Framing Friendly Photo Size by 17" printer, and what standard frame size and mat board size

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a 17" printer. It can print up to 17"x39", The largest pre-cut print paper size I buy are 17x25 or 17x22. Some times I cut from roll to make 17x24 or 17x23.  None of these sizes are framing friendly if choosing from standard frame size. 

The easy to find smallest standard frame size for 17" wide print, according to Amazon's lists, is 18x24. But the largest pre-cut window of  mat board for this size is 16x20. 

Now here're my quetions:

1: If you are printing 17" printer and 17" paper, do you generally use customized frame size and (or)  the mat mask board size? 

2: What the best standard combo sizes of the largest print size (17' printer") + Mat board size + Frame size?

Yes, I understand I can DIY to make any size, but that will be my last chioce.

[erl]

I used to make all my own frames and matts, but since Covid, I have run out of steam. My standard, and only print size is A2 which works fine with my 17" Epson. I have been looking, like you, for an alternative, eg, off the shelf solution but have not found one. I have experimented with self gluing prints to fomecore boards, but have yet to decide if that suits my intentions.

Keen to know what other options might be presented here.

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, erl said:

I used to make all my own frames and matts, but since Covid, I have run out of steam. My standard, and only print size is A2 which works fine with my 17" Epson. I have been looking, like you, for an alternative, eg, off the shelf solution but have not found one. I have experimented with self gluing prints to fomecore boards, but have yet to decide if that suits my intentions.

Keen to know what other options might be presented here.

Cutting my own matt mask board from foam board is relative easy. I hope 18"x24" can be my standard foam board size. 22x28 might be another choice. I hope they can cover prints of 17x17, 17x22, and 17x25 in 18x24 or 22x28 frames.

[Chris W]

I always get my frames from Ikea. They have some really nice natural wood ones with pre-made matt board.

I tend to go with an image size that matches the native aspect ratio of my camera, that way I don't have to crop anything to print.

[erl]

A problem with pre-made frames and matts that all borders are the same size. Certainly that facilitates rotating between V & H format, but that always makes the image look as though it is falling out of the frame. Optically, the bottom margin of a matt must be larger than the other three sides. To use ready made frames, one needs to cut your own matts to fit the frame and specifically for whether the image is to be V or H.

[pippy]

2 minutes ago, erl said:

...Optically, the bottom margin of a matt must be larger than the other three sides...

I am fully aware that what you say is accepted as being 'Conventional Wisdom' - it's what was taught to us as students - but, personally, I can't abide the look of what appears to be (because it really is) a bottom-heavy frame. I have tried to get used to 'the correct proportion' in the distant past but hated how the framed photographs looked; to my eyes they were always somewhat unbalanced.

As such I always mount my photographs centrally. Odd, I know, but that's simply my own preference.

Philip.

[Chris W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have both and really don't mind equally centred prints in frames. 

[Einst_Stein]

That was what I learned from school, even the assistant ruler for positioning the picture in the frame is purposely made to do that, but I cannot remember any museum doing that practice. 
Example, Attached is a painting by Leonardo Da Vinci. It is centered. 
 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited August 5 by Einst_Stein

[Einst_Stein]

Here is another example. 
 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Einst_Stein]

Anyway, if I can get off the shelf nice frames, I could live with it, centered or not.

[Jeff S]

I use a 17” printer, and always print less than 16” (never borderless) on one side.  The actual picture size and aspect ratio is very specific to the image, and I cut custom window mats to overlap the picture edges precisely.  Years ago I treated myself to a wall mounted mat cutter, which I found heavily discounted, to replace my desktop version.

I stock pre-cut archival mats and glass in 14x18, 18x24 and 22x28 sizes, along with pre-cut metal frame sections to match as needed. All accessories (wire kits, etc) are also at hand for easy and complete assembly. 
 

 

 

[Einst_Stein]

42 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I use a 17” printer, and always print less than 16” (never borderless) on one side.  The actual picture size and aspect ratio is very specific to the image, and I cut custom window mats to overlap the picture edges precisely.  Years ago I treated myself to a wall mounted mat cutter, which I found heavily discounted, to replace my desktop version.

I stock pre-cut archival mats and glass in 14x18, 18x24 and 22x28 sizes, along with pre-cut metal frame sections to match as needed. All accessories (wire kits, etc) are also at hand for easy and complete assembly. 
 

 

 

You brought up an interesting question I always have, the border or magin size.

I have never printed borderless on my Epson 17" printer because I am afraid of ink spill out of the paper if there is any misalignment. But I am always curious what's the minimal border/magin width should be.  Interestingly, I can never set the maring on the 17" to 0. From soft proof, it always shows some boarder even if the margin was 0. 

 

[Jeff S]

I cut the overmat to the image edge, so I need some extra room on the print paper beyond that to overlap the cover mat on to the print surface. The other reason for not printing borderless is to avoid printer issues, discussed in several of Keith Cooper’s Northlight videos.

[Jeff S]

I should add that I don’t print to fill the frame, rather to suit the image, so it’s not unusual for me to print a picture 8x12” or smaller on to 13x19” paper, and cut that down for placement in a 14x18” frame, with the 14x18” cover (window) mat having several inch borders. I like my pictures to breathe a bit in the frame, not to be near the edges.  But each picture demands individual treatment, including mat color, glass type, single vs double mat, etc.

[erl]

11 hours ago, pippy said:

I am fully aware that what you say is accepted as being 'Conventional Wisdom' - it's what was taught to us as students - but, personally, I can't abide the look of what appears to be (because it really is) a bottom-heavy frame. I have tried to get used to 'the correct proportion' in the distant past but hated how the framed photographs looked; to my eyes they were always somewhat unbalanced.

As such I always mount my photographs centrally. Odd, I know, but that's simply my own preference.

Philip.

I accept what you say. It is important that to your eye it 'looks right'.

For me, on a typical A2 (or part thereof) I normally matt with 10cm margins top and sides, but add 1cm at the bottom, which to me looks right. Equal margins all round do disturb my eye.

Such are the differences of preferences.

[erl]

7 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

That was what I learned from school, even the assistant ruler for positioning the picture in the frame is purposely made to do that, but I cannot remember any museum doing that practice. 
Example, Attached is a painting by Leonardo Da Vinci. It is centered. 
 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Yes, but it has no matt at all, and is a different consideration entirely.

[250swb]

I would mount a print showing the white border, I've never liked a matt that overlaps the edge of the print. It is a consideration that a dead centre window in the matt can make the image appear lower in the frame but with a border you can give an extra margin at the bottom of the print to compensate for commercial over-matts. It also makes a space for signing the print. Paintings and framed photographs are not the same thing unless the photograph fills the entire frame as very large prints can do, but watercolours, drawings, etc. usually follow the format of the image being mounted higher in the window or the window being cut higher. 

Considering the size of the print and making them as large as possible within the constraints of the equipment is to my mind the caveman approach, and the bigger club doesn't always win. Print size is the last aesthetic opportunity the photographer has to manipulate their audience, and sometimes 'less is more'. Instead of having everybody walking past your prints at the prints own natural set viewing distance, make them pause to look closer with a smaller more intimate print, or draw them closer throughout the exhibition or living room by making all the prints smaller. It's not surprising that many exhibitions of modern photography feature much smaller prints than the darkroom or inkjet would allow, one consideration being that some photographs don't scale up as well as others. Photographers such as Michael Kenna limit their image size to 10"x10" and getting closer makes the connection to the print a personal experience for the viewer instead of bumping shoulders and elbows stood four feet away. And that is my answer as well, ask do you want to hit the viewer over the head with a club, or use arrow like perception to target the response you would like from them? 

[erl]

33 minutes ago, 250swb said:

I would mount a print showing the white border, I've never liked a matt that overlaps the edge of the print. It is a consideration that a dead centre window in the matt can make the image appear lower in the frame but with a border you can give an extra margin at the bottom of the print to compensate for commercial over-matts. It also makes a space for signing the print. Paintings and framed photographs are not the same thing unless the photograph fills the entire frame as very large prints can do, but watercolours, drawings, etc. usually follow the format of the image being mounted higher in the window or the window being cut higher. 

Considering the size of the print and making them as large as possible within the constraints of the equipment is to my mind the caveman approach, and the bigger club doesn't always win. Print size is the last aesthetic opportunity the photographer has to manipulate their audience, and sometimes 'less is more'. Instead of having everybody walking past your prints at the prints own natural set viewing distance, make them pause to look closer with a smaller more intimate print, or draw them closer throughout the exhibition or living room by making all the prints smaller. It's not surprising that many exhibitions of modern photography feature much smaller prints than the darkroom or inkjet would allow, one consideration being that some photographs don't scale up as well as others. Photographers such as Michael Kenna limit their image size to 10"x10" and getting closer makes the connection to the print a personal experience for the viewer instead of bumping shoulders and elbows stood four feet away. And that is my answer as well, ask do you want to hit the viewer over the head with a club, or use arrow like perception to target the response you would like from them? 

Steve, an interesting post. Thank you.

Historically, I have always made my own frames and matts, utilizing the 10,10,10,11cm matt borders format. Currently and for some time , I only print at A2 size. If an image does not benefit from that enlargement, it does not get printed. IMO 'big is beautiful'. I can see you cringing now! But I am not a caveman and I do not use a club. I use high quality gear that handles well the size I favour. I have come to learn that a lot of detail in many images, especially landscapes (I am not really a landscape photographer) contain interesting detail that really does benefit from being revealed by enlargement.

Your idea of revealing a larger portion of the print margin at the bottom, maybe for signing, is interesting to me, as I am now forced to rely on commercially available frames off the shelf. That simple technique would alleviate my aversion to the 'dropping out of frame' syndrome that is all too common.

My concluding comment is, I do not hit viewers over the head with a club, but do attempt to inspire them with prints larger than they may be accustomed to. It generally works, providing the image content is up to the task of interest.

[250swb]

37 minutes ago, erl said:

Steve, an interesting post. Thank you.

Historically, I have always made my own frames and matts, utilizing the 10,10,10,11cm matt borders format. Currently and for some time , I only print at A2 size. If an image does not benefit from that enlargement, it does not get printed. IMO 'big is beautiful'. I can see you cringing now! But I am not a caveman and I do not use a club. I use high quality gear that handles well the size I favour. I have come to learn that a lot of detail in many images, especially landscapes (I am not really a landscape photographer) contain interesting detail that really does benefit from being revealed by enlargement.

Your idea of revealing a larger portion of the print margin at the bottom, maybe for signing, is interesting to me, as I am now forced to rely on commercially available frames off the shelf. That simple technique would alleviate my aversion to the 'dropping out of frame' syndrome that is all too common.

My concluding comment is, I do not hit viewers over the head with a club, but do attempt to inspire them with prints larger than they may be accustomed to. It generally works, providing the image content is up to the task of interest.

I was suggesting that 'just because' your printer can print large is the problem, not that you can't choose to print large. But it begs the question, could your prints be even 'better' if they were bigger than A2? Or if you had an A3 printer would they be worse? Wouldn't they still be the same print, just a different size? For example if they were printed in a book would you need to say in the forward 'these photos aren't as good as they could be because they aren't big enough'? 

The psychology of print size aside there are far more practical reasons for choosing a print size than the printer, what is the wall space available in you or your customers homes for example. Would people say 'it's a great photograph but we've nowhere to hang it'? And then the price charged may be too much for a large framed print if that is the only option. In an exhibition you'd think the photographer would have carte blanche, but how much space is there for a viewer to stand back and admire the print, do some prints need to be hung on free standing panels to avoid daylight, transportation costs between exhibitions can be considerable for a set of large framed prints if the photographer is starting out, and not all galleries have the wall space for the photographer to get their message across using large prints especially if they are sharing a space.

Edited August 9 by 250swb

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Einst_Stein]

A picture displayed in family room is not necessary the center of the  interests, usually not. It's just a decoration of the room but with a touch of the owner's personality. How large it should be does not have to be dictated by the content of the picture. It could be determined by the surounding environment and the availalble space. Even, the size of the frame is determined before what picture to fit in. 

How big a print should be? Do not just think as a photographer. Sonetimes it takes to think as a room decorator.