[alt-photo] Re: bottom-weighting mats

[Mark Nelson]

Mounting the photo, but interested in new ideas for both. 

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

sent from my iPhonetypeDeviceThingy

On Dec 1, 2011, at 11:13 AM, "Denny" <dspector at charter.net> wrote:

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