Experienced eyes please

[ceebdub]

This is where my inexperience shines. I make (for my sins) Daguerreotype photographs on pure silver plates. For years I have put them in cases , as was the tradition of the media. Recently I decided to stick one in a frame and up on the wall. It looked pretty good on display all the time.
My problem is, is it being shown at its best? I have used decreasing sized black core windows. The image is 5 inches by 4 inches.
Any suggestions as other ways to make it look good would be really appreciated. I hope you can see the uploaded image.
Thanks in advance.

[Keadyart]

At fist glance,there is a tad too much dead space,and the decreasing black core mounts may be lost together(hard to know without seeing it live)
Thicker mountboard,deep wrapped bevels would help,and slightly less on the overall size of mount.
Otherwise 'keep er lit'

All the best
Brian

[Keadyart]

Then again a gold fillet on one of the outer mounts might work....or , or ...

[ceebdub]

The decreasing mounts look good with oblique lighting, but not so good with direct lighting.
Thanks

[JFeig]

That image looks a bit lost in a sea of black........

Have you considered an extra heavy weighted "v" groove cut mat (black with a white core. The top and sides about 2x the width of the image an d the bottom about 3x the width of the image.

[David]

First love the picture and I like the space with black mount and black frame - really focuses(?) on the image.

When I'm doing these black mount and frame jobs here are some devices I use:

When stepping layers of mounts vary the width of mount I generally use narrower steps towards the picture.
Use a reverse bevel to throw a shadow rather than a conventional cut bevel.
With there being a gold surround a gold slip or gold bevel close in to the picture.
Raise the image on a platform, reverse bevelled foamcore or layers of board.
Fit spacers, mount board or foamcore, between mount layers, again to give a shaddow and tonal variation.
Instead of going down with layers of board build layers up to the centre and fit a spacer around the outside so the glass clears the image.

Have fun.

David.

[David]

Just thought of something else. What glass do you use? A waterwhite glass with anti-reflective coatings works brilliantly on these black mounts. It's relatively expensive but the effect is absolutely fantastic, it'd show all the tonal variations and details in the photo. If you haven't tried it just get a small piece cut to size or ask for a sample (Glass&Mirror) it will transform the picture, so you can add more than the cost of the glass, it does sell itself. Put two samples next to each other, one standard one waterwhite and it's no contest. This would probably make more of an impact than any extra mounting design work - but do that as well. Keep it subtle.

[ceebdub]

Thanks again for the tips I like the idea of reverse bevel.
I will use non reflective I have a sheet of Truvue.
Just so you all know how a Daguerreotype image works . The image is on a silver plate it then has a brass spacer and a sheet of non reflective glass on that. The whole thing is heated and sealed around the edges(hopefully for ever) So what you have is a unit that is metal, metal glass in section. The edge is messy so has to be hidden, there is no other way of doing it. I have to have at least one window mount over the image to hide all the nastiness of sealing. After that I will have a play with increasing the size of the windows ,v grooving, white core and reverse bevels.
Keep them coming !

[johnwphotography]

Nice to see your Dagerreotype image, I had no idea that anyone was keeping them with us. Have you got a website showing more and the presentation cases? I am inclined to think that the frame and mount look too large and too contemporary. If your black multiple mats could be made to more resemble camera bellows, maybe tiered matt black inserts would give the effect. A very deep red with suggestion of the days of orthochromatic emulsions would work too, possibly even deep red silk. Just glass over the image and the bellows effect in wooden tiers, or even black leather. It needs to retain the miniature delicacy and draw the eye in to the image . Has anyone been to the museum in Bradford to check how they display them?

[easypopsgcf]

Smaller mount, bigger frame, job done

[Nigel Nobody]

I agree with David who said "When stepping layers of mounts vary the width of mount I generally use narrower steps towards the picture." All those equal width mats tend to take focus away from the picture.

A wide mat with a fillet, with the daguerreotype floated on a mat that's slightly lighter colour to the top mat. About 15mm of the lighter mat would be seen around the daguerreotype, which should help to lift it and help to emphasise it and show that it's not only a photo, but it's a 3D object.

It's my opinion that the daguerreotype is very subdued as you currently have it.

float daguerr.jpg (84.62 KiB) Viewed 5626 times

Museum glass would be my choice. Definitely don't use non-reflective over the top of non reflective glass. It will kill the image.

[JohnMcafee]

A couple of ideas...

Option1.jpg (37.1 KiB) Viewed 5610 times

Option2.jpg (39.13 KiB) Viewed 5610 times

[ceebdub]

When you say dont use non reflective over non reflective, are you meaning Truvue/art glass type non reflective?

Also for those who expressed an interest, my website is www.daguerreotypes.co.uk

[ceebdub]

A couple of ideas...

Option1.jpg

Option2.jpg

I like the second option, the mounts look alot better than mine

[Roboframer]

When you say dont use non reflective over non reflective, are you meaning Truvue/art glass type non reflective?

'Non-Reflective' refers to the acid-etched stuff, Anti-Reflective (AR) is what the Truvue/artglass stuff is. Is it the NR or the AR that you have directly over the image?

I think AR glass should be changed to 'OC' (Optically Coated) glass .... or something different to 'AR' anyway. AR for glass stands for Anti-Reflective and AR for acrylic stands for 'Abrasion Resistant' - so I suppose optically coated scratchproof acrylic is AR AR - I've got a new name for that ............... 'PA' (Pirate Acrylic)!

[Roboframer]

I have a few basic (and made to be broken when it suits) rules for extra-wide mounts.

They should be bottom-weighted - about 25-30% is good - so 6" top and sides; 7.5-8" bottom.

Decoration, be it multiple openings, embossing, drawn lines/panels, whatever, is a must (I hate plain single mounts in any width) and should be progessively spaced from the aperture 'camera bellows' is a good description

That decoration has the 40/60 rule applied - IOW it all happens within 40% of the mount(s) from the aperture, otherwise (IMHO) the frame is too close to it.

The furthest line/mount/whatever away from the aperture should be more defined than the rest, or at least no less so.

Here's what I'd go for were I given carte blanche (and assuming the image background is a burgundy and not a blue)

5mm deep bevel, wrapped in black/charcoal paper, then a 'pinstripe' of gold reverse-bevelled board (or even just peeled-off mount board surface paper - just 1mm showing). Then about 5/8" of alphamat artcare 'Black Cherry' then about 3/4" of alphamat artcare 'Bordeaux' reverse-bevelled with a silver mount slip - Larson Juhl's 'Canaletto' would be good.

Moulding - Simons 0741/0003 which is a Manfredini moulding that others do as well - one-stepped profle, flat gold on top, wider (sloped) silver-gilt below.

'Museum' (type) glass.

I think your artwork is great BTW and would love to be let loose on one!

[Not your average framer]

I'm amazed, I had no idea that anyone still was doing these. To me the attraction to these is the historical effect that they give, I have seen and framed these before so I know what they look like. Every framer will have their own idea of how they would like to see this framed. There's nothing wrong about that and each method will appeal to different people for different reasons.

Personally I would keep it simple and in keeping with the historical connection which is associated with such early photographic methods. Black mounts are nice, but I prefer a more subtile off-black, so something like Neilsen Bainbridge Artcare "Ash" with the bevels painted to match. This will give it a more dated look than the normal stark black. I have not got my Arqadia catalogue at home, but they have a very Victorian looking black gessoed oranate moulding, which would help to complete the dated look.

In years to come, your delightful photographs will be valued as something of real historic value. Thank you for letting us see this lovely example of your work.

[Roboframer]

Why has my moulding ref No been shown as a freakin' phone No? Can I call it to see if it's in stock?

[Nigel Nobody]

It looks like a number on my screen, Robo!

I quite like John Macafee's second design. It's a little more subtle, which I think allows the 'art' to show be the hero. The frame choice looks great as it harmonises with the 'art'.

I would always show the 3Dimensional aspect of this piece. It is a 3D piece, not 2D!

[JohnMcafee]

Why has my moulding ref No been shown as a freakin' phone No? Can I call it to see if it's in stock?

If this is happening in Internet Explorer, it is probably a Skype feature that translates any number that it thinks might be a telephone number into a clickable link to Skype.

To remove this "feature":-
In Internet Explorer - Tools>manage addons>disable SKYPE