--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wolfson" <rw@r...> wrote: > > Paul Roark wrote: > > > > Aesthetically, I have never really liked a white border or > > mat around the print. I think it pulls the eye away from the > > image. I fully expect the "fine art" types to be horrified > > by the lack of glass and traditional matting. But, to me the > > image just looks better this way. The most appropriate type > > of frame -- natural wood, black, or whatever -- and the whole > > approach is still a work in progress and very subjective, of course. > > But as I sit here looking at a traditional matte under glass > > photo on the wall to my right and a Semimatte print with no > > glass on my left, the unglazed Semimatte simply blows away > > the glazed print due mostly to the lack of reflections. > > That's interesting, Paul. I like the look of framed and matted prints, > provided the choice of materials is restrained. > > And yet, I agree with you that the glass can get in the way visually -- > unless the print is properly lit (as for gallery display). For prints > framed with glass, I like the look of low-voltage halogen lighting from > overhead tracks, angled so there's no glare (unless you sit on the floor > & look up). But without proper lighting, reflections can be a big > distraction. > > Richard Wolfson Try framing under Image Perfect glass or Denglas and you will eliminate most of the reflection issue without getting the dulling qualities of normal non-glare glass. It's not cheap, but it is really good for images where reflections are a problem. When I use this glass people will will try to touch the print because they think nothing is there.
Message
Re: aesthetics of b&w print display
2004-12-18 by jamesdsteele2001
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.