[alt-photo] Re: bottom-weighting mats

[Diana Bloomfield]

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 ($ 
$$).

Diana

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