The Framers Forum

Hi Forum

I am an amateur photographer and I have just purchased professional equipment to begin framing/selling my own prints. I want to display a line of black & white land & sea scapes, I have chosen what I think is a good mount (Artcare Frost with black core) but am really stuck on a good moulding to go with the mount and print. Any suggestions from the forum members would be helpful.

Cheers

gengus

Virtually all of our black and white framing is done in black, silver or pewter mouldings.

So that narrows you choce to a few tens of thousands! How about looking at Arqadia's "Manhattan" range in the Larson Juhl section as a start.

John.

Most factory black finishes tend towards the cheap and plasticy. If you want a bit of class, get some plain ash and paint it black. Wax polish when dry and dust with rottenstone to soften the effect and emphasive the grain.

Or stain plain ash with Liberon ebony palette dye then open the grain a little with a copper wire brush apply liming wax and buff to a nice smoky grey finish.

John.

Really good black and white photography is so classy, but it needs to be mounted and framed with style. The mount and the frame can made or break it.

If you go into a gallery with a name for selling classy black and white photography who really know what they are doing, have a look at the surface of the mountboard. Quite often it will be completely smooth with no orange peel texture from the pulp below the surface paper and often the mountboard will also be an extra thick board.

You have to see this to appreciate the difference this can make. Many well respected mountboard suppliers apply a surface texture to many of their mountboards. This is more than likely to conceal the orange peel effect. Really stunning white mounts need high quality mountboard. Have a good look at your mountboard samples from various suppliers - You will learn a lot from this.

I'm not in my shop right now, so I'll suggest a couple of mouldings which come to mind as a good starting point. These are the pewter ones in the Larson Jhul Ferrossa range and the metallic grey ones in the Simons graphite range. There are plenty more to choose from, but I would not bother with most plain black frames, if you are looking for a classy up-market look.

You might wish to consider aluminum frames in your search. Photography, compared to many other forms of art, is contemporary, so, in many instances, metal frames can be appropriate. They generally have narrow profiles, and, to my eye, look very “clean” with many black and white images. Both silver and black mouldings tend to work well, IMO.

And, metal frames tend to be less expensive than most woods, and, if you don’t have the means to chop the moulding yourself, many profiles can be purchased in sections. (Some assembly required – use only in the presence of an adult.)

I do a fair bit in black ash (as Prospero has mentioned) for the same sort of pictures, usually double mounted with antique white/black 2nd mount combo. Personally I find it too harsh and predictable, and have recently been trying to encourage customers to go for a dark jacobean stain, double coated between sealer so that it is almost black. I describe it as a soft black, and it really suits B/W photography where the photographs are a sepia/brown type of black rather than the hard blue/black (if you know what I mean!)

It's much better for charcoals too.

genguskarn wrote:Hi Forum

I have chosen what I think is a good mount (Artcare Frost with black core

I sell my own photos and I standardise the mounts - 4" top and sides and 5" bottom.

I also use Frost or Matte white with Black core on the B&W ones, but as the top mount of a double mount - the bottom mount is the same colour minus the black core, and I make the difference between the two half an inch - and (wait a mo' while I grab my steel helmet) I sign the bottom mount - oo-er missus.

The black core is lost on darker areas of a photo, B&W or otherwise, but as the outer of a double mount you get a nice effect - looks like a triple mount almost.

As for the frame - my bog standard is Simons Bret 20 (Black) or Bret 16 (V Dark Brown) - deep rebates.

Up from that I use lots of other stuff, like LJ Ferrosa pewter.

I also do the frame in a frame thing - posted here previous, but anyway......

(the photo is not mine - and this one has museum glass - Ferossa pewter frames - back mount is artcare 'Talc' and spacers are 5mm artcare foam board, which matches talc exactly)

Hi
Once again thanks very much for all your ideas , it makes it much easier for us newbies. But if I picked the same mountboard Robo uses I must on the right track. Now I just need to learn how to use my Morso, mountcutter and underpinner properly and I mignt get a decent frame done .

Cheers

Gengus

After black frames, we seem to do a lot in "graphite" look, and also a very similar pewter from Enrique Lopez similar to Robo's picture.

here..... a question: this signing the mount thing:

whilst its fine for, say, robo, gengus or any framer to sign the mounts then frame and sell them -(for obvious reasons) - but when non-framer photographers sign mounts we often find that they can be pretty poor mounts, sometimes with marks, dents or whatever that can't be removed.

There can be many reasons why we framers might really think it best to change a mount, but we are prevented from doing so because the mount has been signed. So because the signature is so important to the customer we often end up framing photos in carp mounts.
This isn't good for the image of the photographer (or framer).

So that is possibly why most framers dont like "signed mounts" too much.

I guess 99% of the mounted photos I see in shops and galleries round here have the mounts signed, plus a good proportion of the open edition prints, too. So its obviously very common.

Maybe some of you photographers can shed some light on the signed-mount being a better choice for you than signing the photo.

Roboframer wrote:artcare 'Talc' and spacers are 5mm artcare foam board, which matches talc exactly)

Thanks John,

That's a very useful tip. It's also somewhat timely for me, as it has given me a great (variation on a theme) idea for a job I need to do soon.

kev@frames wrote:
There can be many reasons why we framers might really think it best to change a mount, but we are prevented from doing so because the mount has been signed. So because the signature is so important to the customer we often end up framing photos in carp mounts.
This isn't good for the image of the photographer (or framer).

So that is possibly why most framers dont like "signed mounts" too much.

There is a solution, or an option anyway - and that is to cut the signature out - even peel off the surface paper, and reveal it in a text aperture in your own mount.

I think Most photos or even photo papers don't take to be signed on the image very well. It's different from say an oil or a watercolur where the medium for the signature can be done in the same medium.

Not your average framer wrote: Thanks John,

That's a very useful tip. It's also somewhat timely for me, as it has given me a great (variation on a theme) idea for a job I need to do soon.

Well, I'm going by memory - it could've been French White!

Anyway you can match any mount with a spacer by covering it with the same colour - do it before cutting.

Spit wrote:Personally I find it too harsh and predictable, and have recently been trying to encourage customers to go for a dark jacobean stain, double coated between sealer so that it is almost black. I describe it as a soft black, and it really suits B/W photography where the photographs are a sepia/brown type of black rather than the hard blue/black.

From what I see when snooping elsewhere on what are "in" mouldings, it's a very "in" look and still gaining ground too!

Roboframer wrote:Anyway you can match any mount with a spacer by covering it with the same colour - do it before cutting.

That's what I usually do!

It's the idea of using the Artcare foamboard as a visible surface inside the frame, which had never occured to me. Now you've pointed it out, the paper has all the right qualities, so why not? Now I come to think of it, It also looks a bit like an expensive piece of art paper. Mmmmm......

John, I think you may have started something!

Maybe it would be as well to mention to artists that signatures would be better done within an aperture, either on the print if it has enough pudding on the border, or a separate piece of card or mount which could be transferred if the mount needs changing.

On another thread 'gel pens' were suggested and someone that sells them stated that they were 'lightfast'

Sure they are - and so are the inks used in the average to best quality photo-mechanically produced prints - and so are artist quality watercolours. But they have limitations and they WILL fade. Graphite won't - but graphite won't work on a dark photo, nor will it work on most any image - but on a limited edition it's almost always used in the paper margin, and you don't get those on photos - well, maybe 3mm.

or use photo pens ?
a bane of our lives at work, and many framers, i presume, is the pile of half finished jobs, "waiting to be signed".

I don't know what a photo pen is and I can't relate to any piles of half finished jobs waiting to be signed.

Have you inflicted more PITA customers on yourself than I have, or maybe you deal with 'the trade' more than I do? Well, I don't actually - not in the grand scheme of things.

I describe it as a soft black, and it really suits B/W photography where the photographs are a sepia/brown type of black rather than the hard blue/black (if you know what I mean!)

I wonder if the "sepia/brown type of black is due to the limitations of some inkjet printers to prints a true black? Some mix the colour inks to produce an almost black - it is quite attractive for a photo but is it always deliberate?

Robin