Recently in both For Your Consideration and Landscape Forum, two photographers posted photos with fairly large mats/frames around their images. Much of the feedback involved the like/dislike of those mats.

Obviously, it's up to the photographer how to present his/her image to an online forum. My questions:

- If you are the photographer, is it reasonable to assume that respondents will make observations about the size/color/style of your choices, or should they comment only on the photo?

- If you are the viewer, do you assume that the photographer expects you to comment on the mat/frame as part of your feedback?

My opinion is that the mat and/or frame is part of the whole and appropriate to be included in feedback. Some sites offer frames for you to add as a final step in posting (fredmiranda.com is one). I went through a period where everything I posted to UHH had double-mats, similar to how you might select at a print shop. A lot of other people here were doing same at the time. It was fun attempting to choose a combination of size and colors that would (hopefully) enhance the image.

Your thoughts, experience, advice? Feel free to post photo examples!

I don't think there needs to be a strict rule or protocol, on the forum, as to posting images with or withou mattes (virtual or physical) or frames unless the thread or section is dedicated to technical and aesthetic analysis or critiquing or some sort of competition. Perhaps the concept I alluded to in my previous post can be adopted whereby a virtual matte can be included but will be judged or critiqued as the matte is an intrinsic part of the composition.

Why discuss mattes, frames, display concepts adn such if the forum is ostensibly dedicated to "pure" photography" some might ask or argue. So here's my argument: I have nos statistics on the matter but I am guessing that most people, photography enthusiasts included, are viewing all their work and that of others on a monitor screen a laptop or a smartphone. Nothing terrible about that but there is a word of creative possibilities in some of the old fashioned concepts such as fine printmaking. When prints enter the equation then there are the concepts and craftsmanship of mounting, matting, framing, surface finishes, archival issues, specialized glazing and glass, signatures and watermarks, exhibition methods, display lighting, decorative aspects, plaque mounting and lamination and albums and books.

On this and many other online forumes and even in the photographic print media there are endless discussions about equipment, camera, lenses, high resolution, pixel counts post processing- fols are striving for super sharpness, extremely accurate color, ever maner of quality control and all of this for a computer screen image. I mean what are y'all gonna do with all theses superior images- store them on your hard drive, upload them to some kinda "cloud" or relegate them to a CD or DVD which will probably deteriorate in time- never again to be seen.

If you do decide to display prints, gift them to significant othere folks, create decor or sell them to clients or hang them in a gallery we should discuss all the elements that go into the finished final disposition of our images. Perhaps we shoud suggest YET another section dedicated to print making, finishing and presentation and display.

Signatures and watermarks. These issues have been controversial or at least debatable for a very long time- to sign or not to sign? What about so-called watermarks? What about credit lines?

Personally, I think artist shoud sign their work and I therefore had sign all of my portraits prints. Of course, the signature shoud not interfere with the composition, become a distraction and be careful place writer is not overly conspicuous bur readable from a reasonable viewing distance. The actual size of the signature shoud be proportionate to the size of the print. . I use india ink in tones or colors that are compatible with the key of the image and the colors or tones therein. For example, in a high key portrait the viewer's eye will go to the darkest tone in the image, which is usually the skin tone of the subject, there for a black signature would be distracting in that it would be darker than anythg in the composition. I oud use a very light gold or a pasted color that pick up in something in the image. In a low key portrait, the viewer's eye is attracted to the brightest tone in the imahe, therefore, a white, bright metallic, white or vivid color would draw the eye. I would then use a very dark antique gol, dark to medium gray or darker color ink that would coordinate with a subtle tone in the image. I have the same policy and methods for fine are work landscapes etc.

I usually avoid foil or gold stamping, although I have the equipment with several size slugs and various colors of foil. I reserve this for high quantity work- usually smaller prints. I prefer to do a hand signature.

Usually commercial work for publication or point of purchase displays, corporate and trade show displays (other than portraits) are not signed or watermarked. Some clients will permit a credit line.

Photographs enter into competition are usuan not signed or watermarked as per the rules. The judges are not supposed to know who the maker is until after the judging. The proints are identified on the back if the mount.

"Watermark" is a funny word- actually it is a kind of 'phantom" logo or trademark that is embedded on fine stationery that only can be seen when the paper is transilluminated or viewed at a certain angle to the light. In photography it is a trademark, credit line or copyright notice placed in the image, usually as notice of copyright (for protection) to purposely deface the image so it cannot be successfully copied or reproduced withou authorization. Photographer are certainly entitled to watermark there work for theses reasons.

Signing the matte? I don't know if there is any conventional, traditional or standard protocol for the question of whether to sign the print or the matte. I prefer to sign the print in that the matte is just a display component that can become separated from the photograph- it is tantamount to signing the picture frame.

I have ebb sining prints for many years and the only complaints I ever received from a client is whe I somehow forget to sign a print and it was returned to me for the signature.

I don't think there needs to be a strict rule or protocol, on the forum, as to posting images with or withou mattes (virtual or physical) or frames unless the thread or section is dedicated to technical and aesthetic analysis or critiquing or some sort of competition. Perhaps the concept I alluded to in my previous post can be adopted whereby a virtual matte can be included but will be judged or critiqued as the matte is an intrinsic part of the composition.

Why discuss mattes, frames, display concepts adn such if the forum is ostensibly dedicated to "pure" photography" some might ask or argue. So here's my argument: I have nos statistics on the matter but I am guessing that most people, photography enthusiasts included, are viewing all their work and that of others on a monitor screen a laptop or a smartphone. Nothing terrible about that but there is a word of creative possibilities in some of the old fashioned concepts such as fine printmaking. When prints enter the equation then there are the concepts and craftsmanship of mounting, matting, framing, surface finishes, archival issues, specialized glazing and glass, signatures and watermarks, exhibition methods, display lighting, decorative aspects, plaque mounting and lamination and albums and books.

On this and many other online forumes and even in the photographic print media there are endless discussions about equipment, camera, lenses, high resolution, pixel counts post processing- fols are striving for super sharpness, extremely accurate color, ever maner of quality control and all of this for a computer screen image. I mean what are y'all gonna do with all theses superior images- store them on your hard drive, upload them to some kinda "cloud" or relegate them to a CD or DVD which will probably deteriorate in time- never again to be seen.

If you do decide to display prints, gift them to significant othere folks, create decor or sell them to clients or hang them in a gallery we should discuss all the elements that go into the finished final disposition of our images. Perhaps we shoud suggest YET another section dedicated to print making, finishing and presentation and display.

Signatures and watermarks. These issues have been controversial or at least debatable for a very long time- to sign or not to sign? What about so-called watermarks? What about credit lines?

Personally, I think artist shoud sign their work and I therefore had sign all of my portraits prints. Of course, the signature shoud not interfere with the composition, become a distraction and be careful place writer is not overly conspicuous bur readable from a reasonable viewing distance. The actual size of the signature shoud be proportionate to the size of the print. . I use india ink in tones or colors that are compatible with the key of the image and the colors or tones therein. For example, in a high key portrait the viewer's eye will go to the darkest tone in the image, which is usually the skin tone of the subject, there for a black signature would be distracting in that it would be darker than anythg in the composition. I oud use a very light gold or a pasted color that pick up in something in the image. In a low key portrait, the viewer's eye is attracted to the brightest tone in the imahe, therefore, a white, bright metallic, white or vivid color would draw the eye. I would then use a very dark antique gol, dark to medium gray or darker color ink that would coordinate with a subtle tone in the image. I have the same policy and methods for fine are work landscapes etc.

I usually avoid foil or gold stamping, although I have the equipment with several size slugs and various colors of foil. I reserve this for high quantity work- usually smaller prints. I prefer to do a hand signature.

Usually commercial work for publication or point of purchase displays, corporate and trade show displays (other than portraits) are not signed or watermarked. Some clients will permit a credit line.

Photographs enter into competition are usuan not signed or watermarked as per the rules. The judges are not supposed to know who the maker is until after the judging. The proints are identified on the back if the mount.

"Watermark" is a funny word- actually it is a kind of 'phantom" logo or trademark that is embedded on fine stationery that only can be seen when the paper is transilluminated or viewed at a certain angle to the light. In photography it is a trademark, credit line or copyright notice placed in the image, usually as notice of copyright (for protection) to purposely deface the image so it cannot be successfully copied or reproduced withou authorization. Photographer are certainly entitled to watermark there work for theses reasons.

Signing the matte? I don't know if there is any conventional, traditional or standard protocol for the question of whether to sign the print or the matte. I prefer to sign the print in that the matte is just a display component that can become separated from the photograph- it is tantamount to signing the picture frame.

I have ebb sining prints for many years and the only complaints I ever received from a client is whe I somehow forget to sign a print and it was returned to me for the signature.

Like you, I feel that people should feel free to comment on the whole effort. Around this area, the managers of photo contests usually request a plain frame (usually black) with a white mat. I personally hate white mats but they seem to think it brings out the best in a photo. I get the idea that another reason for that is so no one shows up with a lemon yellow frame and a bright red mat.
Some mats may make or break a picture, so I guess it just has to please the photographer unless certain types are requested by exhibit or contest managers.

Enhancing Perceived Depth in Images Via Artistic Matting
Amy A. Gooch and Bruce Gooch

"A matte says the work before you is not a work of Nature, but a creation of an artist; its only demand is to be looked at and enjoyed... The artwork wants to make you party to a deception, but do not allow it to go too far. No matter how real it seems, you must always remember that it is only an illusion, in other words you must consciously allow yourself to be deceived."

http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~ago820/matting.pdf

Mike