My wife wants to hang some of my pictures in her office. To date, I have not cut windows nor worked in any way with matt boards. I have several books that describe the procedure but need advice on which to buy (B+H). Which board cuts the easiest and gives best results for the first timer. B+H sells so many different it's difficult to know which to try first. My prints are from 35mm, mostly about 6x7. Thanks to everyone in advance.

-- Wayne Brown (wayneb@involved.com), September 09, 2000

Answers

Buy the Westminster 4-ply 100% rag museum board from Light Impressions. If all your photos are the same size, you can have it pre-cut. Logan makes the best economical mat cutter, if you need to cut it yourself.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edbuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com), September 09, 2000.

If you want your photos to last a long time, the best choice is 100% cotton matboard. I use the Westminister brand from Light Impressions (http://www.lightimpressionsdirect.com). I use the Alto's Model 45 matcutter with the thick straight edge sold by Light Impressions. I dislike the venerable Dexter mat cutter. If you have the patience to measure very carefully, mat cutting isn't hard.

There are some framing tips on Photo Net: http://www.photo.net/learn/framing

-- Michael Briggs (MichaelBriggs@earthlink.net), September 09, 2000.

On the other hand, why cut a hole in a mat board? Why not mount your prints on the board with a suitable adhesive and forego putting a mat in front? There are some adhesive films and even glue-like products that are said to do the trick. I don't know much about them, because I've always used dry-mounting tissue and a hot press, which is a pretty expensive gadget unless you do a lot of print-mounting. It might be possible to dry-mount 6x7 prints using your wife's iron.

-- Keith Nichols (knichols@iopener.net), September 10, 2000.

I feel that an overmatt defines images much better than just sticking them on a mountboard. It finishes the presentation. If the image is worth presenting it's worth presenting well. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), September 10, 2000.

I use the Daige rollatac (the hand model) to mount my photos.It works very well. I get my mats pre-cut from Light Impressions. In a pinch a well stocked art supply store (A.C.Moore, A.I. Friedman, etc.)usually has a large variety of pre cut mats in many shapes and sizes, just make sure you get acid free buffered stock. BTW I've mounted with and without mats and my personal preference is mounting my photos under a white mat overlay.

-- Robert Orofino (rorofino@iopener.net), September 10, 2000.

James: I agree that images should be presented well, whatever that may mean. However, when I remember exhibitions of photos, I cannot for the life of me remember whether they had mat boards over them, around them, behind them, or anywhere nearby. But I remember the content of the photos and the effect they had. A photo can stand on its own if its well printed, big enough to see, mounted flat, and placed in a well-lighted spot where I can see it. My attitude on this may be a reaction to early exposure to artsy-fartsy camera-club shows that feature odd-shaped prints toned blue and mounted in the corner of mats four times as large as the print. But, if you enjoy mat overlays, go for it.

-- Keith Nichols (knichols@iopener.net), September 10, 2000.

Does Light Impressions have a web site? If so what is the URL?

-- John R. Fowler (cpci@fox.nstn.ca), September 10, 2000.

Keith:

>>Why not mount your prints on the board with a suitable adhesive and forego putting a mat in front?

That's easily answered: The mounting matte, or passepartout, serves to avoid direct contact between the print and the glass, contact being regarded as dangerous for the print.

Also, a well-made and suitable mounting matte may considerably enhance the presentation.

>>However, when I remember exhibitions of photos, I cannot for the life of me remember whether they had mat boards over them, around them, behind them, or anywhere nearby.

Perhaps you ought to take a better look next time. Of all the exhibitions I have visited, I don't remember one where the prints were NOT mounted with a matte. A well-made matte, of course, is not made to be noticed for itself, but to enhance the impact of the photo.

>>A photo can stand on its own if its well printed, big enough to see, mounted flat, and placed in a well-lighted spot where I can see it.

Nobody will doubt that. You can also drink good wine from a paper beaker, but you will miss part of the joy (such as the beautiful colour). There is always the difference between minimalist and optimal presentation.

>>My attitude on this may be a reaction to early exposure to artsy-fartsy camera-club shows that feature odd-shaped prints toned blue and mounted in the corner of mats four times as large as the print.

That's probably on the other side of the optimum.

Personally, I used to just put some suitable board under my prints when I framed them, because I thought that would be just as well, and cutting the matte board would be to difficult for me. Since I tried it a couple of years ago, I found that the cutting is easily done, and the effect is much much better than before.

-- Thomas Wollstein (thomas_wollstein@web.de), September 11, 2000.

I agree with Thomas!!!

I use Exeter Conservation Board - Gallery White - from LightImpressions. For portfolio presentation I use two ply, and for mounting under glass I use 4 ply. I do sometimes mount my print directly on archival board/foam core & frame it, without glass, because I do not particularly like to have glass reflections on my prints - sometimes.

Nevertheless, there is a LOT to be said for a well-matted and framed image.

I also use a low cost [about $70.00] Logan matt cutter. If you compare the cost of buying a mat cutter with the cost of having something matted, you come out way ahead by buying a matt cutter.

Light Impressions:

www.lightimpressionsdirect.com

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), September 11, 2000.

Not to belabor a topic so unrelated to photography as mat boards, but the tenor of this discussion seems to suggest that I cut out the photos from my books of Cartier Bresson, Atget, Ansel Adams, et al and mount them behind a mat, and maybe a piece of glass, in order to get their full effect as the photographer would want it. I've assumed that art is exhibited behind mats and glass mainly as a compromise that enables seeing it while still protecting it against yobbos who might want to touch it. I don't regard this as improving or aiding the aesthetics of the art itself. When I buy tomatoes in a clear plastic pack, I don't expect them to taste better because of the protective packaging, but merely to survive better until I buy them. (Unhappily, in many cases, the packaging probably tastes about as good as the tomatoes.)

-- Keith Nichols (knichols@iopener.net), September 11, 2000.

Regarding cutting out photos from books and matting them, books themselves are framing devices. Most book designers make conscious decisions concerning margins, print size, etc. What I like about margins and mats is that they diminish the visual noise surrounding a photo. On a more philosophical note, I don't believe we can ever wholly eliminate either the frame or the noise -- there is no pure communion with the art object.

-- Christopher Hargens (ldmr@cruzio.com), September 12, 2000.

Keith wrote:

>>Not to belabor a topic so unrelated to photography as mat boards, but the tenor of this discussion seems to suggest that I cut out the photos from my books of Cartier Bresson, Atget, Ansel Adams, et al and mount them behind a mat, and maybe a piece of glass, in order to get their full effect as the photographer would want it.

Do we really have to get so polemic? Well, then: IMO, books are a kind of poor man's exhibition. You can take them home and enjoy looking at them any time w/o the inconvenience of having to go someplace else. I think there is hardly any discussion that the printing quality of books does not approach that of a well-made genuine silver gelatin print. But if you want the real thing, and optimally presented, you should look at the original prints, and, yes, I think they should be matted in the vast majority of cases. One can dispute about the glass, though. Non-reflective glass reduces sharpness and contrast, and reflective glass gives reflections and also reduces contrast.

As to the "full effect as the photographer would want it": The photographer would probably want you to look at original prints. (Did you read how fussy Ansel Adams was about the quality of reprodcutions of his prints?)

The photographer has the benefit of having a viewfinder to isolate his subject. The matte serves the same purpose for the person looking at the print. BTW: Even you didn't argue about some blank space around the print looking good. Your post just suggested using the simple means of glueing the print on board instead of having to cut a window.

Keith also wrote:

>>I've assumed that art is exhibited behind mats and glass mainly as a compromise that enables seeing it while still protecting it against yobbos who might want to touch it. I don't regard this as improving or aiding the aesthetics of the art itself.

The glass is indeed an evil necessary for protection (see above), not only from "yobbos" but also in transport and during the preparation of the exhibition. And the matte board doesn't "aid the aesthetics of the art itself" but it makes it stand out from the surroundings. That's why the photos are usually framed in simple frames, and with simple white matte board.

>>When I buy tomatoes in a clear plastic pack, I don't expect them to taste better because of the protective packaging, but merely to survive better until I buy them. (Unhappily, in many cases, the packaging probably tastes about as good as the tomatoes.)

Well considering that you denied having noticed the matting of the prints you saw at exhibitions, how come you noticed the packaging of the tomatoes?

-- Thomas Wollstein (thomas_wollstein@web.de), September 12, 2000.

Ah, Thomas, you're right back to where I started. My original posting suggested simply mounting the prints on the board without the cutout overlay. Actually, I didn't mention leaving a border, but it's okay. As for noticing the plastic around the tomatoes - they're just another of the store-bought items requiring surgical techniques to extract them undamaged from their Plexiglas caskets. I.e., it's hard not to notice the overpackaging of everything when it takes two or three minutes to get at a product once you buy it.

-- Keith Nichols (knichols@iopener.net), September 12, 2000.

I've been following this discussion for a few days and now feel I should add my two-cent's worth as well. It seems the original questioner was concerned with how much trouble, time and effort it would be to cut window mats for displaying his prints. To this I say: Don't bother. Unless you want to spend a lot on a good mat cutter and plan to cut enough mats to make that investment economically feasible, it's just not worth it. Hand-held mat cutters just don't "cut it". One botched cut ruins an entire board, and, unless you have an expensive tabletop cutter, you'll botch more cuts than it's worth. I exhibit rather a lot, and always have my windows cut by a professional in a frame shop. Most of the time I bring in my own (i.e. purchased somewhere else) board, with the border measurements written on the back in pencil so the person cutting has it easy. It usually costs me $2 to $3 for windows in 16x20 board, a bit more for larger and a bit less for smaller. I've shopped around and found someone who cuts excellent straight bevels with no overcutting and who gives me quantity discounts. Visit or call your local frame shops and see what they charge for such a service.

As for whether or not prints should be exhibited/displayed with window mats, the answer is: Yes, if you are interested in the permanance of the print and don't want it damaged by being placed flat against the glass, which traps gasses and contaminants on the surface of the prints and can adhere to the print as well. Displaying them without glass only means that the print is subject to fingerprints, (damaging), dust, (not damaging in itself, but dusting prints can be) and whatever else might be flying around in the air to physically damage the prints. There is a reason reputable galleries require that photographs be mounted on cotton rag museum board with overmats of the same material, and metal frames with glass or acrylic. It is simply the safest, most permanant and visually neutral way to display. Why not just give your work the quality presentation they deserve and display them in nice frames with an overmat and glass? Regards, ;^D)

-- Doremus Scudder (ScudderLandreth@compuserve.com), September 13, 2000.

Well, I just can't agree with Doremus. I use a 'cheap' Logan mat cutter and get excellent, professional results.

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), September 21, 2000.