When I put frams in my photography, usually it's not for asthetics at all. Most of the time it's to show that the person in question did not crop any of the pictur in order to enhance an image. This is very good when handing stuff like portfolios into schools where the emphasis isn't as much on the printing but rather the shooting itself. It can show a school that you can capture an image as is without having to take away from the picture to take the focal point somewhere else where it might've been in another place in the actual shot. I don't have frames in all my work. The bleeding frames that sometimes come through when i post is because I've sanded down the negative carrier. I like the effect, but it's not for everything. Frames shouldn't be used for aesthetics ever because they can easily take away from the actual print itself, but sometimes it's good to have'em anyways. Sometimes it isn't. frames help to "hold in" images of where there are bright white skies, or anything where its very light on the edges. Without them, an image can easily seem to blend in with th rest of the picture which can mess with the eyes sometimes. It's all subjective, and the use of them falls on the printer. Either way, it's good to try a picture with and without them to see what the effective result is with both so you can make your choice aferwards. ry