Mount Design Advice

[RobM]

Morning Everyone,

I just wanted to ask for some rather basic-level design advice about mounts, especially relating to proportions.

So, I'm practicing with a couple of small prints, roughly 13x13cm, which I want to put together in the same frame.

My first attempt - I know! - looks a bit dodgy (see attached pic), and so I wanted to get some pointers from the experts.

A few notes/questions:

1. Someone commented on a previous post of mine, stating that multi-window mounts should have narrower margins in between the pictures, which I tried to do with this design - but not well enough. Is there a rule of thumb for a reasonable ratio between these? I used 5cm around the outside and 3cm in between on this, and it still looks like the gap between could be a lot slimmer.

2. I went a little overboard by doing a double mount, whereas a single mount would have sufficed. For the second mount, I just cut one window for both images, which I acknowledge looks awful.

3. I did want a V-groove, and this follows the one larger window, instead of there being 2 no. which I acknowledge also looks dreadful.

So, I can see where it can be improved upon, but would appreciate any further comments from those of you with a keen eye.

Many thanks, as ever.

[RobM]

Also, is it advisable to use a bias at the bottom of the mount, even on a relatively smaller design like this?

[prospero]

The 'rules' of proportion are important but for the "obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men".

There are many principles and they have value. But the main one is that if something looks 'right' it is right.

The bottom-weighting one is a bit contentious: It's really nothing to do with viewing angles or the mount slipping
in the frame. It gives a subconscious sense of stability and also corrects the optical illusion of the top of an equal
margin mount being wider.
A good demo of this is to ask someone to draw a equilateral triangle. They will draw it with the apex up. It's instinctive.
That way it is stable and can't fall fall over. Nobody will draw one like a Give Way sign.
The orientation is also a factor. In general portrait format image needs more 'bottom' than a landscape.

There is lots of other stuff such as never having the mount the same width as the frame - but there are many exceptions
depending on the shape/pattern/colouring of the two elements.

Your mount looks right to me. The groove going around both windows nicely ties the two images together.
If I was to criticise I'd say the central bar maybe should be a tad narrower....

[vintage frames]

Can I say I agree 100 p'cent with what Prospero has said.

You can follow all sorts of rules and codes about mount proportion but it should never over-ride your own human response as to what looks 'just right'.

Follow your own instincts and allow creativity and flexibility into your designs

There is no beauty or soul in a sphincter-tight, mathematically correct mount design.

[Justintime]

What they said! I'd add that personally I'd prefer to see the top mount have two windows as well, then the V groove around as you've done. It feels a bit cluttered to me atm.
Bearing in mind that the frame rebate will eat into the mount width, I'd go slightly larger on the mount personally.
It's all a process of learning what you like and developing your own style and preferences.
I can highly recommend the Greg Perkins book on frame design and his posts on designs in some of the framing Facebook groups (like framing.academy). He's a great teacher and although now retired is still sharing his insights into frame design.

[Justintime]

As for bottom weighting, some customers expect it as a given and insist on it, but many have no idea what I'm talking about. I usually do it on older pieces as it gives a more traditional appearance, contemporary pieces much less so. Mount border width is a whole subject. Countries like China where scrolls and long vertical pieces are more common have their own traditional styles of mount width.

[pramsay13]

The main issue I have with that mount is the colour, it's quite a strong mount colour and I'm not sure it goes with the pictures (although might be an issue with the photograph rather than in real life). For a strong mount colour generally less is more so I would do just a single mount and that's all.
Depending on the image(s) to be framed you can have double mounts, v-grooves etc, but there is no hard and fast rule for these, and anything you do to it might change when the frame is on anyway.
If you're looking for criticism then I have a few points, corners still don't seem quite right, as though the paper is catching and ripping slightly. This is most noticeable on the top left corner of the left image.
It also looks as though your blade is curving slightly at first, most noticeable on the bottom right v-groove corner. Your v-groove isn't quite even all the way round as it looks thin at the top, and a bit wider bottom right, so just check nothing is slipping when you are cutting them.
A double mount around both images doesn't work, although the v-groove does, but possibly a double mount around both and a v-groove would be too much. especially given the strong mount colour mentioned earlier.
I don't have a particular issue with the middle margin on this, and I think if it was a single mount with 5cm margins, then a 3cm margin in the middle would look fine.
I don't bottom weight any mounts I cut unless I'm specifically asked for it, which has maybe been around a dozen times in over 10 years. There are framers that will say it has to be done on every mount with no exceptions, but sometimes it just looks wrong.

[prospero]

More on bottom weighting......

The idea is to get the image to appear central.
The extra width at the bottom should not be too apparent. I typically add 6mm to landscape format images
and 10mm to portrait format ones. The margins should seem equal. If you do them equal the mount can appear
top-heavy - The theory is that it can impart a subconscious sense of instability.

Remember, you look with your eyes/brain and not with a ruler.

You also have to take into account the nature of the actual image.

[RobM]

Afternoon All,

I want to thank everyone who responded and offered pointers to this issue.

I'll going to reply one by one ASAP!

[RobM]

I appreciate your informative feedback, thanks Prospero.

Yeah, I believe the reason I was taught about the lower bias was for viewing angle, but regardless of that reason, I think it adds a feature to make the image look more interesting.

Thanks for the kind words about my design. I definitely agree about that middle bar.

I can imagine there's all sorts of views on this site about such design issues!

The 'rules' of proportion are important but for the "obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men".

There are many principles and they have value. But the main one is that if something looks 'right' it is right.

The bottom-weighting one is a bit contentious: It's really nothing to do with viewing angles or the mount slipping
in the frame. It gives a subconscious sense of stability and also corrects the optical illusion of the top of an equal
margin mount being wider.
A good demo of this is to ask someone to draw a equilateral triangle. They will draw it with the apex up. It's instinctive.
That way it is stable and can't fall fall over. Nobody will draw one like a Give Way sign.
The orientation is also a factor. In general portrait format image needs more 'bottom' than a landscape.

There is lots of other stuff such as never having the mount the same width as the frame - but there are many exceptions
depending on the shape/pattern/colouring of the two elements.

Your mount looks right to me. The groove going around both windows nicely ties the two images together.
If I was to criticise I'd say the central bar maybe should be a tad narrower....

[RobM]

It's early days, but I'm quite excited about the possibilities for experimenting with what can be done with different mounts. It seems to me it's not so much an issue for a single image than for multi-window ones.

Can I say I agree 100 p'cent with what Prospero has said.

You can follow all sorts of rules and codes about mount proportion but it should never over-ride your own human response as to what looks 'just right'.

Follow your own instincts and allow creativity and flexibility into your designs

There is no beauty or soul in a sphincter-tight, mathematically correct mount design.

[RobM]

I'll second your comment about it needing two windows for the top mount. It just doesn't look right to me.

I think I might play about with a couple more options. One, as you've suggested, and then another with dual v grooves, just to see how they look.

I've sought out that Perkins book and it's going on my Christmas list. Thanks for the heads up, Justin!

What they said! I'd add that personally I'd prefer to see the top mount have two windows as well, then the V groove around as you've done. It feels a bit cluttered to me atm.
Bearing in mind that the frame rebate will eat into the mount width, I'd go slightly larger on the mount personally.
It's all a process of learning what you like and developing your own style and preferences.
I can highly recommend the Greg Perkins book on frame design and his posts on designs in some of the framing Facebook groups (like framing.academy). He's a great teacher and although now retired is still sharing his insights into frame design.

[RobM]

Some very helpful comments there, thanks Peter.

You're right, the mount is quite a strong colour. The approach I was taking was that there were some greens in the images and that it would blend with those, plus the images contain strong colours too. Essentially, in hindsight, it all looks a bit too busy and cluttered, not easy to look at.

Coincidentally, I had been thinking about how coloured mounts have a different impact and so your comments about not having to do as much with them could be key to all this. After posting this on Friday, I did a single coloured mount for another picture with just a v groove, and I think it looks a lot better.

And, yes, getting the perfect cuts isn't coming naturally just yet so I'm still striving for these. I had this trouble with another picture I posted about maybe a month back where the groove wasn't consistent.

The main issue I have with that mount is the colour, it's quite a strong mount colour and I'm not sure it goes with the pictures (although might be an issue with the photograph rather than in real life). For a strong mount colour generally less is more so I would do just a single mount and that's all.
Depending on the image(s) to be framed you can have double mounts, v-grooves etc, but there is no hard and fast rule for these, and anything you do to it might change when the frame is on anyway.
If you're looking for criticism then I have a few points, corners still don't seem quite right, as though the paper is catching and ripping slightly. This is most noticeable on the top left corner of the left image.
It also looks as though your blade is curving slightly at first, most noticeable on the bottom right v-groove corner. Your v-groove isn't quite even all the way round as it looks thin at the top, and a bit wider bottom right, so just check nothing is slipping when you are cutting them.
A double mount around both images doesn't work, although the v-groove does, but possibly a double mount around both and a v-groove would be too much. especially given the strong mount colour mentioned earlier.
I don't have a particular issue with the middle margin on this, and I think if it was a single mount with 5cm margins, then a 3cm margin in the middle would look fine.
I don't bottom weight any mounts I cut unless I'm specifically asked for it, which has maybe been around a dozen times in over 10 years. There are framers that will say it has to be done on every mount with no exceptions, but sometimes it just looks wrong.

[David]

Hi Rob
First can I say well done for posting. You obviously have good instincts as you are aware when things don’t look right which an excellent start. It can be difficult working out the best options when there are so many to choose from. I have some basic guidelines which are good starting points, they are not rigid or hard and fast, there are too many wide ranging variables. There are also many times that good designs contradict general rules or guidelines. One of my favourite quotes comes from Picasso, “Learn the rules like a professional so you can break them like an artist”. You need to know why the rules are there so you know when you can break them. Blindly following set ratios and percentages is asking for trouble.
Having said that I use the rule of thirds – a lot, it is a basic ratio that occurs in many aspects of design and compostion. Your mount is 50mm wide, we lose 5mm under the rebate so 45mm is the visible mount, one third is 15mm two thirds 30mm. I would start with 30mm between the images as you have and I think it works well, I would not go larger maybe a little less 25 - 30mm.
The double mount is a good idea I think it’s in the wrong place. With multiple apertures I like to use a devise that ties everything together before you reach the frame, this maybe a second mount, V groove or a line. Where you have your V groove looks good. Again I would use the thirds rule, two thirds, plus our rebate 5mm, 35mm from the outer edge. A double mount around each window would work but is very difficult on a manual cutter, personally I wouldn’t try it, too easy to get it wrong especially with very small steps as you have here. I don’t think you are far off at all and are defiantly on the right lines, I would have cut a double mount as you have but make the opening where you have the V groove at 35mm.
The choice of a green mount is a good match to the artwork, In this case I would only be using it as a small reveal on a bottom mount 3-4mm. Another general rule, if there is physically more colour in the mount or frame than in the art then the mount or frame is liable to dominate, depends on the image though. I would have gone for a more neutral mount colour and maybe painted the bevels green.
I put a bias on almost everything, because it looks better with one, it’s an optical illusion that works and is more pleasing to the eye. I don’t give the customer a choice, like I don’t get them so choose whether it’s a 3, 4 or 5mm step on a double mount or the mount is 80 or 85mm wide, that’s my job, it’s what I’m paid for, we’ll choose together but the fine tuning is down to me. Sometimes I can’t decide how on earth is the customer expected to know.
My default for a bias is 5mm, if it’s obvious and you can see it, it’s too big, subtlety is the name of the game, it should be subliminal as with so much of the best framing.
Have you seen the videos on the Keencut website and YouTube, some good tips on blade choice and cutting V grooves.
I’ll see if I can find some photos of multi apetures.
Good luck, keep playing – and posting.
David.

[RobM]

Hi David,

Thanks for your detailed feedback, and sorry about the slow reply.

You've definitely helped with some useful advice, and I'm liking your (and Picasso's) philosophy - I think the possibilities are probably endless in what we can fashion; start with the basic rules and play with them from thereon.

I'll opt for your recommendation of just using a double mount and having a bit less clutter (my first attempt does look a bit busy) and, if I've got enough card, I might attempt a single mount and v-groove at the same dims.

I really like those examples. The first shows a very tidily-done montage to tell the story and fit the parts, and the other is very effective in its simplicity. I'm noticing more how good a double white mount looks.

Out of interest, how did you get the TT emblem on the first mount?

Yes, I have watched the Keencut videos (and I believe it's yourself starring in them). I feel a bit more comfortable having watched them a couple of times each now.

Like I said on an earlier post, I'm enjoying the different thoughts and ideas from everyone contributing, and seeing the subtle differences as to how people work.

Thanks, David!

Hi Rob
First can I say well done for posting. You obviously have good instincts as you are aware when things don’t look right which an excellent start. It can be difficult working out the best options when there are so many to choose from. I have some basic guidelines which are good starting points, they are not rigid or hard and fast, there are too many wide ranging variables. There are also many times that good designs contradict general rules or guidelines. One of my favourite quotes comes from Picasso, “Learn the rules like a professional so you can break them like an artist”. You need to know why the rules are there so you know when you can break them. Blindly following set ratios and percentages is asking for trouble.
Having said that I use the rule of thirds – a lot, it is a basic ratio that occurs in many aspects of design and compostion. Your mount is 50mm wide, we lose 5mm under the rebate so 45mm is the visible mount, one third is 15mm two thirds 30mm. I would start with 30mm between the images as you have and I think it works well, I would not go larger maybe a little less 25 - 30mm.
The double mount is a good idea I think it’s in the wrong place. With multiple apertures I like to use a devise that ties everything together before you reach the frame, this maybe a second mount, V groove or a line. Where you have your V groove looks good. Again I would use the thirds rule, two thirds, plus our rebate 5mm, 35mm from the outer edge. A double mount around each window would work but is very difficult on a manual cutter, personally I wouldn’t try it, too easy to get it wrong especially with very small steps as you have here. I don’t think you are far off at all and are defiantly on the right lines, I would have cut a double mount as you have but make the opening where you have the V groove at 35mm.
The choice of a green mount is a good match to the artwork, In this case I would only be using it as a small reveal on a bottom mount 3-4mm. Another general rule, if there is physically more colour in the mount or frame than in the art then the mount or frame is liable to dominate, depends on the image though. I would have gone for a more neutral mount colour and maybe painted the bevels green.
I put a bias on almost everything, because it looks better with one, it’s an optical illusion that works and is more pleasing to the eye. I don’t give the customer a choice, like I don’t get them so choose whether it’s a 3, 4 or 5mm step on a double mount or the mount is 80 or 85mm wide, that’s my job, it’s what I’m paid for, we’ll choose together but the fine tuning is down to me. Sometimes I can’t decide how on earth is the customer expected to know.
My default for a bias is 5mm, if it’s obvious and you can see it, it’s too big, subtlety is the name of the game, it should be subliminal as with so much of the best framing.
Have you seen the videos on the Keencut website and YouTube, some good tips on blade choice and cutting V grooves.
I’ll see if I can find some photos of multi apetures.
Good luck, keep playing – and posting.
David.
_MG_3752A.jpgIMG_5378A.jpg

[David]

Hi Rob

Yes its me in the videos, hope you liked them and they are useful, if not it isn't me at all...

Practice different techniques, you'll find you like some more than others, experiment to find what works for you. Framers can be like artists and develop their own style, I know I have certain elements that I tend to use over and over.

As for the TT letters, afraid I have a Gunnar CMC and they are computer cut. I laid a piece of carbon fibre effect vinyl on top of a black core board with a red surface paper so when cut there is a red hair line around the edge. You could cut a simple T using the same system on a manual cutter as its all right angles.

All the best
David.