1bwana1 wrote:
At the request of the Wife, this one is about to go up 60" plus mat and frame on our family room wall.
Very Nice.
Why so small?
Personally, I'd skip the mat, and go larger with the image.
Imo, matting is for helping "concentrate" or "converge" or "constrain" the viewer "into" the image. With images that are "spacious", I prefer to let the image "diverge" the viewer "outward" from the image. The sensation of spatial response is now, not constrained by the matting.
Granted, matting has a more formal presentation, but for large, spatial (subject) images ... none, for me, thank you. YMMV, personal choices, etc.
1bwana1 wrote:
At the request of the Wife, this one is about to go up 60" plus mat and frame on our family room wall.
Very Nice.
Why so small?
Personally, I'd skip the mat, and go larger with the image.
Imo, matting is for helping "concentrate" or "converge" or "constrain" the viewer "into" the image. With images that are "spacious", I prefer to let the image "diverge" the viewer "outward" from the image. The sensation of spatial response is now, not constrained by the matting.
Granted, matting has a more formal presentation, but for large, spatial (subject) images ... none, for me, thank you. YMMV, personal choices, etc.
1bwana1 wrote:
At the request of the Wife, this one is about to go up 60" plus mat and frame on our family room wall.
Very Nice.
Why so small?
Personally, I'd skip the mat, and go larger with the image.
Imo, matting is for helping "concentrate" or "converge" or "constrain" the viewer "into" the image. With images that are "spacious", I prefer to let the image "diverge" the viewer "outward" from the image. The sensation of spatial response is now, not constrained by the matting.
Granted, matting has a more formal presentation, but for large, spatial (subject) images ... none, for me, thank you. YMMV, personal choices, etc.
1bwana1 wrote:
At the request of the Wife, this one is about to go up 60" plus mat and frame on our family room wall.
Very Nice.
Why so small?
Personally, I'd skip the mat, and go larger with the image.
Imo, matting is for helping "concentrate" or "converge" or "constrain" the viewer "into" the image. With images that are "spacious", I prefer to let the image "diverge" the viewer "outward" from the image. The sensation of spatial response is now, not constrained by the matting.
Granted, matting has a more formal presentation, but for large, spatial (subject) images ... none, for me, thank you.
1bwana1 wrote:
At the request of the Wife, this one is about to go up 60" plus mat and frame on our family room wall.
Very Nice.
Why so small?
Personally, I'd skip the mat, and go larger with the image.
Imo, matting is for helping "concentrate" or "converge" or "constrain" the viewer "into" the image. With images that are "spacious", I prefer to let the image "diverge" the viewer "outward" from the image. The sensation of spatial response is now, not constrained by the matting.
Granted, matting has a more formal presentation, but for large, spatial (subject) images ... none, for me, thank you.
1bwana1 wrote:
At the request of the Wife, this one is about to go up 60" plus mat and frame on our family room wall.
Very Nice.
Why so small?
Personally, I'd skip the mat, and go larger with the image.
Imo, matting is for helping "concentrate" or "converge" the viewer "into" the image. With images that are "spacious", I prefer to let the image "diverge" the viewer "outward" from the image. The sensation of spatial response is now, not constrained by the matting.
Granted, matting has a more formal presentation, but for large, spatial (subject) images ... none, for me, thank you.
