On “standard” frame sizes
Except for a very few dedicated souls perpetuating the art, photographers have not used 8”×10” or 4”×5” large format cameras for at least half a century. So why are the vast majority of off-the-shelf frames made for that aspect ratio?
As a fine art photographer, I’ve had a terrible time finding quality, affordable frames for my photos. Why? Because every camera I have — with the sole exception of my Mamiya C330 medium-format film camera, which uses a square format — shoots natively in 3:2 aspect ratio. This includes 35mm film and most digital camera sensors. And the minority who shoot micro four-thirds are out of luck, too, because 4:3 is no closer to matching a stock frame size than 3:2. So what gives?
To understand my dilemma, go to any retail store that sells photo frames (Michael’s, Hobby Lobby, or even Target or Wal-Mart for that matter) and look at the frame sizes they have in stock. Actually never mind, I’ll save you the trouble:
5”×7”
8”×10”
11”×14”
16”×20”
20”×24”
24”×36”
That’s about it. You have to go all the way to 24”×36” (which is beyond most prosumer ink jet printers’ ability to handle) before you get to an actual 3:2 ratio, and since it’s considered “poster size”, the frames are usually flimsy with a cheap plastic cover. Sure, you can get many more sizes at Amazon, but there’s no way to know what the frame looks or feels like until it arrives. Also, most do not come with wire mounting hardware, or even the possibility of adding a wire mount.
Fine for portrait photography
Note that I identified myself as a fine art photographer. I also do events, which I enjoy immensely. That means that for the most part I shoot pictures of scenes, as opposed to portraits. With portrait photography, the photographer has the luxury of posing people, with the ability to frame the shots in a way that leaves room for cropping. To this day, 8”×10” is the de facto standard size for medium-size portraits, so portrait photographers can simply crop the 3:2 aspect ratio image down to 5:4 and then use that to make an 8”×10” print. And if someone wants an 11"×14” print, they can just re-crop it to fit that format instead.
But whether doing street photography or events, I don’t really have that luxury. I shoot fleeting scenes with no real ability to think about how to crop to a specific frame size. I compose through the viewfinder, which presents the world to me in 3:2. I suppose I could set my digital camera’s electronic viewfinder to 5:4 so I can compose shots in that aspect ratio — and indeed I do that on occasion, for artistic reasons when I want to evoke an older style of photography. But I happen to like shooting in 3:2, and with 35mm film I don’t even have a say in the matter.
Matting to the frame
A simple solution to the problem of mismatched aspect ratios is to use a mat. Mats are an acceptable, sometimes even preferred, way to display a photo inside a frame. Done correctly, a mat can draw attention to the photo by creating neutral space between it and the frame itself. While there is no single right way to size a mat, there are certain visual rules that can be followed for best effect:
The mat has to be sufficiently large relative to the size of the photo and the bezel of the frame — but not too large
The border width should be equal on all sides if possible
If the border width cannot be equal on all sides, the top and bottom borders should be wider than the left and right borders
This does work for some print sizes; for example, a 6”×9” print can be matted to 11”×14” with a 2.5” border on all sides. This gets close to the maximum border width for such a small print, but I’ve framed several photos that way and it looks nice. But what about larger prints? There is no size 3:2 print that can be matted to a 16”×20” frame without having unequal borders, and since the frame is more square than the image, it only really works in landscape orientation (rule 3 above).
I’ve had to adapt
I know I sound like Grampa Simpson raising his fist at the cloud, but it bothers me when an industry just blindly continues to offer the same options just because those have been the options for a century. I’ve managed to find a company on Amazon that sells inexpensive frames in a variety of sizes and in a high enough quality to be hung in some galleries (although the acrylic cover is kind of thin and has a lot of glare), but I’ve wasted untold dollars on crappy frames before I got there. I once even paid over $250 to have one of my photos mounted in a custom, museum-quality frame. It’s gorgeous, but that kind of cost is obviously unsustainable for an artist like me who is virtually unknown.
So to make things easier without compromising on quality and visual appeal, I’ve simply had to adapt. I pretty much only print my photos on 12”×18” fine art paper now, and sell the prints as is, unmounted and unframed. This is not just laziness; in my conversations with customers and potential customers, as well as through sales experience, I have concluded that those most likely to buy my photography prefer to pick out their own frames, and decide for themselves whether they want a mat, or what size and color mat is the best match for both the art and their room. And for those occasions when I need to frame one or more prints for an exhibition, I wait for Michael’s to offer a 2-for-1 sale on frames.
