Tall skinny pictures

Pizmo · Post by **Pizmo** » Wed 13 Sep, 2006 8:57 am

Hello everyone any ideas on the following would be a great help.....

I have got 4 tall skinny pictures and am wondering if they would look better with a wider mount at the bottom and top than the sides, visa versa, or all the same all the way around......

Does that make any sense?

Pizmo

mick11 · Post by **mick11** » Wed 13 Sep, 2006 11:48 am

Hi Pizmo,

Heres one I did earlier

to give you some idea

http://www.pictureframing-uk.com/Roses.html

markw · Post by **markw** » Wed 13 Sep, 2006 12:11 pm

It sometimes pays to cut an even mount and then trim it to get the right visual proportions. Even when you leave a large top border you generally need to add more depth to the bottom to lose the illusion that the bottom border is smaller.

mick11 · Post by **mick11** » Wed 13 Sep, 2006 12:34 pm

Hi
Am I the only one that doesn't get this illusion of the bottom border being smaller, unless the picture is hung well above eye level. The wife has a picture with the wider bottom border (not framed by me) and it looks right to me when hung well above eye level, but looks all wrong at eye level.
So is my perception different to everyone else's

or is this a throw back to the days when art was hung from a high picture rail.

markw · Post by **markw** » Wed 13 Sep, 2006 12:45 pm

possibly! Mount proportions are generally more pleasing if the bottom is slightly deeper. My first reaction to the photo posted was - the tops too big. This basic understanding of proportion goes back to Greek architecture - Golden Ratio - Georgian and Victorian architecture displays the principal well.

mick11 · Post by **mick11** » Wed 13 Sep, 2006 1:27 pm

Hi Mark

I understand the principles of what you are saying.

But surly if an artist uses the golden ratio principle, and then we also apply it to the mount we are moving the original view point that the artist intended. (not sure that is the right phrase), as he would have used the dimensions of his canvas/paper or whatever to arrive at the golden ratio.

Also most architecture from the Victorian and Georgian times is very much higher than it is today, and I can see the effects of the wider bottoms in these instances.

But to me, art hung at eye level just looks wrong with a wider bottom, although having said that, for some reason, some large panoramas look right to me with a slightly larger bottom.

Roboframer · Post by **Roboframer** » Wed 13 Sep, 2006 6:33 pm

I don't know why anyone would make the top AND bottom larger than the sides.

More at the bottom just looks right (generally) and that is good enough for me. However, if I analyse it there are a couple of obvious (to me) reasons.

1. You don't squeeze mounts into the frame - there has to be play - where is that play taken up? At the bottom - therefore, if you don't account for that it CAN look top heavy.

2. Unless screwed to the wall the frame will tilt forward slightly and depending on height CAN look top heavy as the top is closer to you.

3, Land/seascapes with low horizons look top heavy with equal mount borders.

If the proportions are done correctly you hardly notice it at all WE (framers) would, but not most customers, unless you/they want to emphasise bottom weighting, which, for some things, can also look good.

I generally only do NOT bottom weight mounts if the artwork is already 'bottom-weighted' e.g. a sporting (etc) print with a lot of text at the bottom, meaning that you have to leave more paper margin at the bottom than the top and sides.

Pizmo · Post by **Pizmo** » Fri 15 Sep, 2006 4:15 pm

Thanks for the replies ...... I think I will just stick to the same all the way round........ the pictures are going to be hung at eye level so hopefully will look ok.....

Pizmo