Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,375   Posts: 1,682,960   Online: 615
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    norway - on the coast
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    758
    I prefer the square image set towards the bottom, leaving a larger, white area above, for more "air", no matter what the subject.

    To me doing it the opposite way looks weird.

  2. #12
    fdi
    fdi is offline
    fdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    352
    As mentioned, ready-made square frames are not very common but whole frame supply companies for do-it-yourself framers like my company have no problem providing square frames or heavily bottom weighted mats such as in the examples above. In general, larger mat borders tend to give the image more of a gallery feel. For a square image 11x11 image, equal 4.5 inch mat borders resulting in a 20x20 inch frame would have nice gallery feel. Off the shelf frame sides are commonly available in 20 inch segments although still need a custom mat.

    The heavy bottom weighted mat, where the bottom border is significantly larger than the top and side borders will also offer a nice gallery flare and in fact Nielsen actually makes a couple ready-made frames for 8x10 images in 16x20 frames. You can see pics here, and I have included the mat border dimensions at the bottom of the text on these two pages:

    Nielsen Gallery Collection 8x10 (16x20) GF1950E
    Nielsen Gallery Collection 8x10 (16x20) GF1950D

    Nielsen use to carry an 11x14 frame with 5x5 opening but they discontinued it. Bottom weighted mats are almost never offered in ready-made frames because as you notice with the 8x10 you have to manufacture and stock two different sizes.

    If you are going to bottom weight the top and side borders should be equal, or the top border should be within an inch of the side borders. If the frame is 11x14 or smaller I would suggest the top border be less than 1 inch larger than the side borders if not equal.

    Cheers,
    Mark

  3. #13
    fdi
    fdi is offline
    fdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by Erik Prestmo View Post
    I prefer the square image set towards the bottom, leaving a larger, white area above, for more "air", no matter what the subject.
    I think that might work well for certain types of images. Just as in photography, there are no official framing rules, just guidelines.

  4. #14
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,117
    Images
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    DWThomas

    That's what I meant. Looks great! How did you decide on the vertical location of the print on the mat?
    If you're not already familiar with this site, take a look. http://www.russellcottrell.com/photo/centering.htm

    My mounts are similar to Dave Thomas's, but I tweak them a little from Cottrell's dimensions.
    Last edited by jovo; 08-31-2010 at 11:42 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    John Voss

    My Blog

  5. #15
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,017
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    As posted earlier, the best way is to line it by eye. There are no nifty formulae. To only guide line is that more room needs to be below the photograph than above because if above and below are equal, the eye and brain preceive the photograph as being too low and appearing to "slide off the bottom".

    Steve
    Steve, looking at the link John's just posted that's quite a neat guide that pretty much mirrors what we do visually.

    Ian

  6. #16
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,524
    Images
    73
    Thanks for the compliments. I was targeting "optical centering" which raises the image a little bit above the centerline, purportedly adding weight to the bottom (so it doesn't get hung upside down!) It can be done graphically, or I have used a handy html program from this guy (he shows the graphical method too). In all honesty, I am beginning to think I might lean toward positioning just a tad lower, some of that may come from whether or not one adjusts the calculated value for the overlap of the frame.

    I should add, I have seen images that were almost panoramic horizontals mounted in a rectangular frame held vertical and with the bottom of the image almost on the centerline. There seems to be some occasional benefit in breaking conventional rules to achieve an effect. Somewhere years ago I heard of a competition that specified all work was to be in 16x20 frames too!

    I occasionally frame square, but since I don't sell much work, I've lately made 16x20 a sort of standard that works for most of my photos and on the rare occasion, a quarter-sheet watercolor so I can recycle frames.

    Edit: Oops! Looks like I got antsy and jumped in without reading to the end, sorry for the redundant info.

  7. #17
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,442
    Images
    1
    I like the idea of keeping top and side margins the same width as shown in Mark's second link in post #13.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  8. #18
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,442
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by jovo View Post
    If you're not already familiar with this site, take a look. http://www.russellcottrell.com/photo/centering.htm

    My mounts are similar to Dave Thomas's, but I tweak them a little from Cottrell's dimensions.
    jovo

    Thanks you. I'm very familiar with it. It's an old but proven technique that works well in most cases.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    533
    Images
    133
    upper margin = (width of mat + height of mat - 2*(dimension of print) / 4

    Sounds complicated, but is is simply the mean between the left/right margin and the value of the upper/lower margin if the picture would be placed vertically in the middle of the mat. Thus the larger lower margin does not get so prominent.

    Example:
    width of mat ( w) = 40cm
    height of mat (h) = 50cm
    dimension of print (d) = 29cm
    upper margin (u) = (40cm + 50cm - 2*29cm)/4 = 8cm

    Or the long way:

    left/right margin = (lr) (40cm - 29cm)/2 = 5.5cm
    upper/lower margin if picture is placed in the middle (ul) = (50cm - 29cm)/2 = 10.5cm

    u = lr + (ul - lr)/2 = 5.5cm + (10.5cm - 5.5cm)/2 = 8cm
    lo = ul + (ul -lr)/2 = (10.5cm + 2.5cm) = 13cm

    Ulrich

  10. #20
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,442
    Images
    1
    Ulrich

    I believe that's the same equation used in the link posted above. Good stuff!
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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