[alt-photo] Re: bottom-weighting mats

[Laura V]

Tom, the reason prints are matted is for protection: 1. to protect the 
print from condensation by moving it away from the glass and 2. encase 
the print in an acid free environment (you should also use acid free 
matting behind the print.

I used to work at a framing shop and the rule of thumb we used was 1/4 
to 1/2 inch more weight at the bottom for a 3-4 inch wide mat (depending 
on the size of the print, the width of the mat and whether it was 
vertical or landscape). This is so the the mat would LOOK EQUAL, not to 
make it look bigger at the bottom. Of course we sometimes put a square 
print in a heavily bottom weighted mat for effect, but this is purely an 
aesthetic decision.

Laura

On 11/30/11 17:49 PM, Tomas Sobota wrote:
> I used to bottom-weight vertical images and center horizontal images. For
> no reason except because I saw photographs displayed that way. However then
> I noticed that paintings 1. are not matted and 2. usually reach to the
> inner border of the frame. So, I wondered why photographs have to be matted
> at all. I can understand it in the case of the small print formats that
> were in vogue some decades ago, because matting gave them more physical
> presence. But today everybody tends to print large, so why mat at all? I
> sometimes mat and sometimes use other forms of presentation. When I mat I
> leave equal width borders all around.