[alt-photo] Re: bottom-weighting mats

[Denny]

Mark, what are you using the double-sided tape for?  If it's for mounting
the photo or for attaching the overmat, there may be better ways...

-----Original Message-----
From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org
[mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of
Mark Nelson
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:03 AM
To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: bottom-weighting mats

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
_______________________________________________
Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo