mat board. 11 x14, or 13 x 15 is probably a good compromise. If you go 13 x 15, then all the borders are 2.5" making the overmat cuts a simple process. But as others have said, it depends on the strength of the image. Personally, I think huge-ass mats are pretentious -- look at what is used in art galleries that are showing prints by Adams, weston, and others. No big-ass overmats. That's just MY opinion.
     
  13. User Removed

    User Removed Guest

    Messages:
    1,298
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Shooter:
    Plastic Cameras

    Wrong. A few years back I went to an Ansel Adams show which was showing only his 4x5 polaroid prints. EACH print was mounted and overmatted too 30x40 (full sheets of mat?). Personally, I think it was overkill...but it was Adams work, so I guess he can get away with that.

    Also, I went to a show at a local gallery in Prescott AZ on pinhole photography. There were some images that were only 2 1/4" in size, but were matted and framed too 30x30 and VERY large sizes. Again, I though it was overkill...but I would rather see an image with a large mat and frame, then a small one.
     
  14. aj-images

    aj-images Member

    Messages:
    187
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I like the 8x10 matted to 16x20 look and present my work this way. In terms of getting the price I want for my work it also helps. The small amount extra in matting, glass and framing "creates" a larger piece of art. It's part of the psychological aspect of selling.
     
  15. Alex Hawley

    Alex Hawley Member

    Messages:
    2,894
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Location:
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Mounting a 4x5 on a 30x40 IS extreme. Sounds more like Andy Warhol than Ansel Adams. Maybe Ansel was having some satiric fun?

    All of these responses have good points, some of which I hadn't ever thought of. Thanks Gentlemen.
     
  16. TheFlyingCamera

    TheFlyingCamera Membership Council

    Messages:
    9,180
    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    While I agree with what you're doing for aesthetic reasons, I've found that people complain about the cost of framing odd-sized mats bitterly, and it can cost you the sale. In the case of some of my odd-sized pieces (my panoramics from my xpan) I sell them pre-framed, and charge a very reasonable price for the framing, so people will buy them as I've framed it, so I know it will be tasteful :smile: . The panoramics are the one size I don't frame with large borders, because they quickly get into oversize frames and mats, which gets expensive and/or wasteful, especially when you're framing with 8ply mat board.

    Thinking of which, I now exclusively use 8ply for my own matting because it looks so much better, cost be damned.

     
  17. David Henderson

    David Henderson Member

    Messages:
    342
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Location:
    Datchet, Ber
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I use 16x20 mounts and frames vertically for my 8" sq prints, with the image positioned above the centre. They look correctly proportioned to me.
     
  18. Donald Miller

    Donald Miller Member

    Messages:
    6,242
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I think that oversize mats work best with small prints (4X5 and 5X7). The upper limit being 5X7. Broad mat borders isolate the print and draw a person in to see the small print. That is not the case with an 8X10 print because the 8X10 print is of sufficient size to be seen from a greater distance.

    The mat size that I would use for all print sizes is 13X16. It utilizes full size sheets most effectively. It also allows off center vertical positioning which I appreciate.

    As others have said, I think that an oversize mat on an 8X10 print is pretentious. If anything, for me, it detracts from the print.
     
  19. doughowk

    doughowk Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,735
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2003
    Location:
    Jacksonville
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    As suggested earlier, a vertical 8X10 image looks good in a 16X20 frame; but a horizontal image seems to have the extra white space in wrong location. I'm trying 16X18 for those horizontal images.
     
  20. Joe Symchyshyn

    Joe Symchyshyn Member

    Messages:
    468
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Personally I prefer...

    14x17 for a vertical 8x10
    16x15 for a horizontal 8x10

    3" on the sides and top, 4" on the bottom. This seems to be a good rule of thumb from small to big... As with anything, if it looks good, it is good.

    joe
     
  21. Sparky

    Sparky Member

    Messages:
    2,099
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Shooter:
    Multi Format

    Guess that's something to do with why they say "those who can, DO - and those who cannot, TEACH". Poor fella.