Framing? with or without matt

[firecracker]

In the last photo exhibit I did, I had all my pics (8x10" FB) on cut pieces of foamcore pinned to the walls. During the exhibition, which went for one week, I was worried if my prints curl up, fall, get torn up, etc. Since the space was tiny and I had 30 images to display, this method worked good, but I will never use it again because it's too cheap and unsecure.

There was one time, I only used bookmattes for the display in a cozy setting of a group show in a gallery. But again, if that show would've been longer than it was, which was one week, I would have not done that. I'm still going through this frame shopping and stuff, and it seems I can never find what I like for my prints.

But for the next exhibit I'm hoping to do next year, I want to do it in a standard way. Right now, I'm preparing 40 to 50 prints (11x14" FB) to be matted and framed. The good thing is the gallery I'm planning to use lends frames for its users at free of charge, so I don't have to worry too much about what kind(s) of frames I want use, etc, which takes forever for me to decide sometimes. And this is something I don't want to spend too much money and time for.

[KenM]

Personally, the mount and frame should be as unobtrusive as possbile. They should be neither complimentary, nor should they degrade from the image. They should be invisible - they're there to hold the image so one can look at it.

The last compliment I want when someone is looking at one of my photographs is "Great Frame", or "Nice Mat". If you get that, you've done something wrong.

I want people to look at the *image*, not the frame or the mount.

Just my $0.02 worth....

[roteague]

I like the mat and the frame to enhance the image. However, my choice of frames is quite conservative; mostly thin wood frames.

[Donald Miller]

Personally, the mount and frame should be as unobtrusive as possbile. They should be neither complimentary, nor should they degrade from the image. They should be invisible - they're there to hold the image so one can look at it.

The last compliment I want when someone is looking at one of my photographs is "Great Frame", or "Nice Mat". If you get that, you've done something wrong.

I want people to look at the *image*, not the frame or the mount.

Just my $0.02 worth....

Ken,

I totally agree with what you said.

[gandolfi]

[I]One must be pragmatic to pay the bills, even at the expense of some personal preference.

I'm taking pride in not being the "one"...

[davetravis]

I'm taking pride in not being the "one"...

But you must be "the one", like in the Matrix? Right?
Somebody has to be "the one."

[gandolfi]

But you must be "the one", like in the Matrix? Right?
Somebody has to be "the one."

ok, you lost me.
I use liquid emulsion as matrix for my bromoil..

who is Matrix ? some digit## guy?

[roteague]

who is Matrix ? some digit## guy?

A Hollywood movie.

[gandolfi]

A Hollywood movie.

thaught so..

don't know him..

[gbroadbridge]

Personally, the mount and frame should be as unobtrusive as possbile. They should be neither complimentary, nor should they degrade from the image. They should be invisible - they're there to hold the image so one can look at it.

The last compliment I want when someone is looking at one of my photographs is "Great Frame", or "Nice Mat". If you get that, you've done something wrong.

I want people to look at the *image*, not the frame or the mount.

Just my $0.02 worth....

Dunno, I'm renowned for using coloured mats.

I really like it when a happy purchaser makes a comment like, "wow, the coloured background really made your photograph stand out from the rest in the gallery."

I never use white mats on a B&W photograph. They diminish the image.


Graham.