View Full Version : Matting or free float? what's your preference?
baseballart
06-11-2010, 08:58 PM
I don't think we've had this debate here. Perhaps it will reach the heights of the PSA/SGC debate on the other side (not likely).
What do people prefer? Matting out a photo that might have slight damages to the edges or free floating? I am in the latter camp
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2723/4433065084_836486df27.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4017/4692112258_b63a1ac661.jpg
Jay Wolt
06-11-2010, 09:20 PM
Max, actually they both look great.
All my stuff has been matted, never tried the free float method
http://www.qualitycards.com/pictures/chesterfieldframed.jpg
The one piece I have that has been framed got triple matted. It is my Horner League Composite. I think different things look better one way or the other. Many documents look better to me when they are free floating.
william_9
06-11-2010, 10:36 PM
I like vintage items with worn edges. They have character and history behind them. I'd most likely show the edges.
PhilNap
06-11-2010, 10:51 PM
In the free float gehrig piece is the item touching the glass or is it shadow boxed? Also, how is it mounted to the backing?
David Atkatz
06-11-2010, 10:55 PM
I like vintage items with worn edges. They have character and history behind them. I'd most likely show the edges.
+1
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/hilltop1904.jpg
perezfan
06-12-2010, 01:10 AM
The one piece I have that has been framed got triple matted. It is my Horner League Composite. I think different things look better one way or the other. Many documents look better to me when they are free floating.
I completely agree with this... it depends on the composition and make-up of the piece. I have done it both ways with great success. If the edge wear is severe, it can be quite distracting, and in those cases I like to mat it out.
When framing pennants, however, I would NEVER mat out any portion of it. They look horrible this way, and you have to see the pennants' borders no matter what.
#1 & 2 - Free floating works best
#3 - Matting out the edge wear was the best option
#4 & 5 - A combination of both worked best... the photo portions are matted, and the Comiskey Letter/Mays Auravision are both fully exposed using clear mounting corners. They would have looked funny and incomplete if the borders were hiding behind a mat.
So I believe it just depends on the nature of the piece.
perezfan
06-12-2010, 01:33 AM
Here's another that might make the "photo guys" cringe...
I liked this incredible image of Clemente losing the battle against Wrigley Field's Ivy (and thought this moment of futility spoke for itself). I found the caption along the right to be quite distracting, and felt it took away from the beauty and artistry of this interesting photo. So I chose to ma out the caption, and was happy with the result...
thekingofclout
06-12-2010, 04:44 AM
Here's another that might make the "photo guys" cringe...
I liked this incredible image of Clemente losing the battle against Wrigley Field's Ivy (and thought this moment of futility spoke for itself). I found the caption along the right to be quite distracting, and felt it took away from the beauty and artistry of this interesting photo. So I chose to ma out the caption, and was happy with the result...
No cringing here whatsoever Mark. All of your pieces came out great. I concur that it's a matter of personal taste and the situation dictates. That is a big part of the allure of collecting original news service photos as the "game used" wear & tear that is indicative to the nature of the newsroom, can be matted out in most cases as the central image usually remains presentable.
My best, Jimmy
mr2686
06-12-2010, 06:52 AM
Mark, that darn Athletics piece keeps catching my eye...I really like that. So much so that I only just now noticed the wonderful Comiskey letter you have in the picture next to it. No wonder I can't get any work done, I can't stop looking at everyone's great stuff on this site! :D
thekingofclout
06-12-2010, 06:59 AM
Max, actually they both look great.
All my stuff has been matted, never tried the free float method
http://www.qualitycards.com/pictures/chesterfieldframed.jpg
BOY, that's a great piece Jay!
3-2-count
06-12-2010, 07:33 AM
+1
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/hilltop1904.jpg
Free floating for sure. David that picture is remarkable.......
Rob D.
06-12-2010, 09:14 AM
The one thing to keep in mind when going the free-floating route is to consider whether you want to item being framed to come in contact with the glass. Many times this should be avoided, especially when framing vintage pennants. I've seen vintage photos become damaged when removed from a frame in which they were pressed against the class for years.
Obviously it's possible to "free float" without the item touching the glass, but often I see collectors go this route with the item being simply pressed between the front glass and back. That's often not a good idea.
mjkm90
06-12-2010, 10:21 AM
I've mounted my most valued pennants away from the glass
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q304/mjkm90/IMG_1054.jpg
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q304/mjkm90/IMG_0498.jpg
, but have others against (but not smashed by) the glass.
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q304/mjkm90/IMG_1735.jpg
Considering they do not have sensitive photographic images on them, why should they not be against the glass?
Rob D.
06-12-2010, 10:52 AM
Considering they do not have sensitive photographic images on them, why should they not be against the glass?
Depending on the climate and environment (and the condition of the pennant) the printing on a pennant can stick to the glass.
I agree with Rob D above. Glass against a picture or other antiquity can be a recipe for disaster. I have at least one very modest (thank goodness) piece that is stuck completely to the glass. It is a piece I am going to sell and I am going to be very up front about it. IF anyone wants to take it out of the frame/glass it will definitely be sticking and take paper chunks with it. For this composite, I just checked again, and it is probably 1/4" to an 1/8th of an inch off of the glass. Of course I had it professionally done for about $350, which isn't cheap...but it is some of the smartest money I have spent in the hobby. The high end art shop did a fantastic job with archival everything and a new kind of glass that reduces glare signicantly (and of course is UV protected).