Digital Photo Blog

Framing a Fine Art Photographic Print

Framing a photograph can be done several ways. The most common is without a matte, and is usually a photo of friends or loved one. Fine photographs, on the other hand, are virtually always matted. Beside the fact that this separates the surface of the photo from the rear surface of the glass (thus protecting it from sticking and other damage) the matte sets off the photo, and provides isolation from the surroundings; a “viewing area” if you will.

Framing is itself an artistic endeavor and thus subject to individual tastes. Therefore, I’m describing my own sensibilities here, and not hard and fast rules.

Paintings are often enhanced by the choice of a fancy frame. We have all seen those cases where one wonders whether or not the frame itself was not the object, rather than the painting it housed.

Photographs, on the other hand are diminished by ornate frames. A photograph is a captured instant, a single moment extracted from the flowing river of time. The viewer moves into a photograph as though he were there at that moment, with one big difference. Since that moment is frozen, he do something he cannot in real life – observe and blend every instance and detail into the whole it truly is.

Further, a photograph is composed by the artist. It is a chosen point of view, a perspective. And just as one uses “point of view” and “perspective” in an intellectual or argumentative sense, it is used in the physical and spatial sense with a photograph. That is: the artist is positioning you in space and time, and presenting you with an intellectual statement.

With all of this going on – with the striking depth of involvement which one can experience with a fine art photograph, the context in which it is placed becomes paramount.

That context is the presentation: the frame.

I always choose a simple thin black frame. This serves the purpose to draw a pronounced but unobtrusive rectangle around the image, separating that area from its surrounding. This deliberate choice says “look here.” In keeping it plain, thin, black and simple, it serves this purpose only, and does not call attention to itself – only to the object it contains. In short, there is no need to look at the frame, as there is nothing of interest to see on it.

As for the matte – considerations include color and width, as well as matting style.

There are single and double layer matte and I prefer the former, for the same reasons I prefer a simple frame: to my senses, a double matte merely makes the viewer think “look at the fancy matting.”

The color of the matte should enhance the photograph, or at the very least not detract from, nor alter it. The tone and color of a fine art photograph has been painstakingly worked by the artist, and the color of the matte, if it is anything besides a neutral tone, will alter that for the viewer. This applies whether the photograph is color or black and white.

In some cases, a bright white matte is appropriate, while in others, an off-white or even creme-tone is a better choice. In short, you must match the matte to the print itself.

Now, I’m making an assumption here, as expressed in the title of this piece: that you’re truly working with a fine art print: one which has meaning for you. If you are instead working with a designer and color-coordinating a room, and the matte “simply has to be lime green” then I’d suggest you choose a photo based on its colors, not it’s “message.” The choice may still be a fine art print if you’re very fortunate, but will likely be a more conventional “pretty” photograph.

The width of the matte’s borders needs to match the size of the image within, and the size of the frame; it’s a bit of a balancing act. A larger frame (say 18 x 24 and above) with a matte width of 1″ on a side will look out of proportion to the print, and fails to provide enough isolation to separate the image from its surroundings.

Equally, a 4″ x 4″ photo in a 20″ x 20″ frame has 8″ margins around the image, reducing the photo to 1/25th of the area, and results in a pretentious and unbalanced presentation.

It is that sense of a comfortable separation, a “viewing table” if you will, which determines the appropriate matte border width.

Finally, there is another consideration: is it the image or the print that you are displaying? For example, the images of Ansel Adams made him famous, but owning one of his original prints is a prize as well. The print is valuable because of the image it holds, but an authentic Adams print also has an intrinsic value.

Because the fine art print is carefully cropped by the artist, any matte which covers it, even slightly, defeats the artist. A photograph is largely composition and balance, and the photographer has very carefully chosen what is included and excluded; chosen the ratio of length to side; and skillfully ranged the tones from center to edge.

Your choice is to have your matte come directly up to, and slightly over the edges of the image, or you can back off a bit, and show some of the paper on which the image rests.

I find matting which covers the image even a tiny bit to be a choice which fails the intent of the artist. In short, I favor the style of matting which allows the full image to be displayed, with a bit of the paper showing, for the reasons stated above.

Yet as with all artistic “rules” this too can be broken. For example, some photographs are taken with the full intent to be matted, and allowances therefore made by the photographer. Portraits spring to mind as an example of this category.

So there we are: several things to consider when framing and matting a fine art print: frame, matte, color, size, and edges, with most of it dictated by the print itself. If this all seems a bit intimidating, you can simply take the print to a framing shop, and work with the framer there, who will no doubt be well aware of all this, and can guide you through the process.

Should you choose a framed print from my collection, you’ll likely find it conforms to my preferences as stated above.

Tracy Valleau
Monterey, California 2008

Here’s something most folks don’t know about digital cameras: in terms of a quality, well-resolved photograph, you should stay away from the smaller apertures. F22 is too small.

If you’re fortunate enough to have a full-frame sensor camera (such as the Nikon D3/D700 or Canon EOS 5D, for example) you can go to about F11. With better DX (half frame sensor size) cameras, such as the Nikon D300) you can go to between 5.6 and 8; and with little consumer cameras, you should stay at f4 or 5.6.

What’s up with that recommendation? Well, it get a bit technical (see “Airy disc” online for details) but it basically comes down to the smaller the aperture, the bigger the point of light on the surface of the sensor. And if the point of light covers several “pixels” (individual sensors) you’ve lost resolving power.

Even before that happens though, you’ll start overlapping the sensors, and will end up losing contrast, which appears to the eye as a loss of resolution.

Ever wonder why your digital photos look “flat?” That’s why.

Yes – it’s a trade off between resolution and depth of field, and it’s an agonizing one. If you -need- the depth of field, and have to go above f11, you’ll lose some resolution.

A solution might be to go with a lens with a wider angle. Equally, setting your zoom to the wider end of the scale will open up the aperture on many lenses.

If you’re a photographer, you owe it to yourself to run a few tests to confirm how this affects your particular setup.

Meanwhile, (and this is a generalization, varying by sensor size/density, but the gist is correct:) just remember that you’ll get sharper photos at around f5.6 than you will at f22 with your digital camera; that your sweet-spots are between f4 and f8.