Hi,  Been trying to do a little research to figure out which is more cost effective as of late, which sells better,  matted or unmatted (backed with foamcore and bagged) prints.  Would love to know what people have found is the better way to go.  Would love to find a short cut by not having to mat but also don't want it to negatively impact sales.  Any experience or thoughts on the subject would be helpful.  One artist I noticed offered both and claimed some people liked the lower price of the unmatted work but others saw dollar signs having to add the mat and frame later so had no preference.

You need to be a member of Art Fair Insiders to add comments!

Join Art Fair Insiders

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –


  • btw if you need some pointers on selecting the right mat i recently wrote a blog post on it here  https://bmp-fine-art.com/bmp-fine-art-photography-blog/right-color

    • Most artists use white mattes. I've seen very few that aren't white or the occasional black. You can waste a tremendously amount of time and money chasing the public's color preference. Look around at a show and notice how matted pieces are presented.
      • Agree with Robert. Anything other then white is a waste of time and material cost. Three year old thread and a great many photographers have moved onto gallery wrap or metal prints

        Larry Berman

        • I'm seeing a shift away from canvas as it's too readily available from Costco and Walmart. I was at Lowe's yesterday and there was big section that had canvas prints for around $40-$60.
  • I have never tried selling unmatted prints, to me the matted at least says to the buyer, that they only have to get a frame, not get it matted and then get a frame.

  • I've had very few people ask for unmatted prints. I've sold a few, but they were usually because I was out of the matted work and had some loose prints in the back.

This reply was deleted.