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.)