[alt-photo] Re: bottom-weighting mats
dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net
Wed Nov 30 16:31:56 GMT 2011
I typically bottom-weight my mats, with the top and sides the same,
and bottom-weighted typically anywhere from 3-5 inches more than top
and sides-- though I suspect that's a lot more than what some framers
would suggest. There is some rule that suggests that if you bottom-
weight no more than about 10%, it's not really noticeable-- but offers
a more aesthetically pleasing look, which-- at first glance-- no one
would be able to say why.
If I have a square image, though, I often center it and have equal
space all the way around. But I mostly prefer bottom-weighted mats.
Something about that seems much more satisfying to me. I think it
depends on the image, too, and how much mat you want to have around it.
I recently judged a local photography show, and I was surprised at how
stingy people are with their mat size and borders, and how elaborate
they get with their frame choices. I think a mat should be generous
enough to set off an image, and the frame shouldn't be the first thing
you see. But that's a whole other issue.
I honestly don't know why these things go out of fashion, or who
makes that decision, but I'm guessing it's all about the bottom line ($
On Nov 30, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Christina Anderson wrote:
> How many of you bottom weight your mats and if so by how much? I
> have been told that contemporary work has abandoned that practice,
> but uses mats of equal size all the way around. Short of bringing a
> tape measure with me to galleries, input on both sides of this issue
> much appreciated.
> Christina Z. Anderson
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
More information about the Alt-photo-process-list