Today's Frame - with lots of questions

[RobM]

Hi All,

I'm just completed a frame, and was hoping for feedback not only on the presentation, but also the process.

So I had a photograph I wanted to try with a thicker mount, but also wanted to try it with the concept suggested by Justin, wherein a second mount is hidden behind the main one, in order to achieve a slight shadow gap.

So, a few comments and questions (with corresponding photos)...

1. First of all, the mat was slightly less than perfect, what with it being ticker and sturdier I wasn't able to achieve the ideal cut (NB - this is not for a client, just myself). When you get a slightly "muffled" (for want of a better word) corner like this, how do you deal with it? Do you touch it up/correct it, or start again?

2. I felt it important to dry mount the photo, otherwise the shadow gap would be compromised if the photograph was not flat and hanging forward at any points.

On this point, I cut the sticking board to slightly more than that of the mounts, and just trimmed back to the same cross section with a blade, so that I wasn't having to add additional support to hold up the image behind the mounts. Would you do this, or cut the sticking board back simply to the size of the image?

3. Working on the frame, I used markers to outline the edges before putting them together. Does everyone do this, or is this an obscure habit I've picked up?

Anyway, because I was using an old frame that I inherited, and was therefore slightly chipped, I just used the markers to touch these up as well. Is this verboten, or acceptable practice?

4. A common issue - when putting in the wedges, the final corner was a little more trying, and ended up with a more than desirable gap. Is this part and parcel in framing? Would a relatively slight gap like this just be filled in by yourselves? Or would it be deemed unacceptable?

5. Anyway, I put everything together and the contents are too deep to achieve inserting points. This echoes a problem I had some time ago, which I'd questioned here, and so decided to try one suggestion - of gluing fillets to the back of the frame to take up the extra depth, before inserting the points into them. Would you have trust in this arrangement? In future, I will be ensuring I order a deep enough frame (bear in mind, this was one I just had lying about).

Any and all feedback much appreciated, thank you.

[Justintime]

1. The bottom two corners look a bit hooked, it's more obvious than it might be as you've done a shadow gap. With the "muffled" corner, I would burnish the window all round to soften the lines, if that doesn't work I would see if a blade could help but if not I'd redo it.
2. Nothing wrong with dry mounting it. If you're pinwheeling behind the mount, my assumption is that the pinwheeling would hold the print in place just as the mount would without the pinwheeling. If mounting onto board, I would usually cut the board larger than the total mount size mount it as evenly as possible on the board , place under the window mount mark the positioning on the edges and cut the board down, so the board acts as the undermount.
3. Perfectly normal and advised. Use whatever you have in your arsenal.
4. CJ Paste Rich Brown.
5. I have no problem with what you have done. I'd be happier if it was just wood on wood glued and tacked down. The paper wrapped spacer may not glue down quite as well as bare wood. I previously mentioned barewood spacers simply because that's what I usually have handy when I only need to add a little depth. If I need more depth I take a barewood offcut of moulding to the bandsaw and cut down exactly what I need. To save the pain of trying to secure the backing tape over and around the added spacer I'll often brush some dark stain over the outside face of the spacer and moulding and just backing paper from the top of the spacer onto the backing board.
This looks great to me. It's great to see you trying out different techniques. I'm not sure how much a shadow gap adds to the photo in this instance, but you're experimenting which is the way forward.

[vintage frames]

Justin is more the man to give good advice on mount design but I can only say what first strikes me as an observer.

The photo is too boxed-in by the heavy mount.
Forget the shadow effect and just use a thinner mount first and then follow with a thick mount but set back further so that the image gets to breathe.

The frame is a bit too heavy, maybe a slight reverse or a flat section would be better.

Keep up the good work and thanks for giving us something to think and talk about.

[JFeig]

error in posting

[JFeig]

A word of caution Rob.
The outer V nails are a bit close the the outer edge IMHO. The same with the inner nails. With this profile you have dodged a bullet. Possibly not so the next time.

[Justintime]

That's a good call Jerome.
It's recommended to put the inner one as close to the inside as possible and the back one just over half way no more.
Best practice amongst my peers is to clamp afterwards. If you only use two wedges there'll be some wiggle room to adjust it before clamping.

[RobM]

Apologies, I've taken way too long to respond to the useful feedback on this one.

Justin, Dermot, Jerome - thanks once again for your comments, all very helpful. I'm sitting here with my notebook getting this stuff down.

Justin - good point: you had mentioned hardwood spacers and I'd missed this detail when ordering these spacers, so I'm getting that corrected. And you were spot on about the paper-wrapped spacer, too: it fell apart shortly afterwards. I dare say the spacers were a little too narrow as well, but I guess learning the hard way is always a good experience.

Dermot - I did think the moulding was a tad darker than I would have liked. I would preferred something matching the early colours of the image, so I can see where you're coming from. Otherwise, yes, I see what you mean now in hindsight - I'm being too overzealous with these mounts to the detriment of the pictures contained therein.

Jerome - admittedly I have been warned about those outer wedges before so ought to know better. This changes going forward.

Thank you, gents.

[JKX]

I don’t dislike shadow mounts but I just don’t see any point to them, they create curiosity - some may want to try and see what’s hidden beneath, and they can cover too much of an image. They can be handy for concealing debris from pastels etc but i prefer a double mount slightly spaced apart with bottom mount reverse-bevelled.

It all looks ok but you’re a bit skimpy on the framers points, they should be about 3” apart

[RobM]

I'm just trying a few things out until I form my own little niche. The shadow gap was quite subtle on this one, too, but I quite like the effect.

Noted about the points, though. I sometimes wonder if I'm putting enough in and I think you've answered that one. 3" increments it is, going forward.

Thanks John.

I don’t dislike shadow mounts but I just don’t see any point to them, they create curiosity - some may want to try and see what’s hidden beneath, and they can cover too much of an image. They can be handy for concealing debris from pastels etc but i prefer a double mount slightly spaced apart with bottom mount reverse-bevelled.

It all looks ok but you’re a bit skimpy on the framers points, they should be about 3” apart