[alt-photo] Re: bottom-weighting mats

[Mark Nelson]

Speaking of matting, what are folks using for tape?  Is there a good archival, low tack, double sided tape that you do not have to moisten with water?

Thanks

Mark Nelson
www.PrecisionDigitalNegatives.com
PDNPRint Forum @ Yahoo Groups
www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com

sent from my iPhonetypeDeviceThingy

On Dec 1, 2011, at 7:22 AM, Christina Anderson <zphoto at montana.net> wrote:

> Well, it seems from all the wonderful answers to this question that the majority of you still bottom weight the mat slightly at the very least. I was told that yes, maybe traditional or vintage works are bottom weighted, but not contemporary, and certainly that fits our kind of photography. That fits two of the classes I teach--Experimental (all B&W) and Alt, but I am worried about leading students astray in the three digital classes I also teach. But it seems that the answer is the practice is still going on, nevertheless.
> 
> Thanks for the wonderful mathematical reasons why this is so, too. 
> 
> I once knew a man years ago who wrote his thesis in college on the mathematically correct viewing distance for looking at an artwork...so there has to be a science to it.
> Chris
> 
> Christina Z. Anderson
> christinaZanderson.com
> 
> On Dec 1, 2011, at 2:17 AM, Laura V wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo