Talk:Mat (picture framing)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Not meant to be spammer

I added the link to the pdf articles because I found them helpful and they are free. Not sure why that is spam. It seems like you maybe have an issue with the particular vendor or their message? Not really sure that is relevant to wikipedia. What is relevant is if you have found the articles to be not useful, inaccurate, or misleading in some way. Then I feel you could be within your rights to think of me as spammer even though my attempts to be helpful are innocent. I do have a bias towards a DIY attitude about things but I feel that is within the spirit of the wiki. There are links to other commercial sites in other places. If you can find all that information somewhere else that seems less like "spam" to you be my guest - I'd love to see more free articles on how to mat and frame things.


Also, I'm a product designer and we tend to use "matte" to describe a texture (the opposite of glossy) rather than referring to mat board. Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Designerx (talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, 1 - minor note, but you should have responded lower down if you needed to reply, as it doesn't look like a reply, which should be nested under the thing you are replying to. Keep that in mind next time to prevent confusion; the "higher up" parts of a Wiki Talk page are supposed to be for "older" messages, not newer.
2 - You picked a...sketchy source, is all. Please don't get defensive; I understand why you would, but as you are clearly an amateur in respect to this field (this is NOT meant as a knock, just a statement of fact to contrast from professionals who work with the particular materials all the time and would know the difference), you couldn't easily pick out the "noise" it seems - someone else happened to find it super easily, because they were more familiar with it. Making mistakes is fine; just take this as an experience to learn from when it comes to seeking new knowledge, which can be real tricky in this day and age. Plenty of people want to educate; plenty of others want to sell you something; some want to do a little of both. You just gotta figure out how to separate them out.
3. If you are wondering what the issue with the source was, some parts are...nominally fine, but it isn't a neutral source as it is SO heavily weighted towards pitching that site's own products - it should be a big warning sign as to how "reliable" one can take them without double-checking through multiple other sources first, and a hint that perhaps one should use other sources before relying on it for an encyclopedia article. That should be a particular warning flag for your future informational searches that is a good rule of thumb - does one particular company's products or services come up more than any other? If so, it's very probably not a neutral source and you should verify its information elsewhere before trusting it. :) That's all.
4. PS - you seemed to resent that "well OTHER people did X, so why did I get ragged on for it?" That's only because it's fine to sometimes use a "non-neutral" source, however, if it is presented at all, it should be in that context, e.g. of "such and such company claims"; this is for example, what occurs with the mention of Bainbridge's ArtCare foamboard; it is a reference to a company which makes money off that product, yes, but it is not HIDDEN in the references section (unlike the "free ezines" with buried references to that site's own products in the other stuff's case), and it is also mentioned in the context of being a product which is "claimed" to have such and such features (effort is made to clarify that this is not an independently verified piece of information and comes from only one source that the editors are aware of). Also, speaking as a professional picture framer - it helps that Bainbridge is a Big Name in at least American and UK picture framing industries, so it's fine to reference them, as it's not an "obscure" company's product; it comes across as covering the industry accurately, as opposed to pitching something, you know? Additionally, the mention is in the context of "these are some of the uses of mat boards, though other things like this are also used for this one listed purpose". So it makes sense to include the particular reference to this very common product from a major supplier in the industry, so long as it is presented in such a way that the company's claims aren't being claimed as anything other than that company's claims, yeah? :)
5. for future reference, there is a series of books called The Library of Professional Picture Framing (LIbraryThing has a post on it here: https://www.librarything.com/work/6699662 ). They are promoted by the Professional Picture Framers Association, which is an industry organization for, well, professional picture framers mostly in North America, but they are meant as industry-wide guides and work as a solid introduction to different framing materials and methods, including mats, from what I recall. If you want information that is "industry accurate" to current standards, those are good sources, though they are admittedly harder to find for cheap and impossible to find legally for free, which is frustrating but something that does happen with "reliable sources". They do cover what is considered "common knowledge" in the industry though, so I would consider them reliable enough to use as reference for something like this. 108.188.192.139 (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passepartout

Should the passepartout disambiguation entry link here? SaintCahier (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am being bold and doing it. ;-) SaintCahier (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to it than you might think!

That... ended up being pleasantly longer and fuller than I expected. :D Will add pictures soon! Runa27 22:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matte?

So, is the use of the word "matte" to refer to these objects incorrect? This may simply be my own misconception, but I always assumed that it'd be "matte" since it's such a technical term of the art world, while "mat" sounds so ordinary, like a bathmat or a welcome mat. Am I just out-and-out mistaken? LordAmeth (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Because "matte" though "a technical term of the art world", actually refers to a type of finish (the non-glossy kind, specifically). You can have a "matte finish" frame, but you still put "mats" inside of it, in other words. I'm not sure of what the origin of "mat" in picture framing use is, but I'm assuming it's the "so ordinary" one you list. Not everything needs a fancy French word to describe it, of course - after all, we do just call them "picture frames" now don't we ;) 70.152.236.80 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Wiktionary spells it "matte[1]". This definition is not present under "mat[2]". This is consistent with my experience. 76.10.171.74 (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No offense to Wiktionary but it IS worth considering that it is user-edited, and that English is NOTORIOUSLY full of homophones like this, so it could as easily be an error unless they can cite a Reliable Source? I've never run across a fluent English speaker in the industry, at least in America, nor a print source about picture framing actually written by picture framers, that used that term spelled as "matte"...and this doesn't appear to be a case of "well, the French use the Frenchy spelling", as apparently at least some dialects of French seem to use "passe-partout" as the translation (though it appears to have more uses than just that - suppose we shouldn't judge, since "moulding" and "frame" have multiple uses in English, either, heh). However, laymen DO commonly spell it that way, probably for the same reason, "It's arty, right? So that's gotta be the right spelling, because it's all hoighty-toighty French!". :P
So... while a descriptivist may in fairness acknowledge that "matte" is a...colloquial spelling perhaps, used often by laymen, nonetheless the professionals in the industry in the USA seem to consistently use "mat" and unless somebody can point to multiple Professional (e.g. PPFA) sources suggesting otherwise, enough so we can also clarify if this is an "American dialect" thing or just a legitimate preference-in-use thing, I'm going to remain skeptical on whether anybody but those unfamiliar with "official" terms, uses "matte" instead of "mat" in English. At least in America. (PS: we could also use a source for the claim that British English uses "mount" instead, mind) 108.188.192.139 (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth looking at this again. In UK English, mount is a common term, but Apple's Oxford dictionary says that the spelling matt is used (and not mat for art framings), and that this is usually spelt matte in the US. -- Evertype·✆ 18:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the length of this explanation, but do we possibly have some sneaky spam?

I'm of a mind to think we have an almost admirably clever spammer that added "references" to this. Why do I say this? Because there was an awful lot of excess talk of "how to do Conservation Framing Technique" (with Random Capitals and everything), plus a lot of Random Capitalized Terms like Archival Mounting Board, which OK, I could maybe accept might just be someone a little overeager to inform who has a slightly pompous tendency to over-capitalize... were it not for the fact that that same section claimed that there is no such thing as "archival foamcore" (uh, yes there is. It's called Artcare. I know, I've bought framing materials before, including backing, and my mother uses it in art restoration and document archival) and uses, as its sole reference for all the stuff it says about framing, reference #4... a link which reads "Download PDF tips on Acid Free Components".

This link sounds vaguely innocuous until you realize it leads to THIS: [3] which is actually not a specific PDF on the matter of "acid-free components", but rather a website which features a PDF-format magazine series of sorts for would-be DIY out-your-own-home picture framers. Which is free to the end-user, and which I have read a couple of issues from and found relatively little to say is inaccurate in, and therefore ostensibly it's not a bad source, per se, on every subject, at first glance...

...however, said e-zine issues also tend to incessantly promote Framing4Yourself.com's own DIY framing products... including things like custom-cut Plexiglas, plastic cleaner (for Plexiglas, aka acrylic glass), etc. that you could also get elsewhere just as easily (also, their claim that Plexi and regular glass are "equivalent" in price made me do a double-take, considering that I've not found that to be the case ever since oil - which is what acrylic glasses are derived from, being plastics - started jumping super-high in price, particularly when paired with the claim that regular glass tends to come in "dirty" i.e. dusty which has never been the case with our suppliers. This makes me suspicious that the author(s) of the article in question have in fact not done framing with regular suppliers before and in fact, are trying to promote their own products which I assume they charge "equivalent" prices on. Can't help but notice no mention was made of UV-blocking glass in that article either, probably because the company doesn't provide it is my guess!).

Said 'zines also place a suspiciously high emphasis on how you could support yourself doing DIY framing out of your own home... using, of course, their products. Of course. These include weird claims like how you'll save money running a framing business and therefore make more, by doing it out of your own home and charging up to 70% less(!), compared to those regular frame shops, that charge sooooo much more and have like, trouble competing with "big box stores". This is only half-right though; while the cost of renting a space and all certainly figures into the prices (as it would with any retail outfit, I would assume), the idea that "big box stores" are cheaper than indies is weird, considering that in our area, Micheal's (which they reference specifically) tends to be close to our prices... when they're running a major sale. I am of course not saying that this is the same for every store (and I will not name my own family's store unless asked, because I am here to actually contribute to the quality of the page, not promote a business), but it seems so very odd to me for that link to go to a page that includes stuff like that, as opposed to a direct link to a PDF about the actual content the link claimed and that the reference itself claimed, unless, you know, they're trying to use Wikipedia to drum up business. Which explain the random capitalization of things like Archival Mounting Board, which I would not be at all surprised to find would be a search term associated with their site. Don't even get me started on how little room most people have in their homes for the kind of equipment (mat and glass cutters, fitting table, moulding-appropriate saws, etc.) and products (large sticks of moulding, 32x40 inch mat sheets, etc.), let alone samples (you think the hundreds of mat samples in that one pic look like a lot? How about hundreds or thousands of moulding corner samples?) required for such a business... not saying it's impossible, but the level of sheer optimism their e-zine has for such framers being actually monetarily successful is kind of stunning, which shouldn't actually be a surprise considering how much they promote their website's materials, aimed at just such a market.

Also, I double-taked when I read here, as well, that non-archival mats are not a big deal unless you "want it to last over 75 years". This is a pretty big surprise to me, considering my mother's (conservation!) framing and art restoration business has seen mat burn (which only comes from acidic mats, mind) on pieces framed only 12-14 years ago. Unless you don't consider "keeping it looking exactly like it did when you first put it in the frame" to be part of "lasting 75 years", this seems like, well... an inaccurate claim, or at least an awkward one. And once again (and going back to something I mentioned before), the (wrong) assertion that there is no such thing as "archival foamboard", which may well have simply seemed an understandable error on the part of someone not familiar with current makes of foamcore... suddenly seems an awful lot like it could be a matter of them trying to peddle their "Archival Mounting Board" because they don't happen to sell Bainbridge's Artcare boards.

I am not 100% saying it HAD to be a spammer that did all that (Assume Good Faith and all that...). Nor would I suggest that framing supply sites and DIY framing sites can't add useful information to the page, as I myself only first heard the term "outgassing" from Bainbridge's website, and reference that as my source over on the foamcore page (though I did some online digging to make sure it wasn't just a made-up marketing term, obviously, and couched it in terms of the company "claiming" that it did those things. I'm not an idiot, after all).

But I am saying it's a rather suspicious turn of events, particularly the "reference" that appears stunningly suited towards snagging people who search for basic framing terms on Google or Wikipedia because they're interested in framing something... into reading the e-zines which, curiously enough, seem to promote an awful lot of DIY framing products from that exact same website's store.

They're making it really hard to Assume Good Faith. They really are. Thoughts, anyone? 70.152.236.80 (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Passe-partout

The Passe-partout article appears to be about the same topic as this article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems like a non-brainer that you should just go ahead and do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose merge.
The problem is that this isn't the full meaning of the French term passe-partout. The term's primary meaning is as a form of Victorian era gaffer tape, made from gummed brown paper, possibly from a meaning of "good for everything" (although this isn't a good translation). The name pops up as Phileas Fogg's manservant in Around the World in 80 Days. This name was itself an idiomatic adaptation of an older meaning as "goes everywhere" and was the name for a skeleton key.
This tape is used in framing a lot. It's used around the back of the frame as a dust seal, it's used to hang works from the mount (in cheap work, as the cheap brown paper can be acidic) and it's even used to wrap up a completed piece as a parcel. So it's not only the term for the mat, and so such an article on passe-partout ought to clarify that. Personally I'm not even sure it is used to refer to the mat. I would find it strange for a framer to use the same words to refer to two quite different commonly used items. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am a professional picture framer in America, who has worked in both small and "big box craft store" type framing shops, and I would like to contribute to the conversation here, especially as there may be some confusion. My two cents is as follows...
  • 1 - I have seen prepackaged mass-market pre-cut "mat" packages (which you can find in a lot of art stores and/or craft or photography stores; they're usually for "standard" photo and frame sizes so that one can pop them easily into ready-made frames) include "passe-partout" in the FRENCH TRANSLATION of the multilingual packaging sold in the USA/Canada; this implies that, at least in dialects of French found in North America if not elsewhere, this is most certainly used as the "translation" of choice by at least some companies, of the term that in American and Canadian English, is usually rendered as "mat board" or "matting"
  • 2 -I'm pretty sure I also recall a French-speaking customer once asking one of my multilingual coworkers for "passe-partout" and successfully being directed to such a package, which turned out to be exactly what she was looking for, which would seem to confirm it's a common translation, at least in some dialects? But I'm not sure, as it would have been a few years ago. (Yes, this is anecdotal, so feel free to disregard it as a "source" obviously, but, it would seem to point towards there being some precedent for it that may lead to it being findable in a French dictionary or encyclopedia perhaps? Possibly an art-themed one? I don't speak French of any dialect, so I cannot help in this regard, but I hope this can serve as a clue for anybody who does, as to where they may look for confirmation!)
  • 3 - this is, as noted above, not necessarily the only usage of the term though. In fact, someone being able to point to at least some past historical uses in famous French literature that do not seem to refer to the same thing, indicates the term very likely either has more than one use, or has evolved over time...either way, this means that it isn't a true synonym for mat (picture framing), assuming we can confirm (I do not have a copy of that book on hand and do not speak French so someone who does will have to check for us I suppose)
  • 4 - I personally have never seen it used, as one person above says, "... a lot. It's used around the back of the frame as a dust seal, it's used to hang works from the mount (in cheap work, as the cheap brown paper can be acidic)" - in the USA at least, in (American?) English, any tape used as a "dust seal" is literally just called "frame-sealing tape", while paper used as a dust seal is a "dust cover"; and the mounting tape used to hinge it to the mat ("hang works from the mount" as they say - from that usage, pretty sure they're British, as I know literally nobody in America that calls it a "mount"), has different names depending on what it is or is used for/sold as, but "mounting tape" or especially "hinging tape" are what I see most often. Or, if the framing work is, as they said, "cheap", I've seen some...non-professionals... use masking tape (UGH) or even Scotch tape to stick it to the mat (I do not recommend this, mind, as the adhesive wouldn't be secure and especially in the case of masking tape, it's both acidic IIRC, and definitely gonna leave a gross residue of the glue plus the tape itself gets brittle over time. But like I said, that's the "cheap" work, basically amateur level and not to the usual "conservation grade" standards of say, the Professional Picture Framers Association or high-level museums and art orgs. Er, but I digress...)
  • 5 - However, this comes with the caveat of me speaking from the perspective of someone who is, lives around, works with, and serves people who predominantly speak (American) English, in a North American region. I'm not a French speaker, so it's possible that FRENCH framers and/or Canadian and/or other French-speaking framers (or folks in the UK, given that other person's comment?), use either different terms or different methods, or that this was more common in past periods (similar to how dentistry is slightly different in different parts of the world and has changed over time, framing methods and materials can vary slightly with region or time period; this is why I'm very specific about my region and dialect here, I don't want to assume anything incorrect about other regions'/periods' framing terminology if I don't know it for certain).
Anyway. Given all the above considerations, I Oppose Merge, and Propose a Disambiguation Page instead
tldr I feel that the "passe-partout" page should NOT be Merged (as I understand that merely redirects it to the page it is being "merged" with?), but rather altered into a "Disambiguation" page, which would then include the information of "passe-partout" happening to be a word used for mat (picture framing) and for (if we can source that claim) the frame-sealing tape, among other things. This would seem to be the most accurate from what I can tell and would seem to solve our problem, since "passe-partout" does not appear to be a 1-to-1 synonym with "mat/mat board". :)
I plan to include a variation of this comment on the passe-partout page's Talk page as well, in the hopes of someone more versed in French and/or Wikipedia editing, being able to make use of it. 108.188.192.139 (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. I accept that while the primary meaning in current use is Mat (picture framing), there is a secondary use as Gaffer tape which may be used for mounting. However, as there are only two means, WP:TWODABS suggests that we should use hatnotes to provide disambiguation rather than a disambiguation page for passe-partout. Klbrain (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Mat_(picture_framing)"