Bottom weighting

Create a Post
S

sefuller

Grumbler
Joined
Jan 9, 2002
Posts
30
Loc
milwaukee, wi
I saw a post the other day that got me curious as to how much bottom weighting is
appropriate, and when? We frame a series of pieces where the artist signs in a
large stroke below the image, requiring a bottom margin of at least 1 3/4". Would
you weight the bottom of the mats in a situation like this, and if so how much on a
vertical piece? Horizontal piece? I normally increase the side and top margins on
these pieces to 3/4" because of the large bottom margin. Any other
suggestions/rules of thumb for bottom weighting?

Thanks,
 
Scott, If I am reading your post right, you will realise that your query is the mountmakers - sorry - matmakers equivalent of "How long is a piece of string?".
Firstly, the situation with the artist's flambouyant signature, you seem to have struck a reasonable balance with 3/4" on the top and sides to the 1 3/4" needed to clear the signature at the bottom. In my experience, unless you are talking about mat margins of the order of 4" plus then equal margins all round generally works well. Especially so if you are using STRONG colours.The mat then effectively combines with the moulding to make a wider frame.
I assume from my regular visits to THE GRUMBLE
that in the US of A Strong colours and multiple mats are the fashion. In the UK,certainly, in the Fine Art market of older original works, the emphasis is more on the frame itself to visually
contain the image. The mount(mat) is used to set the picture within the frame, and even with lines and watercolour washes, and I have made many many thousands over the years, the picture comes first the frame second and the mat third.
In a way I regard the mat to serve the same purpose as gold, silver, platinum etc. mountings do for precious stones in pieces of jewellery.

I am sorry if this seems long winded but it does
prove the point that a picture is worth a thousand words. However to the general point about mat margins I would use:-
Landscape format; 2" and 2 1/4"
2 1/2" 2 13/16"
2 3/4" 3 1/8"
3" 3 3/8"
3 1/2" 4"
and so on for the top/side and bottom margins

Portrait format; as above for the first three sizes and the about 3 1/2" and 4 5/8"
4" 4 3/4"
5" 6" and so on.

There are of course NO RULES in this game. try the Oriental approach for instance with equal top and bottom mat margins that are far larger than the sides. OOOORRRR extra wide side margins with equal but narrower top and bottom ones.

I have a theory that every picture has what I call a visual centre of gravity. Try to find it on a picture and when you are designing the mat, step back and you can generally see whether the picture will "sit too low or too high"
in the frame and you can add to or subtract from the margin. Do what good chefs do when they season a dish on the stove, taste it and add to it or leave it as is.

The mat,like framing in general, is there to preserve, protect and present the picture in the best light. Its that presentation bit that often causes most of the anguish! Still as the lady said
"No pain, no gain"
 
Hi Scott,

I like to weight the bottom about 1/4" to 1/2" more than the top which I make 1/4" to 1/2" larger than the sides. I do this on almost everything I frame unless it would look bad due to the shape of the image. Sometimes even more weight on the bottom on small items.

Sincerely,

Jack
 
With design it is not uncommon to hear "the rule of 3/8's" being quoted, while not a hard and fast rule (of course it couldn't be) I use it as a rough guide to achieve balance in a variety of situations including bottom weighting (which is rare for us nowadays). Use it as you will, either adding 3/8's to your measuements for bottom weighting, having the gap between windows at 3/8's of the border size, or off-setting multiple openings or frame group on walls. My final thought is that maybe I'm wrong, however having used a standard for the majority of my work there is now a feeling of consistency in the designs I do.
 
I have found that whether to weight a mat or not is very dependant on the art. If the weighting shows a lot, it is not as correct to my eye as if it doesn't. The more weighting used on a mat, the more it will show.

A horizontal piece, especially a small horizontal does not look as good weighted. A vertical piece on the other hand usually does look good weighted. If the art is bold, the mat needs to be larger to contain it and it needs more weighting. If the art is long and thin, it does look good with the sides' one dimension, the top a little bigger and the bottom even bigger still. A square composition can be weighted or not. Each will look good.

The type of situation you describe most definitely looks better weighted than not. If you put more space at the bottom of the print margin, the mat has to work with it, all the way around, less at the top and sides as described, but definitely more at the bottom.

Also if the arts subject is extremely heavy toward the bottom of the composition, bottom weighting on the mat looks better.

I've heard people say it's because during Victorian times pictures tipped out from the wall and that's why some pieces are weighted. It's actually a visual phenomenon. A shape is just more comfortable to the eye if the bottom is weighted. It has somewhat to do with the way our eyes work together.

Also when a frame is made it is with a 1/8th allowance which means the mat sets in the frame lower on the bottom. If the mat is at all small it can look short on the bottom.

There are no rules when it comes to design because it is creative and visual. You have to see and interpret what you see correctly. Also someone here said, sometimes it's a matter of doing it and seeing how it looks. Having said that though, most of the time, weighting looks better than something not weighted.

Nona Powers, CPF®, GCF
www.nonapowers.com

I wrote a book called Color and Design for The Picture Framer. I have a section with illustrations showing different mats weighted and not weighted so you can compare how they look. It also covers how wide the mat is in each case. It’s available from just about anyone who carries framing books or from Columba publishing or direct from me
 
I NEVER EVER weight my bottom...my bottom is heavy enough thank you very much!!!!!! Ohhhhhhhhhh, you were talking about mats - sheesh...yeah generally speaking we do this to most of our designs. There are no concrete rules on this. I agree with Nona - it is whatever looks visually appealing. We have a neat little experiment we play with our clients when explaining why we recommend this option.
 
Originally posted by dressurfan:
We have a neat little experiment we play with our clients when explaining why we recommend this option.
Click to expand...
OK, now you've really piqued my curiosity. What is the experiment?
 
Interesting that this subject came up today. I have been pondering whether I should weight the bottom margins of the matting I will be using on a professional wedding portrait which is 16x16 square and another one 20x20, but then I wonder why did the photographer choose to go for the square look and who am I to change the look he was going for.
 
Originally posted by nona powers:
I wrote a book called Color and Design for The Picture Framer. I have a section with illustrations showing different mats weighted and not weighted so you can compare how they look. It also covers how wide the mat is in each case. It’s available from just about anyone who carries framing books or from Columba publishing or direct from me
Click to expand...
Nona,
I just received your book from Amazon.com. It's great. Very clear explanations and examples without getting to technical. Just the kind of book a fledgling framer like me needs. Thanks much.
 
We don't do this on every sale...only those that ask the question - "Why do you recommend weighting the bottom?"

My little experiment is this...
Take a blank 8 1/2 x 11 paper and ask your customer to draw an X in the center of the paper. Without too much forethought...just mark an X.
Then we fold the paper in half. When we open it up again to show the client where the X actually is...99 percent of the time it is within the top half of the paper. Usually around 1/2 an inch above. We then explain to the client that visually this is why we weight the bottom. To our eyes this is the center, and in order to offset the illusion, we add 1/2 inch to the bottom.
T
 
When I got into this racket in 1980 the shop that trained me took the position that bottom-weighting was "obsolete". As I gained more experience I found that framers often just didn't want to take the extra time to fool with it. Years ago I asked a framing software purveyor why his program made weighting so much trouble. He said most framers didn't do it. My own sense is that most framers would view this website as a waste of time too.
 
Create a Post
Back
Top