[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: to mat or not..
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Lukas Werth wrote:
> I was told once that "all professionals coat with the brush" - as against
> the rod which, while saving money with processes using precious metals,
> does not produce such an attractive splatter border.
> This was an instigation to me to stick to the rod. If something makes me
> uneasy it is to be told to do "like professionals do". First and foremost,
Excellent... ! I'm going to quote you. (Although I rather like that rod
border -- sort of a line of gunk at one end, very tasty, a mechanical
line, yet not perfectly geometric -- like the polaroid edge -- uh oh --
hope I didn't spoil it for you !!)
> practicing alternative processes is for me to emphasize personal
decision
> and judgement. This is all I can say about matting or not matting, except:
> a picture dull when matted probably does not much improve with the splatter
> border exposed.
I don't care about the "splatter border" which can be tiresome, but the
LOOK of the print *framed* or *unframed* is very different. Trying to
figure if a print is finished or what it needs, sometimes dropping a mat
or frame (or matboard "els") around it is very helpful.
A propos, I was at first dismayed when John Dugdale insisted on putting
his cyanotypes in frame with LINER, so the edges didn't show. But on
balance, for HIS photographs it actually is right. Maybe he designs them
with the frame in mind???? I was also interested that when I brought him
your casein prints to see, he reached for an 8x10 frame nearby to put
over it, saying in effect "I like to view a print framed" (and I hope I
don't embarrass you by saying -- we're among friends -- how much he
liked them). His vision is very bad for distance but closeup like that he
can get quite a lot.
Judy