Question Mat Proportions

Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Posts
49
Location
China
I have a picture measuring 11 1/2" wide x 16 1/2" long. The frame is to be small, 1" wide. I want to put a single mat on it.

My question is -Is there a mathematical formula to determine the correct size of the mat border? I am vaguely familiar with the Golden Section, but when I times 11 1/2" by 0.618, I get 7", which is massive!

Is there a formula which works every time, no matter what size the picture is, or is it really just a matter of looking "right"?

I also think that when I use the Golden Mean formula around a picture, the ratio 1 on the top and sides and 1.618 on the bottom, the bottom mat always looks too big to me. Is it just me?

Thanks in advance :)
 
I think you'll find answers all over the map on this one. But I'll start.

Try dividing your result in half to apply the mean to the entire mat and not just one side. That would give you 3.5", which sounds (and looks) more reasonable.

I think mat margins are largely an asthetic decision. The only "rules" I encourage my customers to consider are: Too small creates tension and draws your eye away from the art, and make the margin a different width than the frame you are using.
 
There are a lot of factors to consider apart from the size when deciding the margin width. Not the least is the nature of the image itself. Delicate images generally need more seperation from their surroundings and lighter tones. Very small, precious things like intricate ivory panel paintings look better in in a mat they may be 4-5 times their size. A big poster might look fine with a 2" wide dark coloured mat.
There is no magic formula. There are principles of design, such as not having the mat the same width as the frame. But these 'rules' are not set in stone. Feel free to ignore them if it suits your purpose..;)
Study other examples of framed pictures. See how the proportions work (or not). Eventually you will develop the 'eye'.

If it looks right, it is right.:icon11:
 
Just yesterday I talked a customer into a 2" wide mat when he asked for less than 1/2" wide - my rationale: "Why pay for a mat and not be able to see it?" He laughed and admitted that he had to agree with me.

Customers are always inching the frame sample in over the mat sample - and they began doing this long before the introduction of 4" samples.

"Does it have to be so wide?"

Answer: It depends.
 
For years I have used the analogy of custom window decor vs ready to hang window decor.

Custom window decor is much fuller and richer looking........ At the same time I flap by arms to indicate "more elbow room"
 
1) When it comes to mats.... forget you ever heard of the Golden Formula. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you take the 11.5 and apply the GR of 1.618 you are up at 18.6..... so the picture is already out of whack.
2) Forget Vivian Kisler's "a wider mat always looks better"...... yeah? Well lets see what it looks like with a 32x40 outside measure . . .
3) Weighted bottom has to do with too many sundaes the rest of the week as well as the super sized other heart stompin . . . .
oops sorry...
3) Weighting the bottom of the mat has to do with countering the optical illusion of the picture "sinking" into the bottom. So just a 1/2" or on a larger mat an 1" is really all that is necessary.

A one inch frame on this could use a 2" mat with an extra 1/2" on the bottom. But what is also necessary to consider is the color of the frame and mat. Without intruding on the picture, it needs to constrain the picture from oozing out into the room, as well as stop the room from oozing into the picture.
A strong color in frame and mat can do that with the minimum of size. But if you go with a buffered vanilla or puke white..... you're on your own and I don't even want to know you. :kaffeetrinker_2:

Hint: a beige or mid-tone is as bland as I can stomach.... and would be fine as 2.5 with a 3" bottom.
 
Just yesterday I talked a customer into a 2" wide mat when he asked for less than 1/2" wide - my rationale: "Why pay for a mat and not be able to see it?" He laughed and admitted that he had to agree with me.

Customers are always inching the frame sample in over the mat sample - and they began doing this long before the introduction of 4" samples.

"Does it have to be so wide?"

Answer: It depends.

Good response, Mar. It made me chuckle because it acknowledges that customers often measure mat width in dollars rather than inches, which really complicates aesthetic judgments. At least with 4" samples, even when the "inching in" begins you have a reasonable chance of ending up with a decent-looking border.

As I'm placing the frame sample on the mat sample I like to give a simple statement like, "Proportional to the size and boldness of this image and the size of the frame, I'd mat it to about here. That gives us the openness needed, but it's not swimming in a sea of mat."

:cool: Rick

P.S. On this example, depending on the image, I'd probably go about 2.75 to 3" top and sides, and 3 to 3.25" on the bottom.
 
LOL.....I say 'swimming in a sea of mat', too, Rick! :D

Maybe we really were separated at birth.

Longtime customers usually just want me to decide the
mat width, but I'm big on letting people take part in
every decision. With new people, I'll show them the range
of where it would look good. I say that with a large subject
matter, it can handle a wider frame. With a wide frame (usually
2 1/2" or more), the mat can either be very wide, or narrow like a
liner. I say that thing about not having them the same width, too.

I tell them that with a narrow frame, the mat can be a variety of
widths, but it's important not to have it too narrow. I use terms that
aren't fancy, but get the point across. I'll hold a narrow frame in close
to the art and say, 'If it gets too narrow, the mat ceases to be a space.
That and the narrow line of the frame just turn into stripes around
the art.' Then I pull the mat sample out to far and say, 'But we don't
want it swimming in a vast sea of mat, either.' After that, I show
them the range in between where it would look good. 'We could
do it anywhere between here and here and it works well.' They like
having those things explained to them, and feel good knowing that
they can choose anywhere in that range and it will be okay.

I rarely talk about mat width in terms of measurements.
Probably twice a month, I'll get someone who asks what the
width is that we're looking at. The rest of the time, we just
look at it visually, and I write down the measurements of
what we've come up with.
 
OhOh.....You could add "Ship of Fools". "We would be like a ship of fools wallowing in a sea of perilous, unforgiving mat, bared to the whims of the treacherous unfathomable depths of the briny Crescent Grecian Olive rag." That'll get their attention. Then, before they bolt for the door you can say "How about here?"
 
I generally do at least 3-inch mat borders, unless the customer insists otherwise. I just completed framing for pictures of a customer's beloved pets -- so beloved that they insisted that the frames be "perfectly plain," and the mat borders be 1 inch all around. They must have really loved these pets to require such cheap-looking framing, but that's what they wanted and that's what they got.

Invariably when I put my mat samples down and position the frame sample over them, the customer will spazz out and ask me to put the frame sample closer to the art...closer....can you put it even closer? Does the mat have to be that wide? Please, if I do anything more than a half-inch mat, the neighbors will grab torches and axes and march on my house at night, chanting "TOO WIDE!!! TOO WIDE!!! BURN IT DOWN!!!! BURN IT DOWN!!!!"
 
I hear all of these theories of weighted bottom from artist and the like and it drives me nuts. The origin goes back to the olden days when walls were made of plaster. People typically hung frames from picture rail moulding at the base of the crown moulding. Frames hung higher on the wall and therefore part of the lower margin of the mat was concealed from view by the bottom rail of the frame. The farther the frame extended out from the glass the wider the bottom needed to be in order to reveal to the viewer the same measurements on all four sides.

Over the years artists and instructors claimed they developed it to compensate for that "Sinking Feeling". This method was developed to show exactly the same amount of mat all the way around and not to show any additional margin at the bottom. There can be no formula to figure this because it is dependant on the moulding and overall height of the ceiling and hanging position.

Now that pictures are hung at eye level there is no longer any inteligent reason to weight the bottom other than the fact that this is what you like.

Once again we have the artist community misconstruing what was done for an inteligent purpose and claiming all sorts of theories as to why it is inteligent to do so.
 
Thanks for trotting out that old artist wives tale.

It always cracks me up when people who have never studied the history of decor, lived in a house with picture rail or dealt with trying to hang something 'up there' starts quoting that same old hag excuse for not taking the time to weight the bottom.

If you don't see it or want to sell it..... then don't.
 
So if you don't agree why not grace us with the actual reason.

Just for the record I grew up in a century home, studied 2 years under a conservator restoring tens of millions of dollars of REAL art and weight the bottom every time some moron artist explains the purpose for the practice.

I have framed or been responsible for framing hundreds of thousands of pieces of art and still have not seen the sinking effect that has been discussed without the height of hanging and face of the frame obstructing the view of a portion of the mat.
 
but did you ever see any example of a picture hanging directly from the rail..... which would put the focal point at about 6.5-7'?

Have you ever seen any photos of that occuring?

There is art hanging in almost every Gustov Stickley's magazine...... all are hung at the same level as today...... all have weighted bottoms.

And this discussion is nothing new..... I think it was in the 1893 November issue of DECOR... I'll have to go back and check......

Nor will we come to an agreement here today.... except to agree that this is after 180 years of mats... still being discussed.
 
OKOKOK. before we descend into acrimony.


What can't speak can't lie. Make your own minds up. :icon21:

Which pic looks in the middle of the frame?

margins001.jpg


margins002.jpg
 
The early days of framing were enjoyed primarily by the affluent and therefore they did not have 8' ceilings as the norm. The area where I grew up the typical ceilings in the area's original neighborhoods were 12' or more. Screw eyes were generally placed slightly above half way up the back of the frame and the wire was extended to 1" below the top edge of the frame to conceal the connection between the wire on the frame and the one extending from the picture rail clip. Nails were not used to attach the piece to the wall or the picture rail. 12" to 30" of moulding was usual for the crown moulding and it was some of the most beautiful walnut or truly exotic wood.

A picture hanging with the bottom rail at 8' would lean forward to aid the viewing of those in the room especially those that were sitting down. There were many homes built with low ceilings but those were not the folks that could afford a home full of framed art. The people who had built a home from stone imported from England and had tens of thousands of board feet of hand crafted walnut installed at every seam, doorway and floor of the home were the same that enjoyed framed artwork. I guess the artwork was complimentary to the leaded or stained glass in every window of the home. Every historic area of the country has these homes and for those who have not taken the time to apprecaite them I highly suggest you do so just for the incredible experience. Many of these mansions have been turned to museums or historic public places.

Anyone who has grown up in a home with lathe and plaster walls knows that a nail in the plaster will get your fingers cracked with a hammer by your parents.

Baer, I know you are aware of all of these factors but there are many that read this that have no idea.
 
LOL.....I say 'swimming in a sea of mat', too, Rick! :D Maybe we really were separated at birth.
Perhaps so. I do kind of think of you as the much taller sister I never had. ;) Anyway, I know our frame design approaches are very similar...and tasteful.
Now that pictures are hung at eye level there is no longer any inteligent reason to weight the bottom other than the fact that this is what you like.
That's good enough for me. I like it.
:cool: Rick

Thanks for the lovely demo, Prospero!
 
Wider is more Profitable..golden rule.
 
I think there's a reason to weight the bottom at least 1/8 inch
every time. Since the standard allowance is 1/8 inch, if you make the
mat even all the way around, then it will rest on the bottom rail,
with that extra space at the top, and the bottom will be slightly
narrower than the top. For that reason, at a bare minimum, the mat
should be at least that much wider at the bottom, just to be
even.

I usually weight only 1/4 inch at the bottom, but have done it
wider when someone asks for it. If it looks okay, that is.
And one of my fellas has these itty bitty 'pictures', that are made
on actual strips of camera film. Each one is only about 1 1/8" high
by 4" or so wide. That would disappear in a tiny mat, so on his,
we do a mat about 2 1/2" on the top and sides and 5" on the bottom.
For his pieces, it looks great.
 
I have a postage stamp that I have framed with a series of mats into an 8x10 - I tell folks that to frame something that small with a proportionally small mat once it is on the wall it will look like a light switch.

That usually brings 'em to their senses!
 
Thank you Mar...... I was going to ignore miniatures. But you are right, as the item gets small, (under 3x4) the mat needs to get larger.

The reason is still back to the purpose of a mat & frame.... to keep the room OUT. Unfortunately in 2003, the exausted judges just couldn't get their minds around the concept of a 24"x24" frame and mats on a 1.5x1.75" object.
Frame01E_2003.jpg


Jeff, have been in those homes in Europe and England. Every single one of the paintings were hung at eye level.

IF, they had EVER hung stuff higher, wouldn't it make sense that they would have reduced the bulk of the bottom frame rail if it was getting in the way?

One final note about mats..... although they were first used in the 1830s, they didn't gain wide use until the popularity of that new fangled art in the 1880s...... photographs. A little bit late for all those 12' ceiling mansions. Also to hang a 9x13 portrait any higher than eye level would be to not be able to see it. [13x19 wasn't available until much closer to 1900.]
 
Well, Brother Baer - that is a wonderful frame and a great mat and a terrific presentation - but what the heck is that little itty bitty thing floating in the center of it all? Poor l'il thing seems kinda lost, doncha think???

Tell us about the job! The frame looks like Art Nouveau unless those are dragons in the corners in which case it would appear to be Asian - the fan-shapes in the matting look Asian - and the objet d' art appears to be ivory?

Spill the story, big guy!
 
Invariably when I put my mat samples down and position the frame sample over them, the customer will spazz out and ask me to put the frame sample closer to the art...closer....can you put it even closer? Does the mat have to be that wide? Please, if I do anything more than a half-inch mat, the neighbors will grab torches and axes and march on my house at night, chanting "TOO WIDE!!! TOO WIDE!!! BURN IT DOWN!!!! BURN IT DOWN!!!!"

And that is why we have visualization software.
 
We generally weight 2 & 2.25 or 2.5
3 & 3.5
4 & 4.5 or 5
and so on.
Bottom weight increases with the width of the mat.
I keep square pictures square without weighting.

Some horizontal pieces stay even.
Sometimes customer wants even.
Sometimes we look at different proportions such as 3, 3 sides, top 4 bottom 5 or even more exaggerated.
Or a horizontal in a vertical mat. Looks great.

I have a framed 911 Firefighter postage stamp framed in a frame about 16 x 20. Tiny objects in larger mats, absolutely. Floated large pieces with smaller mat border. Just habit and a sense of what looks good.

I know all the reasons for correcting the optical illusion in high drafty statley homes. I've heard a few more along the way. And we do have homes here with picture rails. But it comes down to style and this is what I tell my customers.

I see a certain pleasing balance in a weighted mat. Moreover, customers have been previously educated to expect a weighted mat. If you don't weight without explanation you run the risk of seeming inexperienced.

All of my mats at home are weighted except for squares and circular art.
 
There's another principle that comes into play with weighted mats. The concept of stability. Ever followed a high sided truck? You know it's not likely to tip over, but you still have a feeling you would like to get past it a soon as possible. Ask someone to draw a triangle. A high proportion will draw it apex up. It's not a concious thing, it's just that the weight at the bottom makes it more stable. Don't you always tend to wieght portait format mats more?

I rest my case.;)
 
Interesting way of looking at it, Prospero. I would have to agree.

I think it's important to weight the mat on a landscape picture because the bottom half (below the horizon) feels much heavier than the top half (sky area), and tends to visually pull the image down if not bottom-weighted.

To get a substantial enough border, I explain that with a landscape, psychologically you want to imagine that it "continues" past the visible area. Crowding it in defeats this effect.

Conversely, on a portrait your focus is inward toward the subject. The justification for a substantial border is so that the frame doesn't crowd the subject's face, making him/her appear as though looking out through a tiny window.

Right, Shayla?
:cool: Rick
 
Kirstie, every single time I've used visualization to demonstrate how much more balanced a 3-inch mat border looks, the customer goes for 2 inches or less.
 
Is that frame made from antlers?

Angel antlers. :smiley:

Looks to me like art nouvea swirlies with a flower motif.


One other thing I tell people is that the relative size of the subject
matter affects how wide the mat can be. A large, boldly colored
image, such as an O'Keefe poppy, would look cramped with a narrow
mat and narrow frame. To my way of thinking, it would look good
either with a very narrow mat and very wide frame, or with a wider
mat and a medium to wide frame. If using a wide mat and a narrow
frame on something like that, I'd probably make it a deepish frame,
so it would have some presence on the wall that way.

I'll also tell them that if something has tiny subjects, such as a softly
painted line of trees or little cows on a far horizon, a wide mat and frame
can overpower it. Something with very delicate lines or soft coloring
can be overpowered by a wide frame. For those, it seems to work
with a medium to wide mat and a narrow to medium width frame.
The one exception, like we've mentioned already, is if the piece is
so tiny it needs space just to be seen.


P.S.
Rick, I just sent my DNA test off.
Have you taken yours yet? :popc:
 
I have a postage stamp that I have framed with a series of mats into an 8x10 - I tell folks that to frame something that small with a proportionally small mat once it is on the wall it will look like a light switch.

That usually brings 'em to their senses!


I like the lightswitch comparision. I often use that line myself.:)

Once framed a little dried flower arrangement for a lady who belonged to a 'club' for such activities (God help us all.....:(). The powers that be in said club dictated that all framed displays must be A4 size on the outside. So I did it according to instructions. Because of the depth of the thing, I had to use two narrow, deep mouldings back-to-back. So the frame was 11.75" x 8.25" x 3" deep. Not so much a lightswitch, more a fire alarm. Still, it didn't really need to be hung on the wall. It stood up very well on it's own. :icon21:
 
Well, Brother Baer - that is a wonderful frame and a great mat and a terrific presentation - but what the heck is that little itty bitty thing floating in the center of it all? Poor l'il thing seems kinda lost, doncha think???


Ah! that's the thing Mar, it gets your attention and entices you to come over and take a look. You can only appreciate a miniature close-up, but if it were put in a tiny frame anywhere except a closet or a small bathroom, you would never even notice it from across the room, saying come look at me. :smiley:

Silly judges, Baer!

Frame01E_2003.jpg
 
Another one of my killer sales lines when people have a really nice painting and they want a nasty cheapo frame.

"Would you serve champagne in a jam-jar?"







(trans: jam = jelly)
 
Jeff, have been in those homes in Europe and England. Every single one of the paintings were hung at eye level.

IF, they had EVER hung stuff higher, wouldn't it make sense that they would have reduced the bulk of the bottom frame rail if it was getting in the way?

One final note about mats..... although they were first used in the 1830s, they didn't gain wide use until the popularity of that new fangled art in the 1880s...... photographs. A little bit late for all those 12' ceiling mansions. Also to hang a 9x13 portrait any higher than eye level would be to not be able to see it. [13x19 wasn't available until much closer to 1900.]

Your right Baer they tore down all of those 200 year old mansions and haven't built any since. Check out the year built on the listing.

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/2779-Som-Center_Hunting-Valley_OH_44022_1107792289

How do you reduce the protrusion of the frame if the profile is a 4" deep scoop.

Not much in the way of nice stuff on the market right now but cruise through a few of these. A friend of mine lived in the Jackson Rd. home. There were some killer parties in that place. There was a 7 hole golf course on the grounds then because 2 holes were removed for the helicopter landing pad.

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Hunting-Valley_OH/price-1000000-na?sby=2

Now that you have educated us on the neccessity for a weighted bottom let me ask what percentage of liners you weight. Surely there can not be 2 sets of rules on weighting. Visual perception can't change based on media being viewed can it. Better call all of those customers back to repair the work previously completed.

By the way, there are thousands of 200-300 year old homes in the Cleveland area.
 
These are all great answers but no one has answered the question. I can't answer it either but I do have a cheat. Go to the link and scroll down to the calculator.

https://erikras.com/2010/01/07/optimizing-picture-to-border-ratio/

The Phi Ratio actually refers to the total finished space in relation to the space the image occupies. So, you can not just apply phi to the length or width.
 
Thank heavens for the Grumble Archives! They are gold.

Just try to find something from even last week on Facebook.

Hah!
 
You can actually search within a group on FB, but the search capabilities here are far better, and are a great asset the G still has in this social media age.
:cool: Rick
 
Ah, but Rick, you have to try to remember in which FB framing group you saw the item you are looking for. I am in at least 5 framing groups - which is patently ridiculous - right?
 
Back
Top