I've been trying to find a definitive answer to this question on this site to no avail.
As a new photographer to the art fair world I've been advised that I really need to consider selling matted prints. My issue has been finding a way to do so in a profitable manner. I have already opted for archival materials to prevent my work from deteriating in the booth.
My question is whether or not double matting is worth the cost? I know that it does look and feel better in the hand. However being twice as expensive, I'm not sure if people are willing to pay for that premium.
My plan as of now is to offer two sizes. 8x12 matted at 12x16 for $65 and 12x18 matted as 18x24 for roughly $115 or so. I figure I'll have 20 distinct images with each one printed x3 in the smaller size and x2 in the larger size. My hope is that these sizes are distant enough not to canabalize each other's sales.
So far I've found Mattcutter.com to be the most economical single matt show kit source. Does anyone know of a better supplier for the cost. While quality is certainly important, I don't want to completely out price my market.
Any and all thoughts and suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks for all of you who have taken the time previously to answer my questions. I wouldn't of made it this far without your assistance.
You need to be a member of Art Fair Insiders to add comments!
I don't think double matting is worth it. There are many photographers who have had this kind of discussion with themselves, and with others on this forum, and many have said that customers will often just throw out the mat anyway; it's real purpose is to temporarily make your images look good in the hand. So, if you double mat, and the above-mentioned theory is true, you'd be throwing away that much MORE money.
I'm still in the process of testing the idea that no mats at all is even better. I use wide corner mounts and mount my prints to oversized 8-ply mat board. The goal in doing this is to give the image some room to "breathe", and somewhat resemble a matted print, without spending the money on the mat itself. The jury is still out.
Good luck!
Josh Baker > Lawrence M. SawyerMay 12, 2016 at 9:44am
Thanks for your input. I can see where art collectors would swap out matts to match their desire frame size or color choice. And we spend enough money as is on our art that paying for a temporary border certainly would be a waste.
I have seen other artists who don't mat their prints and instead use only a backing board and clear bag. That is certainly something to consider. I personally feel it gives a more modern look to the image. However I've yet to hear if these artists take a hit with the lack of matts.
Thanks again for taking the time to offer your input.
Replies
I don't think double matting is worth it. There are many photographers who have had this kind of discussion with themselves, and with others on this forum, and many have said that customers will often just throw out the mat anyway; it's real purpose is to temporarily make your images look good in the hand. So, if you double mat, and the above-mentioned theory is true, you'd be throwing away that much MORE money.
I'm still in the process of testing the idea that no mats at all is even better. I use wide corner mounts and mount my prints to oversized 8-ply mat board. The goal in doing this is to give the image some room to "breathe", and somewhat resemble a matted print, without spending the money on the mat itself. The jury is still out.
Good luck!
I have seen other artists who don't mat their prints and instead use only a backing board and clear bag. That is certainly something to consider. I personally feel it gives a more modern look to the image. However I've yet to hear if these artists take a hit with the lack of matts.
Thanks again for taking the time to offer your input.