Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,266   Posts: 1,680,801   Online: 704
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,762

    Square or Rect. Frame?

    Humm, I often like square format images but I crop my 6x6 to rectangles or leave square depending in the image. I've always had my square images mounted, matted and (only one so far) framed square. The idea of putting a square image in a rectangular frame honestly never occurred to me. I'll have to think about that one and look at some examples.

    For some images the square works perfectly. It can also just depend on the visual elements present. It seems to me that good composition is often about being able to frame a pleasing image while excluding distractions and visual irrelevancies. So it just depends on the scene. I happily crop to suit and don't expect the world to always match the image shape of the camera I'm using.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    173
    Images
    9
    I personally like there to a bit more space on the bottom part of the mat than on the sides/top. So my suggestion would be; don't be stuck on standard sizes and think outside the box. Determine what width looks good for the top/sides and add about 20-30% for the bottom part. For for a 12x12 inch print I would probably go for 3 inch for the top & sides and 4 inch at the bottom making it a slightly rectangular frame. It will cost you a little bit more than a standard frame but it will look nicer and will stand out more at the show. And if you often print square at 12 x 12, you can easily re-use the frame in the future for other photos making it worth the extra $.

    I've done the reverse too. A slightly rectangular photo in a custom square frame. It looked better to me than in a standard size rectangular frame.

    Good luck with the show.

    Menno
    Last edited by spijker; 12-25-2013 at 02:15 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #23
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,762
    I had a square print I made as a gift for my inlaws professionally mounted, matted and framed and she left a bit of the white border around three sides and more on the bottom for my signature. I can see the same principle working nicely if expanded to a bit more matt in the bottom.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #24
    bvy
    bvy is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,282
    Images
    46
    Thanks everyone and Merry Christmas. Lots of good ideas here, and I like the concept of "optical centering." It would be good to use a frame I already have, and I do have one that's 18x24, though that might be too rectangular.

    Not sure what brought on the comment about juries. I'm not looking for acceptance or validation. This particular show is an annual one dedicated to "lo-fi" cameras and lenses, and it's one that I've followed for a while. It will be my second year participating. As far as cropping, I don't do it as a rule (short of, say, shaving off an edge here or there to eliminate a distraction). If I got into the habit of recomposing photos that I've already taken, I might lose my mind. Anyway, I think this works well as a square. I know the E-6 cross-processed colors are a bit garish, but that's the negative scan, and the test prints I've made so far are more muted.

    Thanks again everyone for looking and taking the time to comment...

  5. #25
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,656
    Images
    226
    I think it works well as a square, regardless of how you decide to frame it.
    I also don't think presenting your work to a jury is a desire for acceptance or validation. It's a show of confidence. Good luck.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    919
    Images
    147
    Add up all the dimensions provided, divide by the number or responses to your question.

    All I know is, I would have saved lots of time and money with standard frame sizes. In your case, with a 12X12 mat window or mount, the frame would be a 22X28. If you printed a bit smaller, to have a window or mount that is 11X11, then a 16X20 frame would work. Noticeable bottom weight on both accounts.

  7. #27
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I've been everywhere ooooohhh yeaahhhh still I'm standing tall.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,832

    More than a feeling that's the power of square

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    For decades Hasselblad advertized that square was the perfect shape for a photograph or print. Who are we to argue with Hasselblad?
    Also Huey Lewis and the News proclaimed that it was hip to be square
    "He took to writing poetry and visiting the elves: and though many shook their heads and touched their foreheads and said 'Poor old Baggins!' and though few believed any of his tales, he remained very happy till the end of his days, and those were extraordinarily long "- JRR Tolkien, ' The Hobbit '.

  8. #28
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,523
    Images
    73
    Had a chance to contemplate this more yesterday; had lunch in a cafe in a nearby town that displays work by local artists. The current work was photography by a woman with impressive credentials (Antonelli School and LRPS) and included some film stuff even! What caught my eye were some pieces with square prints, maybe 8x8 inches, in a 16x20 frame, mounted with top and sides equal. That's about 4" top and sides and 8" at the bottom -- really looked strange. I definitely prefer the optical centering.

    As many threads do, this one has wandered a lot. It was started about the framing, not the printing, but hey, it's all good clean fun.

    Just another data point ...

  9. #29
    bvy
    bvy is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,282
    Images
    46
    Thanks. And just to follow up, I think I decided on 12x12 in an 18x22 frame, optically centered.

  10. #30
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,762
    Quote Originally Posted by DWThomas View Post
    Had a chance to contemplate this more yesterday; had lunch in a cafe in a nearby town that displays work by local artists. The current work was photography by a woman with impressive credentials (Antonelli School and LRPS) and included some film stuff even! What caught my eye were some pieces with square prints, maybe 8x8 inches, in a 16x20 frame, mounted with top and sides equal. That's about 4" top and sides and 8" at the bottom -- really looked strange. I definitely prefer the optical centering.

    As many threads do, this one has wandered a lot. It was started about the framing, not the printing, but hey, it's all good clean fun.

    Just another data point ...
    I think I'd have to read this thread again to even figure out WTH "optical centering" even means, if that isn't it. You can't have equal space around a square print in a rectangular frame so I'm not sure how it can be "centered" optically or otherwise.

    But what really struck me here was the ludicrous degree of oversized frame and, presumably, mat. An 8x8 print in a 16x20 frame? What's up with putting an entire wall around each side? I've seen that before and I just think it looks pretentious, "look how much space I think my small print deserves." A small print can be exquisite and can deserve a close look, but to me putting in a comparatively giant frame isn't the way to do that. Part of the appeal is that it's small. (Ok, 8x8 isn't that small, it's not like a 4x5 of MF contact print, but small compared to the frame.)

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin